Does the bible really agree with science?

by SickofLies 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • SickofLies
    SickofLies

    Here's some food for thought, many JW's point out that the bible isn't a scientific text book, but when it comments on science its always correct. They site many examples to try and prove this. Here's some you can throw back at them:

    • Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.
    • Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.
    • 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.
    • In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.

    Here's another point to ponder; in Gensis 2 Adam is said to have named all the animals, then Eve is created, then in Gensis 5, it says that Adam was 120 years old when he had Seth. Now lets think about this for a second, according to Richard Dwakins there are about 40 million unique species on the earth today, now given that most of them have evolved from a common anstestor recently like the many breeds of dogs, I think its safe to reduce that number to around 1 million. If you were to do nothing but name one animal ever 30 seconds 12 hours a day it would take you over 120 years to finish this task for 1 million species.

    Lets look at some specific points that witness use to prove the bible:

    Claim: The Bible says the earth is round, showing that its authors were inspired to understand science beyond their time.

    The passage saying the earth is round is Isaiah 40:22:

    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

    This passage may reasonably be interpreted as referring to a flat circular earth with the heavens forming a dome above it. Such an interpretation is consistent with other passages of the Bible which refer to a solid firmament (Gen. 1:6-20, 7:11; Ezekiel 1:22-26; Job 9:8, 22:14, etc.). It is also consistent with the cosmology common in neighboring cultures. Indeed the catholic church for many years taught that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth (see above). Isaiah 11:12 refers to the "four quarters of the earth", but we do not take that as indicative of the earth's shape. There are other instances where the bible's passages would suggest a flat earth, think of when Satan took Jesus to the top of a high moutain and showed him "all the kingdoms of the earth". I'm sure that there are many more passages like this.

    Lets look at one more claim: The Bible describes medical and sanitary practices remarkable for the time. It says you should bury your excrement (Deut. 23:13). It requires people to wash themselves after touching a dead body (Numbers 19:11-22). It notes that the eighth day after birth is the safest time to perform circumcisions (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:2-3).

    Responce: Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy. Genesis 30:25-33, for example, describes a breeding program based on sympathetic magic. Deuteronomy 23:9-14 is not about hygiene. The purpose of burying excrement is so God will not be offended by seeing anything indecent and turn away. The idea is religious; uncleanliness would make one unfit for a religious war. There is also a danger that exposed excrement could be found by the enemy and used magically against one (Scott 1979).

    Numbers 19:11-22 is not about hygiene. It refers to ritual purification conducted by sprinkling water, not washing with it. The purification is to be done not immediately after touching the body, as good health practice would demand, but on the third and seventh days. Whoever fails to perform the ritual is unclean and must be ostracized from Israel. Basically, it is a superstitious taboo. Similar taboos against people who have touched dead bodies appear to be universal in Polynesia (Frazer 1993, 206). Furthermore, unless they have died from pestilence or have been decaying for a few days, dead bodies are no less clean than live ones. The Bible does not include directives that really would indicate good medical practices, such as burying feces downhill from the source for drinking water, and washing ones hands in clean water in circumstances that really would prevent spreading dangerous germs. Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge to account for knowledge of good health practices assumes the ancient Hebrews were idiots. People can often see the results that come from bad practices.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    And, Sick.Of.Lies, could I just add -

    Have you noticed that although the WTS stops short of requiring circumcision for baby boys, they quite often cite references to try to show that this is a very healthy thing to do. IMHO this is just an ancient form of sexual mutilation - if JHVH wanted it cut off, why didn't he make it that way in the first place? Or, maybe the WTS thinks they have dumbed down the brothers so much that they can't keep themselves clean!

    And, how about the constant reminder that the law on eating pork was for the Israelites health?

    Looking forward to hearing from you more in the future.

    James

  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem

    I think the lack of scienfic proof says enought.

    Why is there no good description of relativity, quantum mechanics, or even only the distance factors of the heavenly bodies. Then God would make his point clear. But there is nothing that clearlt shows the bible has more then abnormal scientific knowledge for the time it was written in.

    DannyB

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Here`s a good short essay on the dietary laws:

    http://framingbusiness.net/php/2004/jewsabstainfrompork.php

    ...all those laws are...irrational. But that`s ok. It was (probably) merely a way for jews to separate themselves (as a people) from other people.

  • cosmic
    cosmic

    This is interesting. I understand your frustration, when someone like the WTS comes out with this broad, bomastic statement that "The Bible is science." and proceeds to offer such assininities as rabbit-cud and grasshopper legs as "proof", it doesn't exercise ones intelligence, it insults it. However, don't threw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. DannyB, what makes you so sure that the Bible doesn't have any reference to General Relativity (or pecial Relativity, for that matter)? Would you know it if you read it? Quantum mechanics? The jury is still out on a great deal of that. I'm curious, how would you describe Relativity? I'm serious, please, just indulge me a bit and write down your description of General Relativity. It's got to encompass it's essence and be understandable, because I'm just a humble sheep herder.

  • SickofLies
    SickofLies

    To understand general relativity you have to first understand special relativity. Special relativity says that all laws of physics are constant in enertal frames of reference and that the speed of light is constant for all these. However, special relativity deals only with non-accelerated reference frames, where general relativity deals with accelerated reference frames and is much more complicated. General relativity gives us a complete picture of gravity by tell us that space and time are interconnected and mass and energy are conserved.

    In no way do I believe that any of these ideas are found in the bible.

  • cosmic
    cosmic

    Wow, your answer was inspirational, but you blew away this old sheep herder. How about: Time is not a constant, it is relative to many things. Would that work?

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    And what is really cool is that Albert E. thought it up in 1905/07 back when Charles Taze was just cooking up the end of the Gentile times and the invisible presence of the Lord...so which one turned out to be right?

  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem
    DannyB, what makes you so sure that the Bible doesn't have any reference to General Relativity (or pecial Relativity, for that matter)? Would you know it if you read it? Quantum mechanics? The jury is still out on a great deal of that. I'm curious, how would you describe Relativity? I'm serious, please, just indulge me a bit and write down your description of General Relativity. It's got to encompass it's essence and be understandable, because I'm just a humble sheep herder.

    Cosmos, Well, if I would read it and not recognize it as such it would be much of a value. "and the lord Jehovah has spoken to me, and he uttered the following words: 'Know that the speed that the light travels is always the same. Thy shall not try to go quicker then the light travels, because thou attempts will be foolish in th eyes of your God. Because time and the weight of things are not always the same, but the speed of light is."" Probably a nice proof would have been the factor between the distance of the moon and the sun, and the factors of diameter of earth, moon and sun. They are not unit dependent and stable and constant. Also easy to describe, easy to understand, and a great way to proof of knowledge unable to obtain on that time Danny

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit