An Assertion...

Post Reply New Topic

Given that:

a. The Bible implies a value for Pi that has an integer value, with no fractional component (1st Kings 7:23).

b. The Bible implies that rabbits are ruminants (Leviticus 11:6).

c. The Bible classifies bats as birds (Leviticus 11:13-19).

It is, in my opinion, safe to assume that at least these three parts of the Bible were written by someone who was unconcerned with accuracy, and whose subjective observations have misled people for thousands of years.

It is therefor my further opinion that should any person consider the Bible to be the complete and inerrant Word of God, that person is either ignorant of the facts, deluded into thinking that anything written in the Bible must be true, or that person is simply lying.

Given that the bible that we have to day is only a fraction of the religious text at the time you have to expect some errors. Not to mention the translations that you are quoting could be all wrong. Do you read hebrew? Sanskrit? well if not chances are you are reading a 3rd or 4th gen translation.

I would argue that the bible was written by human beings who did not have scientific accuracy in mind when drafting the aforementioned texts. Also, the murky nature of linguistic translation between Hebrew/Aramaic/Etc and English allows too many points for errors to be introduced due to cultural biases (anachronisms, etc..)

Newer Bible translations, such as the New International Version, have been translated by experts from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek texts. I think we can assume that they are fairly accurate. Besides, the avian bat is mentioned two times in the Bible, in Lev. 11:13-19 and Deut. 14:11-17. Leviticus uses the Hebrew word for fowl, whereas Deuteronomy uses a word that translates to bird. It is therefore highly unlikely that this is a mistranslation.

It also wrongly classified the anatomy of the insects - saying that they have four instead of six of them. (Leviticus 11:20) There were some attempts to explain it as a mistaken translation since 'owph means a creature with wings but the only other possibility is that Moses was referring to the four legged birds (:scratch:) as can be seen in some other translations.

Mustard seed is not the smallest one, and it doesn't grow into a tree, either. (Matthew 13:31)

According to the Genesis creation myth, the earth was formed and floreated before the creation of the sun. Aside from biomechanical problems, this flatly contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, in which planets form in the accretion disk created by a young star.

Also wasn't it said in the Revelations 8:10 that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back?

etc etc

There are also some major problems with the flood myth. I mean, aside from old man Noah traveling all continents to pick up kangaroos, elephants, polar bears and whatnot If everything was under water for 150 days, nearly all terrestrial plant life would have become extinct.

Besides, marine species depend on a certain water salinity and can only survive a certain pressure. The amount of rain (which is sweet water) that is necessary to cover the entire planet, including the highest mountain ranges, would have greatly increased the water pressure and completely screwed up the salinity levels of the oceans. Nearly all marine life should have died as a result.

Insofar as the translations are concerned, yes. Insofar as reality is concerned, then maybe not so much.


It's not an issue of translation, but one of empirical facts.

Pi > 3

Rabbits do not chew their cud.

Bats are not birds.

You see, those were things added by God precisely to increase your free will!

Thus the reason we need giantic Churches. To have councils that can examine the bible phrase by phrase and pick the ones that we shouldn't listen to. It is merely a coincidence that the homophobe, misogynous, anti-individual phrases tend to be found as accurate by these councils more often than not.

I am unworthy.

I am not a Christian. However, these three objections are totally lightweight. They're just silly quibbling. Can't you find better problems with Christianity?

It is easy to explain all three of these things, even if we assume God dictated all of the Bible word-for-word, which is not actually the Christian claim.

First, who says that God has to give exact measurements for things? I don't give exact measurements for things! Almost all numbers cannot be named in a finite number of words, in a sense that can be made precise. So there has to be some rounding involved.

The Bible says that rabbits are part of a Hebrew category that includes rabbits. So? Obviously God was speaking Hebrew, because he was talking to Jews.

The Bible says that bats are part of a Hebrew category that includes bats. So? Obviously God was speaking Hebrew, because he was talking to Jews.

Fnord can come up with a better argument. But this small and simple argument is enough to debunk whatever fundie comes that really believes the bible is the word of god. If you are a Christian that thinks that taking the bible as the perfect book is not necessary for your faith, good for you. But Fnord didn't inted to attack you this time, just the fundies.

Hundreds ... but as I said, these will do for starters.


Depends on which denomination / sect / cult is doing the claiming.


If the Bible is not exact on the most easy-to-verify details, then how can it possibly be accurate regarding the Really Big Things?


Hebrew recognizes the difference between animals that "chew their cud" and those that do not. Obviously, someone made a mistake.


Hebrew recognizes the difference between animals that have feathers and those that do not. Obviously, someone made a mistake.

The point is, mistakes were made; likely by someone imposing his or her subjectivity upon what he or she observed, heard, or read from another document. Thus, the Bible is written solely from the subjective point-of-view of fallible, ignorant, and superstitious human beings. This alone seems to make the Bible just another literary work of doubtful veracity.

The idea of "accurate measurement" isn't as simple as you think. Have you ever thought about what a number really is? Imagine the real line. There are infinitely many numbers between any two points. And not just any infinity, uncountable infinity! Whenever anyone tries to give a measurement for a real-life object, the number they come up with is not quite right. It is only an approximation. So rounding is compulsory, even for God! It's not about "accuracy", it's just about the fact that our language cannot perfectly specify most real numbers. So once you have accepted that rounding is necessary, why does it matter whether you round to the nearest ten or the nearest one? Especially if the measurement isn't important to the story.





Your claim is self-defeating. You are claiming that a "common" sort of person wrote this stuff, without divine inspiration, right? And this common person put rabbits into that category, and bats into the other category. Well, by exactly the same reasoning, it could just be that God was choosing to speak common Hebrew!

Oh, give it up, Decles! Either the Bible is perfectly accurate, or it isn't. I know you're just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but since you're not a Christian, why even bother?

As for me, I like asking these questions of starry-eyed born-agains, and watching their faces go blank as their minds teeter on the narrow precipice between faith and doubt (metaphorically speaking). I enjoy bringing up these points in Sunday School and listening to the debate go back and forth between the hard-core "Complete and Inerrant Bible" clique and the "Parable Compilation Bible" collective. It's fun to observe Christians try to justify their religion with circular "logic" and fallacious appeals. Really, you should try it some time.

Yeah, because the ancients couldn't really count the number of limbs these creatures had.

Have you guys ever thought that maybe they had a different definition for the word translated as "legs"?

Maybe, four legs and the two other limbs not considered as legs?

Someone who gets it.