The Bible says the Earth is unsupported. (Job 26:7)
This is perhaps one of the best pick-and-choose Christian arguments, in which they single out a few Biblical verses that seemingly support modern science. Christians who make this claim seem to have forgotten to include certain verses (Job 38:4-6) which clearly state that the earth has foundations. This is in exact contradiction to the fact that the earth is unsupported. It even directly contradicts the earlier verse that Christians use to claim that the Earth is unsupported. Anyone seeking to reconcile the Biblical view to the modern scientific view certainly has more than enough passages to select from and interpret; while ignoring others that make the Bible sound like nothing more than a primitive attempt at understanding the world.
The Bible describes the water cycle in astounding detail. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Astounding detail? This is what the verse says:
“All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.”
What is so astounding about that? The verse merely says that water returns to the source of the streams. It doesn’t mention anything about condensation or evaporation. This is merely wishful thinking on the part of anyone who deceives themselves into thinking that some sort of divine revelation happened here.
The Bible says the earth is round. (Isaiah 40:22)
The verse reads “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”. A circle is flat and without any volume (in contrast to a sphere). Newsflash: A circle and a sphere are not the same things. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the ‘four corners of the earth’. Why don’t mainstream Christians take that as the indicator of the earth’s shape? Telling, isn’t it?
The Bible has always proven to be factually correct.
Are these verses factually correct in light of modern science?
Leviticus 11:6- Rabbits chew their cud and have hooves.
Leviticus 11:20-23- Insects are four-legged, e.g. grasshoppers.
Do I need to go on?
The Bible is historically correct and consistent.
Really? Well, that must be news because as far as I know, Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 cannot even agree regarding Jesus’ lineage. There are also historical records found in China, Egypt, etc. that show life going on normally during the exact time the global flood was alleged to have taken place. For a flood of such epic proportions, something stinks to high heaven (pardon the pun) here.
The Bible is reasonable.
Reasonable? Let’s take a look at Genesis 30:37-39. Did anyone tell you that shoving striped rods in front of animals causes them to have striped offspring? God really needs to learn a thing or two about basic genetics, don’t you think?
In Numbers 22:2-29, Balaam doesn’t seem the least bit surprised to discover that his donkey could suddenly speak. I suppose this must be because stuff like that used to happen every day in Biblical times although the Christian god has become strangely silent now.
Wait, all this is supposed to be reasonable? My bad.
Sorry, Christian apologists. You need to try harder next time.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Shalini Sehkar
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Clearly Yahweh/Elohim mastered the manipulation of gravity fields in order to separate the waters from the waters (Genesis 1:7). Or am I wrong about the ocean hanging above our heads?
To be fair, all of this requires a ‘literal’ interpretation of the bible, something many scholars and Christians don’t do. The bible was put together at the end of the 4th century as a representative of christian belief of the time. One could be a christian and not a biblical literalist. They are not all fundies.
Joe- the point is, not all apologists are literalists. I don’t even think most fundies are technically literalists, since even they pick and choose (whether it’s about the nature of Earth or the universe, or moral “law,” etc…). So let’s be clear: most apologists aren’t literalists. But that doesn’t stop them from making claims like this. If they were true literalists, they wouldn’t be apologists. They wouldn’t feel the need to find support for modern science in the pages of the Bible.
Literal vs. allegorical often turns into cherry picking:
If I like it, it’s literal; if I don’t like it, it’s metaphorical or allegorical.
If I like it, its context is irrelevant; if I don’t like it, it’s out of context.
If I like it, it’s straightforward language; if I don’t like it, it’s rhetoric or hyperbole.
If I like it, it was translated correctly; if I don’t like it, it was mistranslated.
If I like it, it’s a moral absolute; if I don’t like it, it’s legalism.
If I like it, it’s a moral law; if I don’t like it, it’s a ceremonial law.
If I like it, it applies to everybody; if I don’t like it, it applies only to the original audience.
But that aside, here are some more Bible boners:
In Matthew 4:8, we learn that the Devil took Jesus Christ up a tall mountain and showed him “all the kingdoms of the world”. Where was that mountain?
In Revelation 7:1, we learn that the Earth has four corners, with an angel at each one of them. And in Rev 12:4, we are told that a wicked dragon will knock 1/3 of the stars out of the sky with its tail, as if the stars are little lights attached to an overhead bowl.
In Genesis 1:6, we learn that there is an ocean of water above the sky, which is described as a solid bowl (Hebrew raqiya, Greek stereoma, Latin firmamentum), and in the Noah’s Flood story, we learn that God opened the floodgates of heaven (Genesis 7:11).
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ drives out lots of demons, making him an exorcist. He also cures people with magical spit therapy (Mark 7:32-35, Mark 8:22-25, John 9:1-7).
Another big scientific boner in the Bible: the Lamarckian genetic engineering in Genesis 30.
There is also Jonah surviving three days in the stomach of a sea monster. I’m calling it a sea monster to be noncommittal about its taxonomy, but even setting such a question aside, it is rather difficult to imagine Jonah having breathable air.
It can be a dodge, but then so is this list. There are lots of (christian) biblical scholars who are more than willing to put the different parts of their book into their historical context. The bible is collection of texts, not one book, and certainly not a list of favorite quotes.
Doing a sound-bite list like this, and taking these writings completely out of their historical context is just as bad, in my view, as taking them literally. How is this list any less cherry picking?
When Science looks at the fossil record we don’t cherry pick, we look at how the different layers of rock lay on top of one another and compare similar layers and contrast different ones. What is going on here, amounts to bible fart jokes, not critical analysis.
You idiots. The Earth IS supported. It rests atop the shell of a giant turtle.
And not so fast, smartipants. Save your “well, what is the turtle supported by?” quibbling for someone who hasn’t heard it before. IT’S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN.
Why don’t you tell Bible publishers about how wrong they are to print Bibles without including that all-important context? And why not claim that nobody has a right to find fault with (say) Richard Dawkins’s work without first doing a careful and thorough study of its context?
In any case, *anything* can be justified by claiming an appropriate context.
The bible is a source book. It gives a grouping of works that Christians have decided are important. Its basically an anthology of different types of material related to Christian thought.
Understanding that the old testament is taken from the Jewish oral tradition… and is therefore similar to the Illiad and Odyssey both in structure and content… and that its books are distinct, come from different authors and different times, and was written and then translated into different languages….. IS important to interpreting it. Same for the New Testament, which has a different tradition, content, and backstory. Whether one believes in Christ, or Gods or not, understanding where the book came from and how and why it was written IS important to understanding the book.
This is why people study all other types of literature in ITS HISTORICAL context and not just take a random translation and claim that they know what it means. People who are honestly interested in learning… in any case.
This bible-baiting stuff is not constructive, and doesn’t serve to educate anyone.
The bible is a historical text, and as such, we as human beings can learn from it, just like we can learn from Shakespeare, Homer, the Upanishads and the Art of War. And we can learn more, the more we know about where they actually come from in history.
If you just want to piss on the bible, thats another matter. I suggest drinking lots of beer, you don’t even need to bother reading it.
Ron-
I have to call you out on the problem of infinite regress. Unless these are multiversal hyper-turtles, that is. Then, you’ve got me beat.
First, if this is a serious article, where are the references?…. who are these mystery apologists? I don’t think that is much to ask, even for a blog site. If this is to be taken seriously, that would be a good start.
Second, scholars of all sorts take some parts of the bible literally and claim others are symbolic, so your artificial distinction between apologists and literalists has no legs.
Picking and choosing is exactly what is going on here…. and its without any acknowledgment that ancient writings were often allegorical, symbolic and more concerned with imparting general wisdom than specific details.
…….And just by the way, it doesn’t say Rabbits have hooves…. its says rabbits don’t have split hooves, which is true… Also, while rabbits don’t chew their cud is a modern technical sense, they do have an eating cycle that does pretty much the same thing as ‘chewing cud’. And its pretty disgusting from a human point of view…. which goes along with the whole unclean thing.
When reading any book IN TRANSLATION you have to be careful.
The point is, this is a completely superficial criticism, that is bordering on a strawman argument.
Actually, I have heard (amateur) apologists make these claims.
This list was clearly put together to address the most common claims of apologists, not the most sophisticated claims by professional apologists.
As such, I assume that the author took common apologist claims and distilled them into a useful list, rather than exhaustively explore every single claim made by apologists (much less learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).
Given the specialization of knowledge in our culture, I think this is a perfectly acceptable course of action for a blog. Other Edger readers should feel free to chime in here.
By the way, what do you mean by “serious article?” This is a blog after all. It is not a peer reviewed journal of biblical scholasticism (of which there are plenty). This is just a helpful guide, like a study guide to a Dickens novel. No one complains when the writer of the study guide doesn’t reproduce the entire novel, so why should you?
Please enlighten us as to how this is in any way a “strawman argument?” No one said every single Christian alive makes these claims. They are simply some of the most common claims of apologists, and hardly all such claims.
Arguments made by ‘amateurs’ tend to be the weakest arguments. So yes, going after the easy stuff is a lot like making strawmen.
And there are plenty of different English translations. No greek necessary. An honest attempt to discover the meaning of a passage would at bare minimum demand one look into more than one translation…. they do exist. And looking at the whole chapter or sequence of chapters in order to get an idea of where the lines fit in, would be pretty standard too.
Study guide? I think you’re being generous. Job 26:7 is uttered by Job, Job 38:4-6 is uttered by God, in conversation and the latter is in the form of a question…. at least in the translation I read… Analyzing ancient texts is not easy, so maybe a blog is not a good place to do it?…. or maybe Edger can be better than the average blog…. ?
One can hope.
JOE: “or maybe Edger can be better than the average blog…. ?”
I wouldn’t waste time here if it wasn’t.
I understand what you’re getting at, but there are contradictions within the Bible regardless of translation. And no, analyzing ancient texts isn’t easy, but if theologians and apologists insist on discussing science, then they shouldn’t complain when science-types turn around and bring up theology.
Because no human being in the world is capable of knowing everything, if you are enough of a postmodernist, you can make the claim that ANY argument is a strawman argument.
But don’t expect more level headed people to take you seriously if you do.
And for the last time, this is a blog. Edger is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a journal of biblical scholasticism. Perhaps you would be more satisfied with those, than this, if your criteria for the right to talk about something is a PhD in the subject and a CV filled with peer-reviewed articles.
Taking just two examples here:
———————————————
Shalini wrote:
Leviticus 11:6- Rabbits chew their cud and have hooves.
Leviticus 11:20-23- Insects are four-legged, e.g. grasshoppers.
Joe wrote:
…….And just by the way, it doesn’t say Rabbits have hooves…. its says rabbits don’t have split hooves, which is true… Also, while rabbits don’t chew their cud is a modern technical sense, they do have an eating cycle that does pretty much the same thing as ‘chewing cud’.
—————————————————————–
Granted, Joe, my NRSV Bible backs you up regarding rabbits. But it backs the original poster up about insects. Let’s see what the King James Bible says…
—————————————————————–
King James Bible:
“And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.” (Leviticus 11:6)
“All fowls – Flying things that crawl or creep upon the earth, and so degenerate from their proper nature, and are of a mongrel kind, which may intimate that apostates and mongrels in religion are abominable in the sight of God. Upon all four – Upon four legs, or upon more than four, which is all one to the present purpose.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.”
(Lev. 11:20-23)
—————————————————
From the New American Bible:
“The hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig…” (Lev. 11:6)
“The various winged insects that walk on all fours are loathsome for you.
But of the various winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs for leaping on the ground;
hence of these you may eat the following: the various kinds of locusts, the various kinds of grasshoppers, the various kinds of katydids, and the various kinds of crickets.
All other winged insects that have four legs are loathsome for you.” (Lev. 11:20-23)
———————————————-
The New Jerusalem Bible:
“you will regard the hare as unclean, because though it is ruminant, it does not have a cloven hoof” (Lev 11:6)
“All winged insects moving on four feet you will regard as detestable for eating. Of all these winged insects you may eat only the following: those with the sort of legs above their feet which enable them to leap over the ground.
These are the ones you may eat: the various kinds of migratory locust, the various kinds of solham locust, hargol locust and hagab locust.
But all other winged insects on four feet you will regard as detestable for eating. ” (Lev 11:20-23)
—————————————–
Hmmm. So the OP might have misread Leviticus 11:6. Easy mistake. But, indeed, this would qualify your argument against the OP as a strawman argument by your definition. Hardly a worthy defense of apologetics. But what about Leviticus 11:20-23? And doesn’t modern technology alleviate the concern about cleanliness? Joe, how many other translations would you like me to go through? Like you said, there are plenty. So, set a limit. Or a quota. I will accept your challenge.
If I have misunderstood you, and your intent is not to defend apologetics, but rather to defend academic integrity, then again: a blog is not an academic journal. Why not go after bogus research and unsubstantiated claims in academia (of which, unfortunately, there are plenty)? If your point is that only biologists should be able to talk about biology, and only theologians should be able to talk about theology, then I have just three words for you: “Freedom of speech.”
Y, de La Biblia de las Americas:
Leviticus 11:6- “el conejo, porque aunque rumia, no tiene pezuña dividida; será inmundo para vosotros”
Leviticus 11:20-23- “Todo insecto alado que ande sobre cuatro patas os será abominación. Sin embargo, éstos podéis comer de entre todos los insectos alados que andan sobre cuatro patas: los que tienen, además de sus patas, piernas con coyunturas para saltar con ellas sobre la tierra. De ellos podéis comer éstos: la langosta según sus especies, la langosta destructora según sus especies, el grillo según sus especies y el saltamontes según sus especies. Pero todos los demás insectos alados que tengan cuatro patas os serán abominación.”
I’ll leave it to you to plug that into Babelfish.
This comment is in no way meant to disparage turtles or related reptiles. Particularly of the teenage mutant ninja variety.
Wow, uhm… where to begin.
I absolutely think there are real contradictions in the bible. That said, just because two random sentences in a book seem to contradict each other doesn’t mean they actually do within the scope of the whole book or chapter. And I think its important, if one is concerned about one’s own credibility, not to jump to quick conclusions over what are essentially literary soundbites. Personally, I don’t need the bible to have any contradictions, I would still be an atheist. Mostly because the notion of gods fits too well into established human psychology, and it has too many inherent metaphysical problems.
When dealing with people who believe however, its important to address what they actually believe. If someone takes Genesis literally, as the truth of creation, then it does make sense to point out the two contradictory creation myths that exist within the bible. If they view it as more symbolic or metaphorical, then complaining about talking snakes only makes us look like pedantic simpletons.
As to postmodernism, to paraphrase a great swordsman, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”. My comments so far are actually at odds with deconstructionism, (assuming that is what you mean by PM) which would imply there is no ‘truer’ reading of the bible. I think if one puts the bible into its historical context, one could indeed come to a very broad understanding of its meaning, which would be of greater value than any individual reading. And the real contraditions would then become even more apparent. How postmodernism relates to strawmen is beyond me.
And I have never advocated for the silencing of anyone, nor have I advocated for people to present credentials. If you can’t take criticism however, a public forum is not where you should publish. We all can learn from criticism, especially those talking outside of their field. And I have stated before in comments that I think its important for sciency types to learn communication skills. Blogging is a great way to develop those skills.
As to Leviticus 11:6, that was something I noticed after I made the strawman comment, the two are not related. Also, if you are interested, do a search on wikipedia for ‘locust’. There is a whole section devoted to the confusion associated with translation of that word. That said, if I was of a mind to defend the ‘four leg’ issue, I could simply say grasshoppers have 4 legs and 2 arms. Primitive peoples could reasonably view it that way, they love to anthropomorphize. It seems a minor issue in any case, certainly not something to shake one’s faith, if one is so inclined.
And although I find babelfish useful, I would never rely on it for any serious translation.
I was joking about babelfish.
Thanks for clearing some things up. It was difficult for me to tell what you were actually arguing FOR rather than AGAINST, and I generally try not to make assumptions about people whose posts I reply to.
Postmodernism:
As PM defines truth as a function of social power (authority), I was using it to describe the assumption (which, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but this was where I saw your argument going) you seemed to be making when you implied that scripture is best interpreted/discussed by church authorities who have dedicated their lives to studying scripture. Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I’ve been arguing heavily with a few people IRL on this of late, making a bogus claim that no one can have a spiritual experience and then go over to atheism (in doing so I believe they are committing a no true Scotsman fallacy), defining what a “true” atheist is without having to define what a “true” believer is. Sorry if I read too far into your post, and carried the chip on my shoulder too far. Re-reading your post, I believe this to have been the case. And I don’t think I ever said you were trying to silence anyone.
As for the amateurs vs. pros issue, I think it’s useful to highlight the more amateurish apologetics as well as the more sophisticated ones, since most people (and I know this is going to sound very elitist) aren’t swayed by the sophisticated arguments. They’re persuaded by the common arguments. “A million years is but a second to God”… that sort of thing. Which frankly, comes off as comic-bookish. The more sophisticated arguments, I have never encountered except from scholars, who tend to be more willing to have dialogs than ending the conversation with thought terminating cliches (”well, I feel so sorry for you and I’ll pray for you”; “Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.”)
Postmodernism covers: literary criticism, architecture, art, etc… And there is quite a lot of disagreement, misunderstanding, and external influences (eg Marxism) on postmodern thought, that are distinct from it.
Historians, archeologists, anthropologists, literary critics, linguists etc… can all comment intelligently on the bible, *assuming they have studied it*, and its *even better* if they have studied it within their field.
The Protestant reformation wrested power over scripture from the church, which was good… and bad, as it resulted in a lot of ignorant commentary and preaching about scripture. Simply reading the words, whether you are a fundie or an atheist, doesn’t mean you can intelligently comment on an ancient text. Chaucer requires study, Beowulf requires study… the bible requires study.
Its certainly foolishness to state: only those who are part of a group can comment on issues related to that group.
Cultural relativism is not so narrow though. When studying another culture, one of the major obstacles, is the researcher overcoming their own cultural assumptions, in order to understand more fully the nuances of the studied culture. In this sense it can be *helpful* to immerse oneself in the studied culture in order to get in touch with its most subtle social cues…etc.. There is of course dangers, with regards to ‘objectivity’. The phrase ‘going native’ expresses how someone can immerse themselves so completely in another culture that they begin to value its assumptions over their own culture. This of course defeats the purpose of immersion, from a research perspective.
Discussions of assimilation vs cultural imperialism are an important artifact of our post-colonial era. That said, there is a lot of cowardice: using cultural relativism as a shield against any sort of judgment or action.
However, this is not implicit to cultural relativism or postmodern thought.
I have no problem with metaphysical discussions like “A million years is but a second to God”, mostly because discussions like that, more so than just reading scriptures, get to the heart of what people actually believe about the nature of god. But, people believe for different reasons, for some its just bowing to a recognized authority, for others its a more personal emotional manifestation, and others still come to it from an intellectual understanding. Its not just ‘being stupid’.
Ultimately, I just don’t think making a top ten list functions on any serious level. If you want to make fun of people that’s a different matter, but actually making an argument about scripture requires much more depth, blog or no, either through personal expertise or…. actual research. Assuming one wants to be taken seriously.