I could swear the Bible said that...

EdipisReks

Custom Title
EdipisReks
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
1,966
Location
The 'Nati
I was having an argument with a friend over ID (it was actually after we watched the entire second season of Bull$**** one afternoon, and he was telling me what he disagreed with as presented in the series). my friend used to be fairly un-religious, but for some reason has become rather fundamentalist christian in the past few years (he is pretty skeptical in everything but religion). after describing to him the basics of how we think the solar system formed, astronomy, geology, how we think evolution works, the basics of string theory, galactic expansion, relativity (both special and general), intermediate forms (even after pointing out about two dozen of these, he still won't accept them, and parrots the "micro/macro evolution" crap his pastor told him) quantum mechanics, punctuated equilibrium, cladistics, etc (it's really funny how those who don't believe in evolution, or astronomy, or geology, etc, have no idea what any of it's actually about), which made for a very long monologue, i was going to make the pithy remark "you believe in a heliocentric solar system, even though the Bible says the Sun revolves around the Earth, so why can't you accept evolution, or astronomy, geology, etc?" when i realized that i couldn't quite remember where that was written in the Bible (unfortunately, i DID make the remark, and he replied "where does the bible say that?...um....)

after telling him i'd get back to him, i hit Skeptics annotated, and my own copies. i've read several versions of the Bible front to back, and i swear that somewhere it is written clearly that the sun is subservient to the Earth. however, after having looked at it, it appears that all the bible does is imply that the sun is subservient to the earth by the fact that it was "placed in the heavens to illuminate the earth", while never quite saying anthing specific enough to mean "who ever wrote this part would have said 'the sun revolves around the earth' if the idea of heavenly bodies 'revolving' had been embraced by this culture". pie in my eye. not that it really matters, i guess, as none of the other hundred or so absurdities i pointed out had much impact. well, at least i'm willing to admit my mistake to him.
 
arthwollipot said:
The bit that was cited during Galileo's trial was Joshua 10:12-13 where God makes the sun and moon stand still so that the Hebrews could slaughter all of the Amorites before it got too dark.
Click to expand...

But isn't that evidence of a heliocentric system? It would be much easier to stop the apparent motion of the sun and moon by simply slowing the planet's rotation than to actually stop the sun and moon dead in their tracks as they orbit the earth!

Jeremy
 
arthwollipot said:
The bit that was cited during Galileo's trial was Joshua 10:12-13 where God makes the sun and moon stand still so that the Hebrews could slaughter all of the Amorites before it got too dark.
Click to expand...
the problem with it is that it was cited by Catholics, which is a big no-no to my fundie friend.
 
toddjh said:
But isn't that evidence of a heliocentric system? It would be much easier to stop the apparent motion of the sun and moon by simply slowing the planet's rotation than to actually stop the sun and moon dead in their tracks as they orbit the earth!

Jeremy
Click to expand...

sure, but it specifically says that the Sun and the moon stood still, not the Earth. if someone is going to be a literal interpreter of the Bible, then they have to face what it literally says. they can't have it both ways :)
 
"The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." 1 Chronicles 16:30

"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them." 1 Samuel 2:8

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof." --- Job 38:4-6

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" --- Isaiah 40:22

"Bless the LORD... who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain...who walketh upon the wings of the wind... Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Psalms 104:1-5

"Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." Psalms 96:10
_______________________________________

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters." (Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism)
 
Some people take Matthew 4:8, where Satan takes Jesus to the top of a very tall mountain and shows him the entire world, as evidence that the authors of the Bible believed in a flat earth. I think it's a pretty weak criticism, personally -- the verse is obviously meant to be taken figuratively. Still, the metaphor reflects the world view held by the authors. At the very least, the fact that the Bible contains such anachronisms is evidence that the authors of the Bible were fallible human beings who were susceptible to the mistakes of their era.

Jeremy
 
Metaphor? There are no Metaphors in the Bible! Once you take a single statement as metaphor, what's to stop you taking the whole thing as metaphor? And then where would we be?
 
hey, thanks guys. Dr. Adequate, you pointed out a couple that i didn't catch or remember. i think i have preponderance of evidence on my side, more or less. maybe the examples will coax my friend to study the Bible in a bit more detail, as i don't think he quite understands what he is accepting with his literal interpretation.
 
arthwollipot said:
Metaphor? There are no Metaphors in the Bible! Once you take a single statement as metaphor, what's to stop you taking the whole thing as metaphor? And then where would we be?
Click to expand...

this is more or less the argument that i make, less tongue in cheek though, but of course that's a rehash of a rehash of a rehash for this forum :)
 
oh, on the topic of fundies who don't know their bible, my friend was a bit taken aback when he learned that god couldn't beat guys in iron chariots.
 
On the original Fundies Say the Darndest Things I found this gem:

(Replying to "After surveying the true horrible nature of YHWh through the scriptures and the implications it held, I could no longer maintain belief. what kind of madman uses 2 bears to murder 42 children for mocking a prophets [Elisha's] bald head?")

WHAT?! thats horrible! thats just sick! who did that? I never heard anything as such. Some really sick, perverted people out there. Do you have a link? What is YHWh? Is it some cult with a few references to Christianity?"

- JesusFreakGuy, POD Warrior Forum
Click to expand...
 
Dr Adequate said:
"The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." 1 Chronicles 16:30

"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them." 1 Samuel 2:8

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof." --- Job 38:4-6

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" --- Isaiah 40:22

"Bless the LORD... who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain...who walketh upon the wings of the wind... Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Psalms 104:1-5

"Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." Psalms 96:10
Click to expand...

The problem with these is that they are clearly poetic statements. As far as I can tell, the Hebrews were unconcerned with astronomy. They described the sun, moon, and Earth from the perspective of how they looked to them. Did they really believe the earth was flat? Probably, but it just wasn't a question they even bothered to ask.

Lord Emsworth said:

Ecclesiastes 1
5 The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises.
Click to expand...

This Bible quote is particularly useless. Aside from being poetic, it uses language about the sun rising and setting that even we use today.

EdipisReks, this is the danger of criticizing the Bible without having a clear knowledge of it. You fall into using the junk information about the Bible that the village atheists pass around. This is why my sig is what it is.
 
jjramsey said:
The problem with these is that they are clearly poetic statements.

EdipisReks, this is the danger of criticizing the Bible without having a clear knowledge of it. You fall into using the junk information about the Bible that the village atheists pass around. This is why my sig is what it is.
Click to expand...

JJ

I think part of the frustration of debating issues with christians (or, I guess religious people in general) is that they often seem to pick and choose as to what is "poetic", allegorical or fact. From my limited experience of these discussions there appear to be as many opinions in this regard as there are christians (or at least congregations as they tend to believe what the priest tells them). Hence the strength of any argument based on the bible is limited by the credibility of the person doing the debating.

Is there a definitive interpretation? Or who is the most right? If we knew this at least debates could be carried out from a known base.
 
jjramsey said:
The problem with these is that they are clearly poetic statements.
Click to expand...

As others have noted, the instant you acknowledge that the bible is not always speaking 100% literally, you beg the question of which parts are literal and which parts aren't. That determination requires an outside standard against which the statements of the bible must be evaluated.

If you acknowledge that some of the bible is not necessarily literal, how can you establish, for example, the resurrection to be literal and not just "poetry"?

Unfortunately, too often the apologist uses the approach:
1) If it is in the bible and is verifiably true, it is true
2) If it is in the bible and is verifiably false, it is figurative
3) If it is in the bible and is non-verifiable, it is true
 
jjramsey said:
This Bible quote is particularly useless. Aside from being poetic, it uses language about the sun rising and setting that even we use today.
Click to expand...


Poetic or not, it fits perfectly with ancient cosmologies involving a flat, geocentric universe.

And unfortunately there are no verses to counter it.

 
For those of you debating JJ on picking and chosing, the Chocolate Box Bible thread is a better venue. Besides, a few Christians, including myself, have indicated their opinions on this matter. It really isn't as big a deal as some would want it to be-- both the hardcore right and the hardcore left.

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
For those of you debating JJ on picking and chosing, the Chocolate Box Bible thread is a better venue. Besides, a few Christians, including myself, have indicated their opinions on this matter. It really isn't as big a deal as some would want it to be-- both the hardcore right and the hardcore left.

Flick
Click to expand...

Thanks for the moderation tip. OTOH, since the issue is completely relevent withing the the topic of this thread, I think I'll keep the discussion here as it arises.
 
pgwenthold said:
As others have noted, the instant you acknowledge that the bible is not always speaking 100% literally, you beg the question of which parts are literal and which parts aren't.
Click to expand...

http://begthequestion.info/ :p

Seriously though, it comes down to issues of form (whether it is in verse or prose, whether it has an introduction like "From X to you people at Mockopolis," etc.), how the documents have been used over the years, similarities to other works, and a host of other factors.

That there are different genres of literature in the Bible is beyond dispute. The book of Psalms is a hymn book. The "books" of the New Testament attributed to Paul are letters. Parts of Daniel and Ezekiel, and Revelation are apocalyptic literature. Some books, like the book of Job, are harder to place. IIRC, some have suggested that it is a play or at least a work of intentional fiction, because the speeches of the various characters of Job are in verse.

pgwenthold said:
Unfortunately, too often the apologist uses the approach:
1) If it is in the bible and is verifiably true, it is true
2) If it is in the bible and is verifiably false, it is figurative
3) If it is in the bible and is non-verifiable, it is true
Click to expand...

If that were true, creationists wouldn't be such pains. No one tries to explain away the problems with the Lukan census or the conflicting genealogies in Matthew and Luke as being poetic license.

Lord Emsworth said:
Poetic or not, it fits perfectly with ancient cosmologies involving a flat, geocentric universe.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it will still be greeted with a yawn or roll of the eyes by an evangelical Christian, and like I said it's easy to counter by pointing out that we too speak of the sun rising and setting, even if we don't mean it literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom