Errors in the Bible

[heron]

Lol, yeah, weather forecasting... it's our tower of Babel, reminding us that no matter how ingenious we get, we still can't harness it.

 

[CorinneLucy]

Can you give me an unbiased source that would explain how the science of weather forecasting has worsened? I've read about the maths part of it, and how the rules that shape the weather produce chaotic results that make them extremely difficult to find. I'd have thought that the accuracy would have approved, though.

 

[heron]

I know people who do very intricate analyses... the resulting data hasn't worsened, but the claims and expectations for accuracy have.

 

[CorinneLucy]

Do you mean that we now know more about how chaotic the weather really is, so we acknowledge that perfect prediction is going to be harder than we originally thought?

 

[BiancaRose]

Just like us Christians, evolutionist also base their beliefs on faith. There is really no concrete proof that the Earth is billions or even millions of years old. The same data and testing that dates artifacts billions of years old, has been known to also date things negative years old.

I am not sure what you mean about so many things in the bible proved wrong. Do you have any examples that are actual and not just a theory?

 

[Merlin]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?

People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.

Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?

In short, some portions of the Bible are not supported by the facts. Other portions of the Bible are outright contradicted by the facts. So, how much of the Bible is true? Is there any evidence that the Bible is true? I've heard about prophecies made in the Bible; what are those prophecies, and have they been shown to have come true?

These are not Biblical errors.
They may be errors of our understanding of what the Bible says though. There might also be error on the part of scientific proof.

For a long time, there was no proof of a city called Troy. It too was assumed to be a myth. Then one day, science discovered Troy. Overnight, myth became fact.
That has been the case with many Biblical references too.

In many places there is no evidence of a flood. Proof of no flood? Hardly.

The Bible also doesn't state that the Earth is 6000 years old. It does say who the children of Adam were and their ages.

 

[heron]

The same data and testing that dates artifacts billions of years old, has been known to also date things negative years old.

Negative years old! Lol. I hadn't heard that. Maybe "Doc" Christopher Llyod was in on that one.

I sometimes run across phrases in Bibles that strike me as theologically biased, and when I compare that translation against others, I find that they were just interpreting the wording to the best of their understanding. So imagine someone squirming hundreds of years ago when they had to write about things that hadn't been proven or rediscovered yet! ("We're at the center of the countries, silly.")

The weather question-- I think meteorologists are overconfident with their data, since they're able to calculate vectors--wind speeds, temps, directional currents, fronts colliding.. and run simulations for where all those variables can lead... it really is amazing. At the same time, they don't know what will happen...they are still basing their conclusions on their interpretation of the data, based on what they've experienced and analyzed before.

(And then there are those annoying moments when a violent storm is overhead, but the taped report says it's clear out-- nobody is staffed to update the radar picture, or it's based in another town...) We're vey blessed to have our 24/7 weather reports--they're still so much better than sticking a finger in the wind.

 

[Skaloop]

there is no evidence of a flood. Proof of no flood? Hardly.

It's not just that there is no evidence of a flood, it's that there is direct evidence against a worldwide flood. That's the proof that there was no flood.

This evidence includes super-dry desert areas that have not seen water in millions of years, as well as varves, which are layers of sediment found in glacial lakes; these layers are laid down cyclically due to the alternation of glacial runoff and freezing. These layers are uniform and regular going back hundreds of thousands of years. This could not have occured if there was a worldwide flood.

 

[Calminian]

It's not just that there is no evidence of a flood, it's that there is direct evidence against a worldwide flood. That's the proof that there was no flood.

Actually you are both wrong. What you are saying is there is no evidence of a natural flood like ones we observe today. No problem for the Bible as it acknowledges the supernatural components of Noah's flood.

Skaloop, I noticed you didn't respond to my response on methodological naturalism. Do you not understand that this is a necessary assumption of science? So far you are engaging in circular reasoning........unless you can somehow show that science falsifies miracles. Please proceed if you feel you can.

This is a major point of confusion for many that reject the Bible based on science. I think I can help you though it if you're open.

 

[Skaloop]

Actually you are both wrong. What you are saying is there is no evidence of a natural flood like ones we observe today. No problem for the Bible as it acknowledges the supernatural components of Noah's flood.

I'd like to know what these components are, and also whether you're talking about an actual worldwide flood, or just a regional flood. Because if it was a worldwide flood, then water would have affected the super-arid deserts and the varves along with everything else, so I'd need to see where it says God reversed that effect in some situations but not others.

Skaloop, I noticed you didn't respond to my response on methodological naturalism. Do you not understand that this is a necessary assumption of science?

Absolutely it is a necessary assumption, as supernatural occurences would fall outside of the realm of science. But many of those supernatural occurences have real world effects and consequences that were outlined in the Bible but are not supported by the data. Sticking with the worldwide flood, the flood caused the death of everyone (and every animal) except Noah's family and what was on the ark, correct (and please do point out if I am mistaken)? Then why do historical population numbers in Asia not show any blip of any sort of sudden population decline?

 

[Calminian]

I'd like to know what these components are, and also whether you're talking about an actual worldwide flood, or just a regional flood.

Noah's flood, according to the Bible, was caused, sustained and ended by supernatural acts of God (acts, not just one act). Origin/historical (sometimes called forensic) science relies on analogies of present natural processes and applies them to the past. If the flood indeed happened as the Bible claims, the processes then would not be analogous to natural processes of today. Nor would their effects be analogous of those today. Miracles, by definition, are additions to natural processes. God can use them to bypass natural processes to accomplish His will. These bypassed natural process may be the cause of many of the effects we would expect to see, therefore confusing those investigating with wrong presuppositions (such as methodological naturalism).

Because if it was a worldwide flood, then water would have affected the super-arid deserts and the varves along with everything else, so I'd need to see where it says God reversed that effect in some situations but not others.

If the normal processes that cause floods today were not instrumental in the noachian flood, we really wouldn't know what the material aftermath would look like. These effects (varves, etc.), are caused by natural processes. If God bypassed them, it would definitely affect the things we observe presently. It is implicit in the text that God ended the flood and caused the waters to recede. Perhaps it was done instantaneously. Perhaps it was not, but by a process unknown to us. It is also said He caused rainbows to appear immediately afterward. Implicitly, rainbows didn’t exist prior to the flood which implies another supernatural modification to Creation. I have know idea what God changed at that time to cause rainbows, therefore I don’t know how it might affect what we observed today. Miracles and science are a very tricky subject.

Absolutely it is a necessary assumption, as supernatural occurrences would fall outside of the realm of science. But many of those supernatural occurrences have real world effects and consequences that were outlined in the Bible but are not supported by the data.

That’s simply not true. We are not given the instrumental details of these miracles, we are merely told what they accomplished. Genesis 1-11 is filled with numerous implicit creative miracles (world even universe wide in effect) of which we know very little about. We know what they accomplished, but very few details beyond that. Thus it seems quite illogical to attempt to falsify them starting with the assumption of methodological naturalism. This is not to say they cannot be challenged, but using science per se would be epistemologically flawed.

Sticking with the worldwide flood, the flood caused the death of everyone (and every animal) except Noah's family and what was on the ark, correct (and please do point out if I am mistaken)? Then why do historical population numbers in Asia not show any blip of any sort of sudden population decline?

This doesn’t seem to be a scientific argument you are making at this point, but rather a historical one. If that’s the case please state your evidence and perhaps I can respond.

 

[Zakuska]

On the How about factual errors that crept in?
From Skousen's Treasuries of the Book of Mormon:

In passing, we should note that Daniel 5:2 describes Belshazzar as being the son of Nebuchadnezzar. We now know this is an error. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus who belonged to a completely different dynasty than Nebuchadnezzar. Of course the name of Nebuchadnezzar was very famous in Babylonian history, and some ancient scribe must have thought it would be more exciting to insert the name of Nebuchadnezzar in place of Nabonidus. He did the same thing in Daniel, chapter 4. This is the chapter which describes Nebuchadnezzar as going insane for seven years. Available records prove that nothing like that ever happened to Nebuchadnezzar. But it did happen to Nabonidus. One of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments quotes Nabonidus as saying: "I was smitten for seven years and I was put far from men."

At what point does one account for factual errors introduced by unscrupulous scribes? That's why I've never been comfortable saying they're "inerrant" when, in fact, they're not.

 

[woobadooba]

On the How about factual errors that crept in?
From Skousen's Treasuries of the Book of Mormon:

In passing, we should note that Daniel 5:2 describes Belshazzar as being the son of Nebuchadnezzar. We now know this is an error. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus who belonged to a completely different dynasty than Nebuchadnezzar. Of course the name of Nebuchadnezzar was very famous in Babylonian history, and some ancient scribe must have thought it would be more exciting to insert the name of Nebuchadnezzar in place of Nabonidus. He did the same thing in Daniel, chapter 4. This is the chapter which describes Nebuchadnezzar as going insane for seven years. Available records prove that nothing like that ever happened to Nebuchadnezzar. But it did happen to Nabonidus. One of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments quotes Nabonidus as saying: "I was smitten for seven years and I was put far from men."

At what point does one account for factual errors introduced by unscrupulous scribes? That's why I've never been comfortable saying they're "inerrant" when, in fact, they're not.

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]
"As for the father/son relationship, there are many possible answers to this:

1. Archer notes above the reference to "Jehu son of Omri." This reflects a general Oriental usage of father/son terminology. Textual (non-Biblical) evidence reveals that "son" was used at least 12 different ways in the ancient Orient, and "father" was used at least 7 different ways [Ford.Dan, 123; MillS.Dan, 149].
2. Hints of an actual familial relationship, however, provide a more convincing solution to the problem. Indications of such are given by Herodotus, who reports that the queen mother Nitorcris, Nebbie's wife, was the "mother" of Nabodinus [Town.Dan, 70] - perhaps meaning by this, the mother-in-law.
   The realization of this kind of relationship, or something similar, is being slowly adapted even by liberal critics. Oriental monarchs who were usurpers commonly tried to legitimate their claim to the throne by marrying their predecessor's wife or daughter [Bout.IABD, 116]. This may be indicated in the case at hand by the fact that Nabodinus named one of his sons after Nebbie. Furthermore, one of Nabodinus' predecessors, Neriglissar, himself married one of Nebbie's daughters, so there would be a precedent for Nabodinus to follow.
   In light of the above, it may be suggested that Daniel shows a polemical awareness of such an attempt to legitimate the rule of Nabodinus. The repeated emphasis upon the father/son relationship of Nebbie and Belzy serves to highlight the fact that Belzy is decidedly UNlike his "father" Nebbie - he is, by comparison, grossly incompetent, sensual, worthless, and ignorant of the power of the true God. A very thin blood relationship may have been exaggerated, or even created out of whole cloth by the usurpers [see Meadw.ADGD, 64], to perpetrate the fiction that Nabodinus and Belzy were legitimate heirs of the throne - and Daniel may well be reflecting this exaggeration/court fiction in his own polemical manner. (Note especially the implication that the queen mother was NOT invited to the banquet, and that Daniel was no longer a recognized wise man - which would fit in with the idea of a usurper "cleaning house" for his own protection, and a polemical response by Daniel!) [see esp. Fewe.CSov, 82, 91-2]

Moreover, the very mention of Belshazzar is proof of an early date for Daniel. Recall, again, that it was once argued that Belshazzar never existed! Here is why, according to Archer [ibid.]:

The fact that by the time of Herodotus (ca 450 B.C.) the very name of Belshazzar had been forgotten, at least so far as the informants of the Greek historian were concerned, indicates far closer acquaintance with the events of the late sixth century on the part of Daniel than would have been the case by the second century B.C.​

Archer goes on to explain that the writer of Daniel 5:16 can only promise Daniel to be 3rd ruler in the kingdom is proof of the book's veracity. Why could he not promise #2? Because Belshazzar was #2 as long as his father was still alive!

Baldwin [Bald.Dan, 22-3] adds these words, in line with what has been said above, and serves as a summary:

Five times in chapter 5 Nebuchadrezzar is referred to as his father, and Belshazzar is called his son (5:22). The assumption has often been made that the author's knowledge was so defective that he thought Belshazzar was literally son of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas we know that his father was Nabodinus, son of a Babylonian nobleman, Nabu-alatsu-iqbi. It needs to be borne in mind that the terms 'father' and 'son' are used figuratively in the Old Testament. Elisha called Elijah 'my father' (2 Kings 2:12); 'sons of the prophets' were their disciples, and there is some evidence that outstanding kings gave their name to successors who were not of their dynasty. There is in Esdras 3:7, 4:42 an interesting example of a king bestowing as a prize the honour of being called his kinsman, or cousin. Nevertheless the constant repetition of the father-son theme in Daniel appears to imply more, as though the legitimacy of the king might have been under attack. ​

Baldwin goes on to explain, too, that Belshazzar could be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar (a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar could have carried Belshazzar's father, thus making it very literal)."

http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Zakuska]

The problem is... King Nebby never went insane for seven years... Nibonidus did. So the Father son relationship really doesn't explain anything.

 

[woobadooba]

The problem is... King Nebby never went insane for seven years... Nibonidus did. So the Father son relationship really doesn't explain anything.

Are you asking a question, or debating what you believe to be a fact?

Read this please:

"Hysteria VII: Mad Nebbie! [FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]
A choice subject for skeptical derision is the account of Nebbie's madness in Daniel 4. Callahan [Call.BPFF, 152, 164] offers the most comprehensive objection, stating that the "grasping, fratricidal princes of Chaldea would have put Nebuchadnezzar to death if he had shown any sign of weakness" - citing as evidence the series of assassinations that followed Nebbie's death. In response we may note:

1. Of course, one could then ask why these "grasping" princes did not make some efforts to take the throne while Nebbie was out on extended holiday beating up on foreign kingdoms! Even so, Callahan exaggerates badly: There were only two assassinations, and one of them was of the child-king Labashi-Marduk - a pretty tempting target for power-hungry adults, whether they are "grasping" or not! (Also, killing Nebbie would have solved nothing for a grasping usurper: Evil-Merodach, Nebbie's son, offered a quite clear line of succession!)
2. Here again Callahan displays a profound lack of familiarity with the socio-historical context of the event in question. The insane, unlike today, were thought to have been touched by the gods [Luck.Dan, 64], and kings themselves were already regarded as "the receptor par excellence for oracles." [Lacq.Dan, 37] Those Chaldean graspers would no more dare to harm Nebbie than they would dare to spit in the face of their god Merodach! A "mad king" might well have been seen as a blessing to be cherished and protected at all costs!

On the other hand, is there any positive evidence for such an affliction to Nebbie? Commonly cited is a testimony from the historian Megasthenes [Will.JFK, 49], who reported that shortly before he disappeared, Nebbie was possessed of a spirit and uttered a prophecy against Babylon. While this is sometimes dismissed as legendary in character [Porte.Dan, 71], we may at least derive from it that there was some historical precedent for the idea that Nebbie had some psychological difficulties. More directly, a cuneiform text provides some support for the historicity of this episode, as it "apparently refers to some mental disorder on Nebuchadnezzar's part, and perhaps to his neglecting and leaving Babylon." [Gold.Dan, 83] The balance of this evidence points towards historicity. (Josephus also affirms this madness by Nebbie; another Skeptic handles this by simply saying that both Daniel and Josephus are wrong!)
Finally, it is worth asking, can we fit this madness into the chronology of Nebbie's life? Some say yes [Bald.Dan, 108]; others say no [DilHart.BDan, 51, 178] - though we have yet to see the nay-sayers produce a chronology as a demonstration! At any rate, it should be pointed out that the specific chronological term used, iddanin, is rather vague - it is commonly translated "years," but could mean "seasons" - and thus may reflect not a seven-year period, but a period of as little as two and a half or one and three-quarters years. [Bald.Dan, 112; Gold.Dan, 81n] This should be kept in mind if anyone does care to offer a proposed chronology."

http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[neenee]

As a Christian who's had to grow into their faith over the years I've really had to reassert my view of how much I want to take the bible literally. Some people see believing the bible literally as "faith" when really that's not the case. For me the bible is a collection of writings of ancient peoples on their experience of God who is an amazing and powerful force. For people who had no concept of how old the earth was or anything of that sort they were doing their best to explain it and include the powerful force of God in this explaination. I can't personally believe that the entire human race started with 2 people or that the earth was created in 7 days but that doesn't mean that I don't see God in the creation of this universe. Evolution is an amazing intricate and confusing process that we still don't understand and I think that as Christians instead of being scared of science we should start seeing God's genius in things that challenge us.

Maybe it would help you to read the bible as a book filled with people's love for God. Its a chance to see Jesus through the eyes of people who were there.

 

[Stinker]

Is that Noah's Ark up there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat_anomaly

 

[Calminian]

Hi neenee. I'd like to challenge you on this, but this forum might not be the best venue. I'll just comment briefly, but we may want to move it to General Apologetics for a deeper discussion.

....I can't personally believe that the entire human race started with 2 people or that the earth was created in 7 days but that doesn't mean that I don't see God in the creation of this universe.

Creationist acknowledge there are christians who believe God used only natural processes to create the universe. They simply argue that Genesis conveys that God used supernatural processes (miracles), something beyond the scope of strict scientific investigation.

Evolution is an amazing intricate and confusing process that we still don't understand and I think that as Christians instead of being scared of science we should start seeing God's genius in things that challenge us.

Creationists are by no means "scared" of science. We merely see if for what it is—a method of investigation based on philosophical naturalistic assumptions—assumptions not proven by science itself. In fact it could be said that indeed many christians are "afraid" of the concept of miracles being that they cannot be verified or falsified by science.

At any rate, and open invitation if you want to peruse the subject of science and miracles in another forum.

 

[The Virginian]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?...
But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?....

You seem to be very interested in scientific facts, but have neglected to include one of the more puzzling scientific discoveries the Scriptures ever mentions.

The nation of Israel was in a protracted battle, and needed the light of the sun to press on to victory. Joshua besought the Lord God for help, and prayed. The answer to his prayers was that the shadow of the light on the steps stood still for a time. Chronologists have studied the times of the years very minutely, and found that a certain segment of time was missing. That is, it was missing until they went back to the story just mentioned in the Scriptures, and did their calculations to find the missing piece of their time puzzle!

The record of the Holy Bible is not intended to be a book of this or that, field of scientific study. First and foremost, Scripture is a record of the self-revelation of Almighty God, and His relationship with creation, and in particular, human beings!

In your reading of Scripture, did you notice that not a single person, ever came to know God through their academic efforts. And yet, more than a few of them were men and women of great intellect, and wisdom!

My learning will never be the standard by which I can approach, and please God Almighty. And yet; the Great Schema tells me that I am to "...love the Lord thy God with all thy.....mind, and to love thy neighbor as thyself." The imperative here is love. Elsewhere in the Scriptures while it does not speak about verifiable things, God says, "...but My righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him." That is the great need of all our lives, to be pleasing unto God Almighty, according to His standards. The avocation of our existence matters little in this regard, as is clearly seen in the scriptural record, of the people through whom God works: shepherds, farmers, kings and queens, fishermen, leaders in the textile industry, world class orators and philosophers. Abraham was set to kill at the time, his only son through whom God had promised to bring forth a nation, because God asked him to do so. This is what God Himself did , for as the record shows the Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world. But of Abraham's obedience Paul says "...it was counted unto hin for righteous-
nesss..."

Again, the Scripture record is first and foremest a record of the self-revelation of God. Not even those worthies who were closest to God -Enoch, Methusela,
Abraham, MosesDavid, St.John (the beloved Apostle, or St. Paul, ever came to the place next to God they enjoyed, by scientific investigation. However,; where the Scriptures speak of such things while God reveals himself, they are accurate, as the instance of the scientists investigating chronological time indicates.

 

[seebs]

The earliest example of this was the debate over geocentrism in the middle ages. In fact, we have one or two geocentrists at CF, today! They continue to assert that the plain language of the Bible is correct and literal, and that the sun moves around the earth.

In the 19th century, geologists (all devout Christians, at the time) admitted that they had, in essence, disproved the Deluge; that they simply could not reconcile the claim of a worldwide flood with the observed evidence.

Reactions against this from laymen (and I speak here of scientific, rather than theological, laymen) were fierce, and the notion that the Bible trumps science was brought out as a way of defending particular interpretive techniques against mounting evidence that they were simply indefensible.

Modern literalism, as we see it in the US, is actually moderately ahistorical; it is not really found in pre-Enlightenment Christianity, because it really depends on conceptions of what "truth" is which didn't exist in Biblical times.