The Bibble - (Inerrant, Dammit!) Part Deux
31 October 2005 by Rockstar RyanXian blogger David Heddle took issue with my recent deconstruction of his statement I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
So he came onto your Rockstar’s own blog to brilliantly refute the evidence presented. At least, that’s what he thought…
At least try a challenge that is not stupid. I mean, people have been asking those questions for two thousand years, and you present them as if your deep research has revealed them as insoluble difficulties. Do you expect Tertullian, or Augustine, or Aquinas, or Luther, or Calvin, or Jonathan Edwards, were they alive to respond “the genealogies differ! Brother, I never noticed! How could I be so blind! There is no explanation for that! I recant! Rockstar, you da man?”
Likewise for your other objections. Try to be a bit original. There are some really difficult “contradictions.” Do some research and find them. Otherwise you look as stupid as someone going to Myer’s blog or Panda’s Thumb and thinking they can stop everyone in their tracks by asking “what good is half an eye?”
I guess Mr. Heddle missed my GifS post on logic. In those two paragraphs, he commits several fallacious arguments:
At least try a challenge that is not stupid.
Ad Hominem: Insulting me and my argument without backing it up.
I mean, people have been asking those questions for two thousand years, and you present them as if your deep research has revealed them as insoluble difficulties. Do you expect Tertullian, or Augustine, or Aquinas, or Luther, or Calvin, or Jonathan Edwards, were they alive to respond “the genealogies differ!
Argument from Age, Appeal to Authority: So people believe in something for 2000 years. And they are experts on Xianity. That doesn’t make it any more right.
Do some research and find them.
Burden of Proof: It’s your claim, dude. You back it up - I’m not going to do it for you.
Otherwise you look as stupid as someone going to Myer’s blog or Panda’s Thumb and thinking they can stop everyone in their tracks by asking “what good is half an eye?
Red Herring (Changing the Subject): That’s all he has left - go back to generalizing me with those “evilutionists”.
No, David. You answer my questions:
1) Why are there 2 genealogies for Jeebus? If he’s immaculately conceived, why do we even need one? (thanks Sean!)
2) What were the “last” words of Jeebus? There’s 4 different answers in your inerrant bibble.
Thank yoooooooooo…
31 October 2005, on 12:45 pm
and some other questions:
if the bible is inerrant and not inconsistent with science:
why does it say that bats are birds?
how does a man survive in the “belly of a great fish” for 3 days without fresh water or oxygen?
why does the bible have the earth being created before the stars and birds and whales beforereptiles and insects?
why does the bible say that hares and rabbits chew their cud?
where are the dragons and unicorns mentioned in the bible?
there are just so many more I could ask…
31 October 2005, on 12:47 pm
Since I did the original article for GifS, I figured I’d post David’s response here:
1) Because one gives a legal genealogy through Joseph, the other is a blood genealogy through Mary.
2) IF you did any research at all, you would know that quoting someone’s words means different things at different times and in different cultures. In our time and our culture it usually means exactly what the person said, word for word. In other times and other cultures it means faithfully recording the content and gist of the words.
In fact, even today, in the west, we still practice a form of changing the words but staying faithful to the content. We clarify quotes by inserting words in square brackets, e.g. “Just because my sentator [Byrd of West Virginia] was in the KKK and he [George Bush] was not is irrelevant.”
Like I said, there are some tough puzzles in the bible. Maybe you need some help in locating them?
Meh. I’ve done this before.
1) Wrong. They both end with Joe. Joe’s dad isn’t even the same. One is 28 generations, the other 43. That’d make one 300 years older than the other. Maybe you should read the book again.
2) Translation: it’s ok to make things up. Because if you’re not quoting them, that’s what you are doing. Sounds right to me since the bibble is made up nonsense anyway. Good retort, David. BTW - I fail to see the correlation between noting who said something or clarifying whom the speaker was referring to (in the earlier, non-published part of the quote) and making things up.
Like I said, there are some tough puzzles in the bible. Maybe you need some help in locating them?
Might wanna work on the 2 I gave you. You’re not doing a very good job dude.
31 October 2005, on 3:30 pm
The bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, etc. are all resolved by looking at the Hebrew. But of course to you geniuses scholarly efforts, like understanding how 1st century Palestinian writers used quotes, and understanding how the Hebrew and Greek might have been mistranslated, is “cheating.” To you demigods of exegesis, the bible’s inerrancy must be defended in a translated language and through the lens of 21st century western customs. Well guess what, customs change and the translations into English contain errors.
As for the genealogies, the one in Luke is through Mary. As a patriarchical society, it still would have started with Joseph. This is what I mean by stupid: Since people have been studying the New Testament for two millennia, if I were in your position I would think—hmm surely someone else has noticed that the genealogies are completely (apart from a couple names) different and both terminate on Joseph. Before I declare an “I gotcha”, and so I don’t look dumb, I’ll do a little research to see what explanations have arisen over the last two thousand years.
Like I said elsewhere, it is on the same intellectual level as going to Panda’s Thumb and asking, with an air of superiority, “What good is half an eye.?” The people who do that are your intellectual peers.
Once again, you are pointing out only the alleged errors every other two-bit moron points out. (I’m waiting for the one about Pi being 3, that’s my fav, and surely an irrefutable proof that the bible is full of errors!)
Just to give you a flavor of a real problem, we have
Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was officer over the treasures. (1 Chron. 26:24)
But Shebuel is of the time of David, and yet Gershom is a true next-generation son of Moses (Ex. 2:22). Thus there are 400+ years between Gershom and his “son” Shebuel.
That one I do not know the explanation of. The ones you bring up ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
My favorite scientific error in the bible was when Einstein said our universe had no beginning, but scripture said it did! Foolish Christians! The bible vs. Einstein! What a joke! Oh, but wait…
31 October 2005, on 5:52 pm
Hi,
In response to David Heddle’s points…..
1) This claim has been refuted before on other webites I have read. Hebrew geneologies are only given from the male side, not female.
2) As far as Jeebus last words are concerned, there are 4 descriptions of the death of Jeebus in the Bible and none of them support the others in their details. That is, you can’t even make a coherent story of the event by combining the decriptions together!
Right from the start of Genesis through to the end of Revelations the Bible is chock full of errors, inconsistancies and conundrums. I wonder if many Xtians who “read” the Bible miss this stuff because they read it in bits and pieces from those “daily” Bible reading booklets that tell them what they should be reading and how to understand what they read so it doesn’t conflict with other bits in the Bible.
As far as an answer of different cultures and therefore different meanings goes…..If you read up on what Hebrew culture was like 2000 years ago you would have even more problems with what is written in the New Testament. For example, in a marraige ceremony the groom was responsible for providing the wine. In Jeebus 1st described miracle of changing water to wine, at a wedding (for which the Bible is silent on whose wedding it is), Jeebus mother says he’s responsible for providing the wine.
Another problem with the “different culture” arguement is that if gawd is omnipotent/omnicient as claimed by xtians then when he inspired the writers to write the bible he could have had them write it in such a way that when translated it would be perfectly understandable through all translations (or he could have inspired all transaltions to be relevant to the times the translations were made in) but the bible is not.
So that begs the question….why are you trying to follow “cultural rules” in a book that really has nothing to do with our culture today?
Randy
1 November 2005, on 9:16 am
But of course to you geniuses scholarly efforts, like understanding how 1st century Palestinian writers used quotes, and understanding how the Hebrew and Greek might have been mistranslated, is “cheating.”
Yawn. Xian apologetics. Shouldn’t gawd’s word transcend language?
To you demigods of exegesis, the bible’s inerrancy must be defended in a translated language and through the lens of 21st century western customs. Well guess what, customs change and the translations into English contain errors.
Shouldn’t gawd’s word transcend age? Meh, all opinion anyway. Time to back up what we say:
As for the genealogies, the one in Luke is through Mary. As a patriarchical society, it still would have started with Joseph.
I’m sure you have evidence for this, being so educated in ancient cultures. You have yet to answer the question. This time WITH EVIDENCE -
1) Why are there 2 genealogies for Jeebus? If he’s immaculately conceived, why do we even need one? (thanks Sean!)
2) What were the “last” words of Jeebus? There’s 4 different answers in your inerrant bibble.
Answer my questions with evidence, not your brilliant summaries, or go away. You’re in over your head, David.
p.s. I’m sure you’re chomping at the bit over the pi thing. I’ve read all the apologetics. Again, why doesn’t gawd’s word transcend language?
1 November 2005, on 9:45 am
My favorite scientific error in the bible was when Einstein said our universe had no beginning, but scripture said it did! Foolish Christians! The bible vs. Einstein! What a joke! Oh, but wait…
And what the hell are you trying to say here?
1 November 2005, on 11:23 am
I thought most Christians took the Bible (current translations) as an inerrant source of their doctrine. So, you’re basically saying they’re all idiots that don’t do their homework.
Truth is, if they did actually read, study & investigate the origins, reworkings & mistranslations of their “scripture”, they’d be devistated… as I was…
1 November 2005, on 11:52 am
The whole point of my article is to show how obtuse David’s statement was.
Here are the important points thus far:
David: An inerrant Bible is compatible with science.
Rockstar: But what about these contradictions?
David: You haven’t done your research. Yes the Bible says these things, but they are not translated right/interpreted right/understood by our modern culture/other various apologetics.
Rockstar: But you said the Bible is inerrant and compatible with science. Why is it still wrong?
David: ARRRGGHHH! You atheists just don’t understand! You think you’re the first one to notice this!? You know that (insert old Xian here) knew that too, and came up with an explanation for it!
Rockstar: David, it’s real easy. Just admit you were wrong and change your statement to this: ‘The Bible, according to someone else’s translation from the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek*, my or someone else’s interpretation of ancient cultures, my or someone else’s interpretation of what the author meant, and my or someone else’s opinion of what the author thought someone said while not quoting them word for word is inerrant and compatible with science when viewed through a 1st century lens. But the Bible written in English is wrong, even though 99.9% of American Xians, including myself, base/based their faith on it’.
If you do that, this argument is over and I’ll agree with you. All your bibble is belong to you. I anticipate your response…
*if David is fluent in reading and writing ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek I apologize. I assume it’s not the case, however.
2 November 2005, on 7:19 am
I read Hebrew (I’m Israeli) and I’m sorry to disappoint the “it’s in the translation!” guys, but the errors in the Old Testament (like the claim that rabbits chew their cud) are still there in the original…
2 November 2005, on 9:28 am
…quoting someone’s words means different things at different times and in different cultures. In our time and our culture it usually means exactly what the person said, word for word. In other times and other cultures it means faithfully recording the content and gist of the words…like understanding how 1st century Palestinian writers used quotes, and understanding how the Hebrew and Greek might have been mistranslated…the bible’s inerrancy must be defended in a translated language and through the lens of 21st century western customs…people have been studying the New Testament for two millennia…
Just wanted to post all the quotes I used to PWNED!!11!1eleven!!1 this dude. Everyone: this is how you argue a Xian into the ground
2 November 2005, on 12:38 pm
“Truth is, if they did actually read, study & investigate the origins, reworkings & mistranslations of their “scripture”, they’d be devistated… as I was… ”
Which is EXACTLY why there is such an anti-intellectual stance in plenty of ID/Evolution “arguments”. If they encouraged their own people to read and learn - they would leave the faith. Like I did. I studied Xtianity and Judaism (each with their respective holy men) for a total of seven years. At the end it was undeniably clear that it was all bullshit.
Google it. The more money and education you have, the more likely you are to not be religious.
2 November 2005, on 7:12 pm
Another science contradiction involves the tale of the great flood. Scientifically, to dump all that water (enough to cover the tip of mount everest) within a 40 day timespan would have heated the surface of the earth to over 1500 degrees Celsius. This figure was calculated by Dr. Marty Leipzig using using the Stefan-Boltzman 4′th power law.
Now, having a surface of the Earth at 1500 Celsius by the 40th day would be BAD NEWS considering that at only 100 Celsius, water begins to BOIL and VAPORIZE, and human beings will die when exposed for long periods of time to teperatures at less than half that amount.
Of course theres about 1000 other scientific problems with the flood, but this one is an easy one. So what exactly is SCIENTIFIC about the global flood in the Bible? The only way that God could have gotten the flood to work, and the water to stay liquid, and for Noahs family to stay alive, is through SUPERNATURAL means, which, by definition, are NOT scientific. They are beyond natural.
If you want to make the Bible compatible with science, you cannot ignore the problems that Dr. Marty Leipzig brought up in the flood story. If ya wanna see all of it, look here: http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
Im curious as to how many Christian apologetics were even aware of the Stefan-Boltzman law and how it relates to the claim of a global flood in 40 days time?
2 November 2005, on 7:21 pm
OOOOH another problem with the Bible is that the Tower of Babel was not even planned to be higher than the Pyramids of Egypt, yet God smote the Tower builders to prevent the tower from reaching heaven (such a scientific claim indeed). Kind of funny that God didnt stop the Pyramids, which were built BEFORE the Tower of Babel. Whoops!
And then of course we have other, newer, taller towers. Like the Empire State and Sears towers and about 5000 other skyscrapers built in the last 100 years.
Come to think of it, is there ANYTHING scientific about the proposition of all Earths languages being created simultaneously by God because of a little architect project? I bet linguage experts would love to hear the scientific explanation for THAT, especially considering the overwheleming scientific evidence we have that PROVES that ALL languages literally “evolved” over time through cultural changes and geographic isolation and that we can trace these language histories all the way back to an original proto language that far predates Biblical claims of the Tower of Babel incident.
Stupid Christian Apologists. They wouldnt dare admit that their faith is actually “faith” but they think that they can erase the entire “faith” aspect of their superstitious belief by distorting both science and scripture. I thought Christian Apologists, of all people, were supposed to know that the key to their imagined salvation is “faith” or in other words, belief in things without material evidence or logical proof. What are they tryin to do, get a one way pass to Hell by making “faith” a moot point?
7 November 2005, on 10:16 pm
Couple of points:
Why, if the Messiah’s conception was immaculate, does he even need a genealogy?
The genealogies of Christ are written they way they were to show the relation of Jesus to Abraham and David. The reason this is done is because God promises things to the
descendants to Abraham and David in the Old Testament. The phrase “The Son of David” became synonomous with the coming of the Messiah. A similar situation with the phrase “The Son of Abraham.” This was similar to saying that utopia was on its way. It was a part of everday Jewish culture.
How can we trace ancestry through Joseph when he didn’t get to do the deed to conceive Jesus?
Jewish custom at the time. Joseph accepted a pregnant Mary into his home. Also, Joseph complied to God’s will and named the child Jesus. It was also custom that the man who names the child is considered the father.
More detailed information can be found here. http://www.trinitycrc.org/sermons/mt01v01.html
Aaron.
“So what exactly is SCIENTIFIC about the global flood in the Bible?”
Just one off the top of my head, is the fact that Marine fossils have been found on the tops of Mountains. A list of scientific evidence supporting the biblical flood can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.com.
Lyah.
“Which is EXACTLY why there is such an anti-intellectual stance in plenty of ID/Evolution “arguments”. If they encouraged their own people to read and learn - they would leave the faith.”
Not necessarily true and you know it. We all look at the same evidence. We all have the same resources. We all draw different conclusions. Our arguments for or against “Xtianity” are usually not based on evidence but our suppositions and what we conclude from the “facts.”
Aaron again.
“Stupid Christian Apologists. They wouldnt dare admit that their faith is actually “faith” but they think that they can erase the entire “faith” aspect of their superstitious belief by distorting both science and scripture. I thought Christian Apologists, of all people, were supposed to know that the key to their imagined salvation is “faith” or in other words, belief in things without material evidence or logical proof. What are they tryin to do, get a one way pass to Hell by making “faith” a moot point?”
I was an atheist for years. Literally. Years. I operate on logic and reason just as much, if not more so, than the people who frequent this site based on what I’ve read. I HATE it when a “Xtian” says, “Take it on faith.” Cannot stand it. Makes me want to do a flying elbow drop from the top rope. I used to be argumentative and completely, wholly convinced I knew what was right. I used to rant and rave. I used to belittle “Xtians” every chance I got. Then. When I threw another one of my many, many arguments into a “Xtian’s” face, he simply responded, “I don’t know. But we’re gonna find out. Are you up for it?” This floored me. I was ready to fight. I was ready to argue. I was ready to use logic and beat this person about his head. I was not ready to be simply challenged to find out if there were answers to my “arguments.” I could not honestly call myself a responsibly intelligent person if I did not rise to this challenge. Unfortunately, or should I say fortunately here, it turns out there are answers. Answers that any logical, reasoning, OPEN-minded, free-thinking individual can come to.
7 November 2005, on 10:23 pm
Apologeticists do not destroy faith. They confirm it.
8 November 2005, on 1:34 am
I realize that I am a little behind on all the commenting on this thread. I would however, like to pose a question to something Lya said.
Lya, you said:
“The more money and education you have, the more likely you are to not be religious.”
Can you expand on that statement please?
8 November 2005, on 2:17 am
Dena: When you get educated, you often get better jobs, therefore make more money. This is a sad truth of capitalism. We have pointed this out before. We don’t like it, we didn’t invent it, we might even like to change it, but that is the way capitalism usually works. If you are better-educated, you are most likely to be less religious. If you are more successful and have less reason to rely on Jeebus and more likely to rely on yourself for self-enrichment or life-affirmation, you are less likely to rely on a make-believe daddy in the sky to take care of it for you, because you can take care of it for yourself. This is just fact. Study after study has shown this. Read up on it, friend.
We are not creating this reality, nor condoning it, and please stop suggesting every time we point out such hard facts that we are creating them out of thin air to perpetuate our own prejudices. This is the world that already exists. We are just looking at it with eyes wide open. Save your indignation, please, for the people who help perpetuate a world where the ignorant or uneducated are punished for their lack of knowledge. I certainly don’t want to live in a world like that. But I am also sick of taking the punches for those that refuse to wake up and see. READ. PLEASE. I BEG YOU. READ.
When we can all stand up as one against the truly, truly stinking rich, we will all be better off. We aren’t elitists here on GifS any more than you are. But we may be more realistic. I’ve said it before and I will say it again: let’s march together into the future against those who would truly oppress us.
8 November 2005, on 2:21 am
PS: I would just like to add that I am almost entirely self-educated. Being educated is not about degrees… It is about a life-long process of self-enrichment. The autodidact’s knowledge is just as valuable as the knowledge of the formally educated — maybe sometimes even more so. The point is to keep learning, always.
8 November 2005, on 9:25 am
Sean:
I too am self educated. Those of us who don’t rely on the opinions of others may have a better view. There have been so many times I’ve been confronted by some silly first year college student regurgitating what their grad student teacher was bullshitting it made me want to puke. One must typically pull a “Good Will Hunting” every time that happens.
8 November 2005, on 2:36 pm
Steve:
You missed the point of the article. My man David Heddle stated the bibble is inerrant and compatible with science. No amount of apologetics/interpretation is going to deny the fact that, in English, there are many errors that are not compatible with science. This is the bibble that 99% of Xians in the US base their faith on. So folks like you and David apologize/interpret the bibble the way you want and force feed it to the masses, who eagerly await their tales of salvation…
the fact that Marine fossils have been found on the tops of Mountains…
First, “flood geology” is not science. It starts with a conclusion - There was a flood. Real scientists observe THEN conclude. By the way, why would marine fossils found on top of a mountain suggest a flood? Did the bibble say fish die in water? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Answers that any logical, reasoning, OPEN-minded, free-thinking individual can come to.
Ahh, the “open-minded” argument. Meh. Are you open-minded enough to think your religion could be bullshit? If you can’t admit the possibility your ideas could be false, you are the closed-minded one. I freely admit there could be a god/gods. However, it’s existence is just as likely as invisible pink unicorns, ass gnomes, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
8 November 2005, on 6:11 pm
As a geologist I’ve heard this crap about the marine fossils on top of mountains a thousand times and I’m sick of it. You shouldn’t be using this reference if you think sea level hasn’t changed over time… the data is current …it’s happening within recorded history. That’s more than you can prove about your silly Noah story already.
8 November 2005, on 6:29 pm
Back when I was xian I actually attended a creationist science lecture… even then I could easily see that they never close the loop. Closing the loop is critical in order to prove anything. Everything they claim to be science is based on open loops, poor logic, omiting known facts, and (mostly) ignorant “scientists”. Their science practices are not scientific at all.
Futhermore, as a scientist I too can agree that there is the possibility of unknown forces …BUT without any proof they can never be any more than a possibility! I wanna hear just one xian ever consider that the non-existence of gawd is a possibility… that’s more open minded than they can handle!
8 November 2005, on 10:07 pm
I have and still do consider the non-existence of God. However, I do not dub myself as Christian. Webster’s Dictionary says that I am, and so do many people who categorize my belief system, but that’s beside the point.
9 November 2005, on 1:27 am
Dena: You do talk about the divinity of Jesus, though, don’t you? Or am I mixing you up with Sable? Apologies, if I am! What is your belief system? Lay it down for us! Would love to actually know up front rather than being vague about it and not knowing where you stand.
9 November 2005, on 1:30 am
Rockstar said:
I too am self educated. Those of us who don’t rely on the opinions of others may have a better view. There have been so many times I’ve been confronted by some silly first year college student regurgitating what their grad student teacher was bullshitting it made me want to puke. One must typically pull a “Good Will Hunting” every time that happens.
Ha! “Good Will Hunting” has its cliche moments, but I do love the scenes where he rips people a new asshole through sheer logical argument. And the scene where he interviews at the NSA is classic. In fact, I love it so much, I am just going to shamelessly reproduce it here. Hell, why not?
Will Hunting: Why shouldn’t I work for the N.S.A.? That’s a tough one, but I’ll give it a shot. Say I’m working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I’m real happy with myself, ’cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin’, “Send in the marines to secure the area” ’cause they don’t give a shit. It won’t be their kid over there, gettin’ shot. Just like it wasn’t them when their number was called, ’cause they were pullin’ a tour in the National Guard. It’ll be some guy from Southie takin’ shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, ’cause he’ll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain’t helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they’re takin’ their sweet time bringin’ the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain’t too long ’til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy’s out of work and he can’t afford to drive, so he’s got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks ’cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin’ him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he’s starvin’ ’cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they’re servin’ is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I’m holdin’ out for somethin’ better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.
9 November 2005, on 1:32 am
Rockstar said:
All your bibble is belong to you.
Ha! The endless pop-culture spasms of delight on GifS! This site cracks me up.