Thursday 18 April 2013

The Bible: Science or Mythology

While perusing twitter, I stumbled upon a tweet by a buddy of mine, Richard Bushy (@AChristianWord). Richard is an apologist and has a very thorough blog (http://thereforegodexists.com/) with a great many articles on a huge range of theological topics.

Despite myself being an atheist, I enjoy reading Richard's blog. I find many topics he raises interesting. The blog also has dozens of the most common apologetic arguments (some in a modified form); you know, the ones that some heathens love to read and rebut. If you have time, it's worth a look. Then if you want to see how those (or similar arguments) are rebutted, I highly recommend @RosaRubicondior's blog at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com.au/. Equally entertainig and very informative.

Back to the subject. Richard has twitted about an article in his blog. The article claims (amongst other thigns) that the Bible is not a mythology (as atheist would assert) and seeks to give examples of things that the Bible says but which were at the time unknown to men of science. The article doesn't actually demonstrate what was known to the men of science at the time (or who these men of science were).

The article contains a table which tells us about just what scientific wisdom can be found in the Bible, as opposed how primitive the science of the day was. Here's the table for your reference:



It's pamphlets like this one that worry me the most. Believers look at them, assume they are correct and then use them to bolster the strength of their faith in the Bible. It's only atheists who seem to bother to ever actually look for any possible truth behind such claims. I've done that (most of it a while ago) and decided to respond to Richard.

Here's my response (which will also appear in the comments section of Richard's article at http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/04/is-the-bible-a-myth/):


Hi Richard,

Let me at this point just address the blue table you’ve inserted into the article. I have to say it doesn’t at all seem to be correct.

Start with Isaiah (Is 40:22) and the sphere. Isaiah doesn’t use the word “sphere”. It uses the word “Chuwg” (pronounce ‘khoog’). The Hebrew word for sphere is “kadur” and is NOT used by Isaiah’s author. That word “Chuwg” means “circle, circuit, compass” or (in another context) “vault (eg, of the heavens”). It DOES NOT mean “sphere”. It actually means a flat disc. The Earth isn’t a disc. It’s a sphere. Verdict: Mythology.

Move on to Jeremiah 33:22. The text does NOT say that the stars are innumerable. Instead, its says that God will make the children of David as numerable as the stars in the sky. We KNOW that’s impossible. There are billions of billions of stars in the Universe and no earthly tribe can EVER reach such proportions (won’t fit on the planet!). Verdict: Mythology. Unless, of course the text means that there’d be as many children as the VISIBLE stars. But then, it would be only about 2000. Can’t be right either.

Move on to Job 26:7. “He spreads out the empty skies over empty space”. Skies over empty space? Is that scientifically correct? Nope. “He suspends the earth on nothing”. The Earth is not suspended on nothing. The earth is not suspended at all. It travels through spaces at enormous speeds and following a very complex trajectory (given its movement around the Sun, the Sun’s movement around the Galaxy centre etc etc etc). Job is NOT scientifically correct. Verdict: Mythology.

Hebrews 11. The table is equivocating. The verse simply says that God created the visible world. Biblically speaking, there was no visible world before that. It makes no mention of particles (or energy) that are invisible. Verdict: Mythology.

1 Corinthians 15. A literal translation from Greek is “star indeed from star differs in glory” What does it mean to “differ in glory”? What does that have to do with any knowledge about the chemical composition of stars? Nothing, it would seem. Verdict: Mythology.

Job 38:19 “In what direction does light RESIDE and darkness, where is its place?” A literal translation from Hebrew is “Where is the way to the dwelling light?”. The verb used is “shaw-kan’” and it means to dwell or to stay (the OPPOSITE of traveling). This says NOTHING about light moving! Verdict: Mythology.

Job 28:25 “When he made the force of the wind and measured the water with a gauge”. The word used is “Ruwach (pronounce roo’-akh). It means “wind”. Of course wind has “weight” (in the sense that it has force). You can feel it when it blows in your face. While this verse isn’t scientifically incorrect, it’s completely unremarkable. In any event, the bible seems to get this bit correctly. Verdict: Good observation.

Ecc 1. is not about cyclones. It’s just about different directions of wind. Cohelet (or whoever wrote his script) seems to be noticing that that the directions of the wind change. It doesn’t take a miracle to realise this. Even a child can tell that the wind blows in various directions. Do you really think scientists of the day thought that the wind blew straight? Who WERE the scientists of the day? In any event, the bible seems to get this bit correctly. Verdict: Good observation.

Lev 17:11 claims that the source of all life is in the blood. That’s of course complete nonsense. The blood is as necessary for survival as are the lungs, the brain, the nervous system and all the other essential organs. Blood IS NOT the source of life. Verdict: Mythology.

2 Sam 22:16: “The depths of the sea were exposed; the inner regions of the world were uncovered by the Lord’s battle cry, by the powerful breath from his nose”. Not only does this say NOTHING about any mountains at the bottom of the sea, it also makes the TYPICALLY MYTHOLOGICAL claim that there’s a god who has a nose that blows breath. Verdict: Mythology

Jonah 2:6 Here Jonah does say that he went down to the bottom of the mountains. Verdict: Good Observation

Job 38:16 Job indeed says that there are springs in the sea. And it is true that coastal waters can contain sprigns. Verdict: Good Observation

Levicitus 15:13. This doesn’t make any reference to running water. It only says he has to rinse himself with water (some translations add “fresh water” to it but the word “fresh” does not appear on the Hebrew version). What’s more, the verse says that the man must wait until the discharge stops before rinsing his wound. Is that what modern science says? I think not. But let’s move on to the next verses. What’s the man to do afterwards? I quote:

“Then on the eighth day he is to take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and he is to present himself before the Lord at the entrance of the Meeting Tent and give them to the priest, 15 and the priest is to make one of them a sin offering and the other a burnt offering. So the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for his discharge.”

Verdict: Guess what, mythology

Just my two cents
Marty
@Allocutus
 
 
 

21 comments:

  1. Good post.

    I particularly liked the bit about an observation that the wind blows being new science unknown to the Bronze-age people who wrote this stuff.

    I suspect Richards table is one of those things that abound in apologetics like the list of 'historical sources for the historicity of Jesus' which other apologists simply copy but never check, assuming someone else has done the checking, if they are at all bothered about its accuracy rather than about its power to persuade. Like the list of sources, any serious analysis will expose it as just another apologetics fraud which someone made up to mislead people with and which is now misleading other apologists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Rosa, though. I actually think the opposite. Any attempt to honestly research these passages will reveal that the Bible really teaches them. When I say honestly research, I do not mean go through each one trying to find some way to refute it. I mean looking at them to see what is being taught with no presuppositions.

      Now it should also be noted that If I were trying to mislead you, I would not advice that. I would do everything to avoid people doing an honest analysis. So I do not know why you have to make everything into a personal attack, Rosa. You are so difficult to have a conversation with. Every single conversation that I have had with you ended with you refusing to answer what was being brought up, and just sort of calling me "dishonest." A good example would be in our dialogue in the comments of your post, "Pity The Poor Apologists" http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2013/02/pity-poor-apologists.html

      I think you are a great writer and blogger. But I do not know why you have to turn every discussion into a personal attack. I really do not mean to be hostile or anything like that, so I do not know why you have to.

      Delete
    2. Okay, I just looked over that dialogue again and I see that I accused you of lying. So I am probably to blame for the hostility. I apologize.

      Delete
    3. Rosa's common tactic is basically just to call Christian liars. The ad hominem fallacy is his or her favorite fallacy. Just call your debate opponent a liar and that gets you out of the hard work of having to refute their argument.

      Delete
    4. Evan.

      I'm sorry you felt unable to use honesty in your response and needed to do what you are falsely accusing me of doing. I believe this is called 'bearing false witness' and is usually taken to indicate the bearer doesn't believe what he wishes other people to believe.

      Delete
    5. Richard,

      Just a word on "presuppositions". Are you willing to read the Bible as just another work of an ancient religion, consider it objectively and THEN decide whether and to what extent it's reliable? I dare say you're not. You're PRESUMING that the Bible is correct and then attempting to defend it at all costs.

      I personally do NOT assume that the Bible is bunk. I've actually agreed that a number of its verses are good observations and it does contain useful tips (if so very few) for living.

      But I do reject any claim that the Bible is infallible or that it's the word of a god. There's no basis to make such a claim at all. I say this with a fairly thourough knowledge of the Bible, its historical context and textual analysis issues.

      In order to conduct our search for the truth honestly, we have to appraoch the collection of books as we would any other; as just another mythology. There's no reason to presume outright that this one happens to be correct. That would be dishonest. Then, if I see a natural explanation of something that the Bible claims, I will OF COURSE prefer that explanation to any supernatural alternatives. Any other approach would mean that we have to (if we are to be honest) believe in every single of the world's religions and superstitions (or NEARLY every one).

      @Allocutus

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. "I'm sorry you felt unable to use honesty in your response and needed to do what you are falsely accusing me of doing." All you ever do Rosa, is call your opponent dishonest (instead of addressing their argument. You rebutted me by calling me dishonest. I find it hilarious that instead of refuting me, you actually proved my point. lol

      Delete
  2. "There are billions of billions of stars in the Universe and no earthly tribe can EVER reach such proportions (won’t fit on the planet!)." -- The text is clearly speaking in hyperbolic language. I'm not sure that this is meant to be taken so strictly literal. Just as when someone says "It'll take you forever to get your license renewed at the DMV" He doesn't mean that you're literally going to wait an infinitely long amount of time (an eternity). The language he uses is hyperbolic. Literally speaking, the persons means you might have to wait 2 or 3 hours (yes, that example came from one of my own experiences).

    Hebrews 11:3 is citing Big Bang cosmology. Everything we can see/detect (Matter, energy, space and time) came from that we cannot see/detect (God a.k.a the causal agent transcending space and time). Yes, we can't see atoms, electrons, protons, etc. with the naked eye, but those things do make up the things we can see. So therefore, they should be included in that biblical passage. “EVERYTHING we can see came from that which we cannot see”

    “1 Corinthians 15. A literal translation from Greek is “star indeed from star differs in glory” What does it mean to “differ in glory”? --- I’m surprised that you should even say such a thing. Astronomers have observed different stars throughout our galaxy and found that they’re not all the same. Some are bigger than others, some are different types of stars (neutron stars, white dwarf binarys, Red Giants, brown dwarfs, main sequence stars, etc.)

    Now for your objection on Job 26:7 “he earth is not suspended at all. It travels through spaces at enormous speeds and following a very complex trajectory” – As far as I know, only the NIV translates the Hebrew word there as “Suspends”. “Suspends” does not mean in this sense “Not moving”. Most translations render the word “hangs” such as the NLT, ESV, NASB, ERV, and many others. “God stretches the northern sky over empty space and HANGS the earth on nothing.” That is, the planet Earth is not hanging on anything like a chandelier hangs on someone’s ceiling. What’s important to remember about Job, is that it’s written in a poetic style. We must use discernment and try to the best of our ability to figure out how much of the language used should be taken literally or as a poetic description of something. Or you could interpret that as saying that “God suspends the Earth on nothing”, that is, The Bible is saying the Earth is not suspended at all. The Earth is moving through space.

    Job 38:19 – Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has interpreted the part about going to the place where Darkness resides (“and darkness, where is its place?”) as being about the dark energy on the surface on the universe, which is the force that’s been causing the universe to expand for the last 14 billion years. As for the light “dwelling” (i.e not traveling) Could that not be interpreted to mean the light SOURCE is not traveling? Star LIGHT for example travels, but the star stays in place. Light from a flashlight travels but the flashlight itself stays in my hand and doesn’t go anywhere.

    I agree with your commentary on Job 28:25. I also agree with your commentary on Ecc 1. Although I do think The Bible described a lot of what scientists are now discovering (such as Big Bang cosmology and the exact order of the events during creation  http://www.rareuniverse.org/timeline.html#.UT1eYDE5P4U.blogger ) Sometimes Christians do go a little bit overboard and start reading things into the text.

    Lev 17:11 – smh. Go back and read it again. It doesn’t say ALL life is in the blood, it just says life is in the blood. Once again, The Bible didn’t err. The skeptic did. Moreover, this could merely be referring to spiritual life. As one other Bible verse says, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (specifically Christ’s blood). There's a link to a commentary I'd like to share with you, but the site won't let me post it.

    I don’t have time to rebut the rest. I’m already late for lunch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Evan and thanks for your comments,

      Let me reply to them one by one.

      "The text is clearly speaking in hyperbolic language. I'm not sure that this is meant to be taken so strictly literal. Just as when someone says "It'll take you forever to get your license renewed at the DMV" He doesn't mean that you're literally going to wait an infinitely long amount of time (an eternity). The language he uses is hyperbolic. Literally speaking, the persons means you might have to wait 2 or 3 hours (yes, that example came from one of my own experiences)."

      The text is a prophecy that the tribe of David will be very numerous.The text says NOTHING about there being innumereable stars in the Universe (contrary to the claim that Richard's source presented in the blue table).There's nothing scientifically remarkable about the text of this verse.

      "Hebrews 11:3 is citing Big Bang cosmology. Everything we can see/detect (Matter, energy, space and time) came from that we cannot see/detect (God a.k.a the causal agent transcending space and time). "

      The text says that God created the visible world. Forget atoms, matter, space and time. The Hebrew mythology was that God (invisible) existed and created the visible world. The text is consistent with that mythology. There's NOTHING of scientific remarkability in the text.

      "I’m surprised that you should even say such a thing. Astronomers have observed different stars throughout our galaxy and found that they’re not all the same. Some are bigger than others, some are different types of stars (neutron stars, white dwarf binarys, Red Giants, brown dwarfs, main sequence stars, etc.)"

      What's there to be surprised about? I didn't immediately realise (when reading the Greek text) that "in its glory" refers to "in its brightness". But here's the snag: stars APPEAR to be of different brightness. Paul(the author of Corinthianas and no astronomer, to be sure) obviously thought that they all looked to be of different brightnss. I also think that they appear to be of different brightness. ANY CHILD can see that there are brigther stars and dimmer stars. This is UNREMARKABLE. But ok, I'll change the verdict from "Mythology" to "Good observation". Thanks for this comment :)


      "As far as I know, only the NIV translates the Hebrew word there as “Suspends”. “Suspends” does not mean in this sense “Not moving”. Most translations render the word “hangs” such as the NLT, ESV, NASB, ERV, and many others. “God stretches the northern sky over empty space and HANGS the earth on nothing.” That is, the planet Earth is not hanging on anything like a chandelier hangs on someone’s ceiling. What’s important to remember about Job, is that it’s written in a poetic style. We must use discernment and try to the best of our ability to figure out how much of the language used should be taken literally or as a poetic description of something. Or you could interpret that as saying that “God suspends the Earth on nothing”, that is, The Bible is saying the Earth is not suspended at all. The Earth is moving through space."

      Here's the problem. Apologists take a text that says (incorrectly) that the Earth HANGS. They then claim that the text doesn't mean what it says and instead that it means something that's consistent with modern science. That's ad hoc interpretation. It's fallacious. I agree with you that the text MIGHT be poetic and MIGHT mean "the earth travels through space". But you can't demonstrate that that was the intend of the writers. There's no evidence for that. Quite simply, there's NO EVIDENCE that the writers knew anything scientific about the solar system. My verdict on this one remains: Mythology

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "Job 38:19 – Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has interpreted the part about going to the place where Darkness resides (“and darkness, where is its place?”) as being about the dark energy on the surface on the universe, which is the force that’s been causing the universe to expand for the last 14 billion years. As for the light “dwelling” (i.e not traveling) Could that not be interpreted to mean the light SOURCE is not traveling? Star LIGHT for example travels, but the star stays in place. Light from a flashlight travels but the flashlight itself stays in my hand and doesn’t go anywhere."

      I'm not really concerin about how Ross interpreted it. He must have been a Christian (or Judaist), desperately looking for confirmation of the Bible. The texst CLEARLY asks where is the way to the place where light resides. It does not say anything about dark matter or dark energy. The verse is simple and quite primitive (and mythological) in nature. You're now being like muslim apologists who claim that "he stuck the mountain into the ground like a peg" in the Quran is scientific evidence of Quran's truth because "mountains are shake like pegs". Sorry, no cake. Verdict remains on this one: Mythology

      "I agree with your commentary on Job 28:25. I also agree with your commentary on Ecc 1. Although I do think The Bible described a lot of what scientists are now discovering (such as Big Bang cosmology and the exact order of the events during creation  http://www.rareuniverse.org/timeline.html#.UT1eYDE5P4U.blogger ) Sometimes Christians do go a little bit overboard and start reading things into the text."

      I'm glad we agree on something :)

      "Lev 17:11 – smh. Go back and read it again. It doesn’t say ALL life is in the blood, it just says life is in the blood. Once again, The Bible didn’t err. The skeptic did. Moreover, this could merely be referring to spiritual life. As one other Bible verse says, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (specifically Christ’s blood). There's a link to a commentary I'd like to share with you, but the site won't let me post it."

      I QUTOE FROM Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh IS in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it IS the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ (emphasis is original as per NKJV)

      I did not misunderstand Leviticus. The verse claims that the body's life is IN THE BLOOD. It's clear and plain and in black and white. Now, you're suggesting that the meaning might be spiritual. But if that's so then THERE'S NO SCIENCE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE (and the author of the blue table is wrong). See what I mean?

      Delete
    4. Some corrections (typos):

      I'm not really "CONCERNED" (not "concerin" - whatever that means)
      Mountains are "SHAPED" (not "shake") like pegs.

      Delete
  3. @Rosa The Christ Myth is nonsense. Please talk to a scholar of ancient history. Any scholar of ancient history. From Craig Evans to Bart Ehrman. You'll find as many scholars who believe in The Christ Myth as there are scientists who believe in the flat earth. It's nothing more than a silly conspiracy theory that's infected the internet. It's literally laughed at in scholarly circles. I suggest picking up a copy of JP Holding’s book “Shattering The Christ Myth”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, you'd be very surprised to hear that there's quite a lot of merit in the Christ Myth theory. I'm not sure about Rosa but I'm certainly familiar with Ehrman (I've read no less than four of his books and have much respect for the man; but evidently he lost it when writing "Did Jesus Exist?"). I'm also familiar with the way he haphazardly responded to mythicist claims in his book "Did Jesus Exist?". The mythisits have written a book in rebuttal, entitled "Barth Ehrman and the Quest for the Historical Jesus of Nazareth" (by Zindler and Price). In it, you can find copies of Zindler's correspondence with Ehrman. Zindler writes emails to Ehrman, proposing particular issues (valid ones). Ehrman responds to him with a pompous "you're not a scholar, you don't know what you're talking about" ad hominem. Very patronizing and rude. But that's not important. What IS important is that Ehrman FAILS TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE ISSUES.

      As for "Did Jesus Exist?", Ehrman's entire work relies on Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam and completely misses the mark. Ehrman does not (I reapat, DOES NOT) rebut any of the mythicist claims.

      In fact, you'll struggle to find a single historian who actually does provide evidence for Christ's existence. Instead, you'll invariably find that they refer to other historians, who refer to other historians, all saying "everyone agrees that Jesus existed".

      Would you like to have a debate about this one? 1v1, just you and me. We can argue about the actual merits of the case for the existence of a historical Jesus.

      I personally don't say Jesus didn't exist. But the evidence, if at all reliable, is extremely weak. If jesus DID exist, he was most likely a small-time, small-town preacher with a tiny following. Ehrman (who, formerly a devout Christian, became an agnostic since being a scholar, though claims that this change is attributable to the Argument of Evil) doesn't take Christ any higher than that.

      Delete
    2. I find the best way to determine whether something it true or not is to look at the evidence. In the case of the accuracy of the Bible as a biography of Jesus there isn't any. In that case, of course, the intellectually honest position is to acknowledge that fact and admit that the claim is unproven and thus fails by default.

      Appeals to authorities, who are almost invariably basing their authority on appeals to other authorities, none of which have any factual basis for their opinions, is simply a device for making oneself feel good about having evidence-free opinions by blaming other people for them.

      This is probably why religions and theology are so detached from reality that they need to urge their followers to use 'faith' and extol the virtue of this psychological device for self-deception, even pouring scorn on the idea of evidence and the doubt and intellectual honesty that induces us to go look for it.


      Delete
    3. Oh please. If the Christ Myth had any credibility at all, there would be at least SOME historians and scholars who adhered to it. As it is, there is virtually no scholar or historian or anybody who is an expert in the field who believes this nonsense. As I was telling an atheist in a conversation yesterday, You'll find more credentialed scientists who believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, than you'll find credentialed historians who believe Jesus didn't exist (in fact you won't find any, except maybe Richard Carrier and he appears to hedge his bets on that). I happen to think both the Christ Myth and Young Earth Creationism are absurd. The consensus among people who are actually trained in examining ancient history that Jesus exists is similar to the consensus among scientists that the Earth is a sphere. Now, I do not appeal to authority to make my case. I present arguments and evidence to make my case (not surprisingly, the Christ Myth is pretty easy to tear apart), however, the fact that there are virtually no scholars of ancient history adhere to this silly Christ Myth hypothesis should at least give us pause. There should at least be SOME. Even if it was a minority group among scholars. If it had any merit at all, you'd at least see SOME percentage.

      Delete
  4. Well done, Evan. I also posted a comment in response on my blog. A lot of theological misunderstandings and presuppositions here. It should also be noted that the attempt to refute these passages suggests how remarkable it is that the Bible is the only book that teaches these things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Richard,

      I took an effort to rebut these passages because YOU HAVE PROPOSED them as evidence of 'science in the bible' and not because the Bible is remarkable :)

      The Bible is also not the only book that "teaches these things". You should see the claims that some Muslims make about the Quran and its supposed scientific accuracy. They are no different in their reasoning to what Christian apologists do.

      And, of course, there are other mythologies that actually contain grains of cosmological knowledge that turns out to be correct.

      There's nothing miraculous or remarkable in this.

      Delete
  5. With all due respect to both parties, these arguments are amateurish. I do not have a Ph.D. but I majored in Religious Studies (Ancient Near Eastern Religions and the Abrahamic religions) and History (focus in Ancient Near East/Middle East) with a minor in Jewish Studies. I see this all the time. This is a case of a little bit of knowledge doing more harm than good. One must first understand the context of the Bible and the nature of the authors/editors. Pointing out the Hebrew words and phrases is silly if one does not understand the context.

    We can argue about the Hebrew words and phrases but the reality is the authors of the Bible had no understanding of modern science or history and were not writing about either. Any modern science or history has been read into it due to apologetics (arguing for a point.)
    The Bible is not trying to teach science and there is no reason it should be taken literal. Literature during the Midrashic period was constantly edited by rabbis to fix contradictions in the Bible. They did not deny these contradictions, in fact, contradictions would be expected in the works of something like the Bible.

    No one here really knows what they are talking about when it comes to a scholarly study of the Bible, and I do not expect them to. I blew thousands of dollars and read dozens of books for a worthless degree. It was good for one thing…pointing out that no one really understands anything about the Bible and the ancient Jews. If you want to know what the Bible really is, I will tell you…

    The Bible is not a science book or a history book. It contains mythology but it also contains historically accurate accounts. The Bible is just another text that historians use to understand history. It holds no more weight than any other text.
    Why would this book talk about science, modern science, which did not come about until the 1700-1800s? Why would we assume this book is written like books of later periods? This is exactly the kind of crap people say when they think they know more than they do. I mean if we are going to talk about Hebrew words and phrases, why not mention that Elohim (God in the English version) is plural? Should I point out that the first clearly monotheistic statement does not appear until the book of Isaiah?

    The best thing one could do is read A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by John J. Collins…

    ReplyDelete