A bozo calling itself "ShiningOne" recently posted on the H2O board some typically bad arguments supposedly defending the Bible. I posted a rebuttal to a number of specific points, which is reproduced below. Guess what the response was.

Those familiar with JW teaching will recognize some of the bad defensive arguments.

<hr>
Here is what you quoted concerning "Scientific Accuracy":

"Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:"

We will now see how Christian Fundamentalists grasp at straws:

"Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)"

Isaiah 40:22 does not say that the earth is round. If it says anything at all about the shape of the earth, it says it's circular. It refers to "the circle of the earth" not "the ball of the earth". You do know the difference between the shape of a pizza and a basketball, no? And if you think to claim that the Bible must mean "ball" and not "circle", then by all means show us a scripture that uses the word translated "circle" to mean anything other than "circle".

The context itself strongly infers a circle, not a ball. God "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." (NIV) Just where is "above" the ball-shaped earth? Out in space? Does God sit enthroned out in space? If so, in what direction? Perhaps you go along with the old JW teaching that God's throne is on the star Alcyone in the Pleaides constellation. But God's sitting above a circular, pizza-pie shaped earth gives a perfectly sensible mental picture. The scripture goes on to say that God "stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Just what sort of mental picture does this conjure up if the Bible writer and his readers had in mind a ball-shaped earth? Let's see, now. For those in Israel the roof of the tent is overhead, but for those in Australia the roof is actually underfoot. Not a sensible picture, eh?

Now consider a couple of other scriptures that conjure up a clear mental picture of the shape of the earth. Daniel 4:10-11 relates Nebuchadnezzar's dream: "There was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth." (NRSV) Now does that sound like a picture of a tree growing on a ball-shaped earth, or on a flat, circular earth? The answer is obvious. There can be no "center of the earth" on a ball-shaped earth, but there certainly is a unique center on a circular earth. And of course, a tree cannot be visible from the "ends of the whole earth" on a ball-shaped earth, but it certainly could from a circular one. So just what mental picture does Daniel give the reader about the shape of the earth?

Then consider Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the Kingdoms of the world, and their glory." (NIV) Really! The devil showed Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world from one high mountain? Just how would that work on a ball-shaped earth? Did the devil bend light rays? Of course not. For this word picture to work, the earth must be flat and circular. Again, the point is that the mental picture conjured up by the words of the Bible writer are inconsistent with a ball-shaped earth and completely consistent -- in fact, they insist upon -- a flat, circular shape.

And how about Job 37:18: "Hast thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" (KJV) Or as the NIV puts it, "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?" Or as the NASB puts it, "Can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?" What? The sky is strong? It's like a huge metal mirror of cast bronze? Isn't that descriptive of sort of huge tent dome spread out over the flat "circle of the earth"? Isn't it alien to any sensible concept of a ball-shaped earth?

Now of course I know that by this time you're a bit upset and thinking, "but those are not literal references! They're figurative!" And you may well be right. And by this time you also know -- if you didn't already -- that Isaiah 40:22 therefore cannot be used to say anything definite about the shape of the earth.

Of course, I know that you already knew all of the above. That's why I consider you to be intellectually dishonest, because as most Fundamentalist Christians do, even when you know the truth about certain false arguments you still present them as if they were good ones. You're really no better than poor Gusdaberean, who in the below thread "Bible Scientific/Historic" made it appear that the book Is the Bible True? by Jeffery Sheler said a number of things confirming another poster's statements, when in fact it did nothing of the kind, not even mentioning most of the items.

Next point:

"Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)"

This scripture states: "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (NIV)

Come on, now. While I'll admit that God, if he exists, may have "higher" thoughts than man's in some way, this scripture cannot possibly apply to the literal universe consisting mostly of stars and empty space. Why? The Bible itself again makes it clear, in Psalm 148:4: "Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" (NASB) What? Waters that are above the heavens? Just what "waters" would be "above the heavens" if the heavens encompassed the "almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe"?

Again we find an obvious figurative reference being used by a dishonest biblical defender to claim something false. Why do you people stoop to lying to defend God?

Next point:

"Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)" (NIV)

This scripture states: "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

Wanna run that by us again? Nothing in that scripture has anything to do with science, mass, energy or the conservation laws of physics.

Next point:

"Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)"

This scripture states: "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." (NIV)

That's a pretty lame bit of defending on several counts. First, not all streams flow into the sea -- the Jordan River being an example close to home for the Bible writers. Some streams don't even make it to any body of water, just petering out in the desert. Next, it's a no-brainer that the sea is never full. Next, it's pretty obvious that unless water disappears into nothingness and appears out of nothingness, there must be a recycling of it. And if the streams seem to "come from" someplace, and if the water is being recycled, obviously it must be so that "there they return again".

Yet another grasping at straws.

Next point:

"Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)"

This scripture states: "I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore". (NIV)

Oh really. A reasonable estimate of the number of stars in the universe, given reasonable estimates for the number of galaxies in the observable universe and the number of stars in an average galaxy, and given reasonable estimates for the size of sand grains and the quantity of sand on the earth, is something like 10[sup]22[/sup]. That's ten billion trillion! That many Jews have not been observed to have inhabited the earth.

Next point:

"Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)"

This scripture states: "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." (NIV)

Taken alone and out of context by dishonest Bible defenders, this sounds pretty impressive if you have a little knowledge of thermodynamics. But as usual, when the context of the Bible itself is considered, it's not so impressive. For example, we have Psalm 104:5: "He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever." (NASB) But the scripture you cited said that the earth will perish! So which is it? Then we have Ecclesiastes 1:4: "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever." (NIV) What? Another scripture contradicting scripture? Well which is it? Does the earth perish, or does it remain forever?

Actually the scripture you cited is just another example of a Bible writer's figurative language, which dishonest Christians misappapropriate to defend their God by means of lies.

Next point:

"Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)"

This scripture states: "For the life of a creature is in the blood." (NIV)

This is another example of a scripture bent way beyond its obvious meaning. The Mosaic Laws dealing with blood are somewhat complicated, but they all hinge on a rather simple statement in Genesis: "You must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." (NIV) Equating blood with life and the loss of blood with death is a rather obvious thing to people who were used to offering blood sacrifices to the gods, and who knew that when you cut a man severely and he lost a lot of blood, he died. Therefore the mere observation that massive loss of blood results in death may say something about "the importance of blood in life processes", but nothing beyond what any child of patriarchal society could not see happen every day.

So we have yet another scripture bent way beyond the obvious meaning.

"Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)"

This scripture states: "Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns." (NASB)

Wow. The wind blows this way and that, round and round and round, and yet the atmosphere never becomes full. I wonder how that can be? With all that wind swirling and churning, it's a wonder the air doesn't get so full that it freezes up!

"Gravitational field (Job 26:7)"

Ah, that old chestnut. The scripture states: "He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing." (NASB) Again an impressive scripture for those ignorant of the rest of the Bible or too dishonest to put it all together.

Carefully note the language used: He "hangs the earth on nothing." For something to "hang", it must be stationary in a gravitational field, by definition. Something that is in orbit is in free fall, not hanging. The earth is in orbit about the sun, and around the galactic center, and around the center of our local cluster of galaxies, and around who knows what else? Therefore if you take the scripturally literally, it's wrong, since the earth is not "hanging on nothing", but is not hanging on anything at all.

Now note how a few other scriptures shed a rather different light on Job 26:7 and show that it is yet another figurative bit of language: Job 38:6: "On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone?" (NIV) Psalm 104:5: "He established the earth upon its foundations." (NASB) Psalm 102:25: "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth." Does the earth literally have any foundations? Of course not. Like every other large object in the universe, it just sails along in empty space, orbiting around the nearest larger body.

Given these facts and many others I haven't bothered to mention, it's obvious that connecting Job 26:7 with a gravitational field is again stretching things beyond the breaking point, and is intellectually dishonest.

Next point:

"and many others."

Right. How about using this scripture like the JWs do: "Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." (NWT) Obviously this is a statement of Einstein's famous equation relating matter and energy: E = mc[sup]2[/sup]. Well isn't it?

: These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience;

They're nothing of the sort. They're not statements of science nor do they have anything to do with the physical world. At most they're figurative statements about some aspect of God or something to do with God; at worst they're completely obvious statements about everyday observations of the world in which ancient Jews lived.

: nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

Given my last statement, you're right. But your sentiment is as meaningless as saying that the statement "grass is green" is completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

: (This is an important point for Axelroid, Edwkey and various other amateur anal...ists!)

No, I don't think they would consider such obvious trivia important, except to point out that the malicious bending of truth that you and so many other Bible defenders engage in is entirely counter to your aims of winning converts to Christianity -- unless you're shooting for converting the stupid.

: It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible, in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

I will leave to others the demolition of these claims, except to point out that a great many of the so-called defenses and "reasonable solutions" are similar to the above nonsense that you set forth. In other words, an awful lot of defending is done by bending or breaking the truth. What you people don't seem to understand is that if God is what the Bible claims -- an awesome and jealous God of Truth -- then you're in deep doo-doo:

"Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God's case for him? Be careful that he doesn't find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn't his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot." (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)

You certainly are one shining example of a Fundamentalist Christian.
<hr>

AlanF

I knew that you had to be posting somewhere! Glad to find you again.

5GJW, who is glad to find the new club house

Howdy 5GJW!

I'm laying fairly low these days. I'm sad to see that H2O is going to pot, but everything has a finite lifetime.

To waiting:

You're right about those "reasonable solutions". Among them is throwing out all data and conclusions that force a difference with "conservative" (read: Fundamentalist) doctrines. Thus we have the Institute for Creation Research and its ilk claiming that science has not proved that the earth is older than some 6,000 years.

Interestingly, I've found that the Watchtower Society has borrowed heavily from Christian Fundies for decades. All without attribution, of course. When I was still a teenager, back in the 1960s, I had no idea about this plagiarism of bogus ideas, but in later years I gradually discerned a bit of commonality. And when I really started researching this stuff ten years ago, it struck me how much in common the JWs had with their Fundy enemies. No rivalry like that between religions competing for the same audience, no? Like Jim Penton says, JWs and Fundies are pups from the same bitch.

AlanF

I agree I think most fundamentalist Christians have done a great deal of harm by trying to make the bible out to be a science book. Really I have never understood their desire to do this. To me science explains how things happen and religion explains why, two separate things. And I always shuddered when I would here people talk about the bible stating the earth was a globe etc, etc, because I realized they were taking metaphoric language and trying to make it literal.

Jelly

ps. alan - i came to exactly the same conclusions talking to heaps of fundies myself.

BADASSOCIATE

(bad associates are a good habit class)

Alan,
That is a an enlightening refutation of fundies' points. I have to say, I didn't know any of that.

Java,
Your analogy of building on sand and the waves knocking out the foundation describes my experience. When a jw, I just stopped reading so many items in the news and some books, because they undermined my "faith." Now, I read them all. Have a lot of learning to do.

Patio

Hi Jeff, it's like the "good old days" having several friends back in one corner of cyber space again.

You are a scientist who teaches at a Christian college, and your comments about the Bible and science are well put. Religion, be it Christian or non-Christian, is built on faith. Religious faith can help people struggle with the God question, why are we here, and what's next. Religious faith is not provable; if something is proven, it's science, not faith.

Many fundamentalist are "not familiar with how the Bible came into being," and they're unfamiliar with science as well. They see science as a threat and put it into the corner of demons. If scripture says it rained 40 days and nights after Noah built a boat to save the world as we know it, the fundamentalist will defend the indefensible at great cost to others of faith. Holy books demonstrate the faith of believers before us. They are not magic, and they certainly are not science. Indeed, science is a different animal than it was a few thousands years ago. Using faulty science to prove the Bible's authority only weakens it's place in Christian faith.

It's great seeing you here, Jeff!

--JAVA counting time at the Coffee Shop

BADASSOCIATE:

Aren't you itching anymore? Did you use flea powder?

Ozzie (one squirt and they're gone!)

Ah! That's going a long way back alright. Please email me and tell me your real name so I can put it all together: alanf00@home.com .

AlanF

Jeffrey:

There are several Biblical canons depending on which religion or branch of Christianity one looks at:

<quote><i>Roman Catholics include fifteen more books or parts of books, and that is their canon; Greek Orthodox churches use most of these books, and these comprise their canon. The Jewish tradition is that of the Hebrew Bible only, of course, corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestants. East Syrian Christians include fewer books than other Christians in the New Testament, while the Ethiopian churches use quite a few more books in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

The third American President, Thomas Jefferson, questioning the miracles of the New Testament while approving some of Jesus' moral sentiments, produced a thin volume which is called "The Jefferson Bible," edited literally with a razor and paste.[2]

One wonders, what is God's canon?</i></quote>

From an article by Larry A. Taylor here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html#fn1. I find it odd the JWs accept the Protestant canon as adapted from the Roman Catholic and Hebrew versions of the Old and New Testaments (Hebrew and Greek Scriptures) when supposedly apostacy had already infected these Christian churches long before the books to be canonized had been selected. Did not this apostacy affect their choices? Why do they accept the Jewish canon, again solidified after the formation of Christianity, and according to some, in response to the new competing religion? The Jewish canon is not the same as the Septuaguint that Christ would have been familiar with. Has the Watchtower ever looked at all extant Christian texts in an effort to see what "God's Organization" should include in its canon, including those recently discovered Gnostic texts? What about those texts that have been lost because one or another apostate Church didn't deem them sufficiently important to devote scripes to copy them? Does God work through apostates?

Just a few questions I have.

CPiolo