Scientific errors in the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
The hare does, in layman's term, eat it's cud. It has, as I am sure you know, two pellets. One is hard, and is waste. The other is soft, and the Rabbit eats them again, like cud.

---

I am quite fed up with having to read this argument again. In "layman's terms" the coney does not chew its cud. It requires a highly specialised use of the term to twist it to fit this interpretation: the very opposite of what "layman's terms" implies.The interpretation of alah as referring to coprophagy only makes sense if you start from the initial position that the text must be right.The word used for chewing in the context of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is alah. This word has a range of meanings around a root sense of raising up or bringing up and its use in this context shows that the ancient Hebrew's understood pretty well what was involved in chewing the cud. The word for cud is gerah and is cognate with the modern Arabic jirrah, used in exactly the same sense.I have seen it argued that alah could be translated as "bringing forth" in this case, but the root sense is certainly one of bringing up. In fact, rather than translating this as chewing the cud, a better translation is that the animals in question "bring up the cud."It is certainly clear from the context of the passages that the writer regards hares and coneys as digesting in the same manner as ruminants - there is no distinction made in the passages which indicates any knowledge of any difference. There are descriptions of ruminants and the coneys and hares are included, undifferentiated from the ruminants in that list. Any interpretation that the writer did not intend it to be so understood so requires a a considerable amount of information external to the text: there is no 'self-sufficient' interpretation that fits our knowledge of the biology of these animals, or of the hyrax or some of the other animals which have been identified as potential candidates.Given the nature of the documents in questions - extremely detailed regulations for physical and spiritual hygiene - it seems to me, frankly, unbelievable, that they would include coprophagy without comment within the scope of chewing cud. The uncleanness of dung is emphasised in Isaiah 36:12, Ezekiel 4: 12, Malachi 2:3. The idea that the Hebrew hygienists would regard the digestive habits of the rabbit as being essentially the same as those of ruminants seems to me the worst kind of clutching at straws.This whole argument is only necessary if one requires the Bible to be true in the most rigid sense. I cannot see what the problem is if the writer of Leviticus made a simple mistake. The alternative is far more damaging, for it implies that the bible uses words in ways quite different to their common usage - not only that, but these special usages may require highly specialised knowledge to make sense. Why is this more damaging? Because it leaves the Bible open to any intepretation - anyone can simply say "my interpretation is the real interpretation". If any should ask for evidence of their intepretation they need only say "but look at the rabbits and cud chewing: for centuries that must have looked like a mistake until the digestive system of the rabbit was understood. By the same token, my interpretation may look like a mistake just now - but just wait, eventually my interpretation will be shown to be correct in the light of new knowledge."In other words, if you are going to mangle linguistics to ensure the Bible appears perfectly true - you open the door to linguistic mangling which can legitimately wring out of it any intepretation at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
Who lives an average life?

---

Everyone [b][i]on average.[/b][/i] That's kinda the point of the whole statistics thing, isn't it?You gotta wonder about these guys sometimes ....[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 10-24-2002]

Don't do it doctrbill! You have a duty to preserve diversity and geocentrists are one of the most threatened minorities out there. It would be a shame to disabuse one of his beliefs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Allow me to repeat myself. It appears that you refrain from providing proof simply because you have no proof. Please correct this possible misconception of your character and present proof of the errors in the geocentric view found in the Bible.

---

There was a rather good discussion of the onus probandi in exactly this case (heliocentrism) on the Objectivist discussion board ... http://www.wetheliving.com/...ek-of-Mon-20020603/029692.htmlI thought the following particularly apt:In short, if someone were to demand that I provide evidence for the heliocentric theory, I would first inquire whether he was honestly unaware of *any* of the evidence for this belief. And in the unlikely event that he answers yes -- unlikely at least for an educated adult -- I might then be willing to help him locate relevant information on the Internet or in a library, especially if I were dealing with a child.So taking this excellent advice - are you honestly aware of any of the evidence for heliocentrism. If not, I can help you find it. If you are aware of it, and as it is generally uncontroversial in the field of science, perhaps you would like to say if you reject it and, if so, why.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]You appear to be proposing that the falsity of the geocentric theory is proof of the errancy of the Bible. However, I have not as yet discovered conclusive proof of such falsity. Could you please provide such proof as necessary to explain how the geocentric view held by the Bible is wrong?[/B][/QUOTE]If anyone does feel like presenting evidence to w_f you might also like to present it to the following oddballs - they will even give you $1000 if you can prove it. Of course, their definition of "proof" may be somewhat taxing. I think their standard of logic can be judged from the fact that even when they offer a $1000 dollar prize, they manage to include the line "But the $64,000 question is: Are they right?"For $64000 I would give it a go, but me, I don't get out of bed for a mere $1000.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Doctorbill has claimed that the falsity of the geocentric view as evidence of error in the Bible. All I have done is ask for proof of that claim. If no evidence can be presented in support of that claim, then doctorbill's statements regarding error in the Bible are themselves erroneous.[/B][/QUOTE]You miss the point, which is not whether evidence can be produced to support the claim, but where the burden of proof - the onus probandi - lies.I am suggesting that given(a) the uncontroversial nature of doctrbill's claims about heliocentrism and
(b) the unlikelyhood of your not being aware or having considered the evidences for these claimsthat it is really up to you to preent your reasons for rejecting that which the overwhelming majority would regard as "presumptive evidence."No doubt it seems unfair, but that is the lot of the non-conformist in all societies. As for what you are to make of doctorbill's unwillingeness to provide evidence - you can read nothing more into it than disdain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Your argument appears to be that the accepted position of yesteryear is wrong because it disagrees with the accepted position of today,

---

... which would be a gross error of logic. What I am saying is that doctrbill is justified in not providing evidence that the overwhelmingly accepted position is correct, because he has good reason to believe you and the others on the board are already aware of the evidence, or have easy access to it should be honestly unaware of it. On the other hand, I imagine he has no idea of what the evidence to the contrary is - I certainly do not. The one site I found describing the geocentric position had no evidence whatsoever presented on it except two a priori assumptions concerning Biblical and Papal infallibility.Being in the position of holding the unconventional evidence - the evidence that would challenge the "presumptive evidence" that the overwhelming majority would accept - the onus is on you to present yours.You may be uncomfortable with that position and I can understand that. But there you have it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Allow me to quote myself once again. In my first post on this thread I stated: "You appear to be proposing that the falsity of the geocentric theory is proof of the errancy of the Bible. However, I have not as yet discovered conclusive proof of such falsity."

---

I'm trying to work out your position, but it's not very clear. For example, you appear to be making a distinction between:Prove X is false.andIf Y is True then X is false.
Prove Y is True.Is that correct? If so, on what grounds do you make the distinction?Or perhaps you are suggesting that heliocentrism and geocentrism may both be true? If that is not the case, then you would accept that proof of heliocentrism is logically disproof of geocentrism?But perhaps you are trying a different tack? You are perhaps saying that the evidence for heliocentrism is not conclusive proof, but can also be explained by geocentrism? If you do hold this latter position, then you are digging a deeper hole for yourself, because you cannot hold such a view without knowing what the evidence for heliocentrism is. Therefore, as you hold the minority opinion, and in order to hold your particular opionion must be aware of our evidence, and indeed, must be aware of it in some detail, and as we are unaware of what your evidence or objections may be - the ball is very much in your court. What is your evidence for geocentrism, or objection to heliocentrism?I think that is fair and reasonable. If you do not, I would interested to hear why.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Delightful comic relief! Thank you sir.

​

db

---

Surely that should have been addressed to our geocentric friend? But thanks Percy - they were very funny.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
If such evidence is so readily available as you seem to imply, it should not require any great effort on your part to clearly state that evidence. That you do not do so, resorting to cynicism instead, does not support your claims.

---

That he does not do so, does not negate his claims.That you do not give your evidence does not negate your claims either.However, note the following. You do say "I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity" in post 59. You admit to being aware of evidence, even much evidence - so you are merely asking for either repetition or supplementation.We all freely admit to knowing of [b][i]no[/b][/i] evidence for your position: emprically, and through common politeness, the ball is in your court.That you admit to knowing of evidence yet refuse to address that which you already admit to know while demanding more, does not augur well for your bona fides in any discussion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]What claims have I made that require evidence?[/B][/QUOTE]The claim that you are unaware of evidnce against the geocentric position, for one.
[B][QUOTE]Let me repeat, I am not aware of any evidence of the falsity of the geocentric view found in the Bible.[/B][/QUOTE]So let's get this clear.You admit to being aware of much evidence for the claims of heliocentricity.You profess to be unaware of any evidence against the claims of geocentricity.Therefore, we can conclude one of the following:(a) You believe geocentricity and heliocentricity are compatible.
(b) You believe that they are incompatible, but you believe in general terms that evidence for a proposition is not evidence against an incompatible position. It is like asking for proof that Seattle is not the capital of Washington state, but refusing to admit in the supporting argument any evidence that Olympia is the capital of Washington.
(c) You are a sophist.If (a) then you are likely not going to comprehend any discussion on the matter.
If (b) you are unlikely to be able to follow any logical demonstration anyway.
If (c) you are not worth presenting any evidence or argument to.We should probably have a vote. At this point I am not sure if its (a) with some yet-to-revealed-in-all-its-irrefutable-glory demonstration of a multi-centric solution, or (b).