The Bible Contains Scientific Errors

"As already mentioned, chapters 12-50 have always been regarded by the Jewish people as being the record of their own true history," This is simply not true. I just went back through the entire debate my opponent did not say this once. But really this is not relevant at all. Chapters 12 - 50 were not mentioned by my opponent as examples of scientific inaccuracy. The fact that they are historical events does not necessitate saying that the 1st 2 stories are literal historical accounts. The entirety of the book 5 books of Moses & prophets is devoted to the continues story of the Jewish people The 1st 11 chapters are indeed out of place and unlike the rest of the bible. The only parts of the bible that are not about Jewish history are all metaphoric. My opponents point can be said to support the non-literalist approach, my opponent says 12 - 50 have always been taken literally. Exactly 12 - 50, have always been taken literally, but not 1-11. The reason being that it is not literal Then my opponent quotes some professor. who says that genesis 1-11 must be taken literally. I already showed in R2 that there are many scholars who take a non-literalism approach. Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description, much earlier than the development of modern science. Some examples; Augustine of Hippo (4th century), 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, Zohar, Maimonides, Nahmanides, Saadia Gaon, Solomon ibn Gabirol, Abraham ibn Ezra, Jacob Anatoli, Gersonides, Natan Slifkin, etc. In fact some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. [1] Finally pro states "Even if the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, my no-matters argument still stands." He rejects my analogies on the basis that they are "figurative", and brings counter examples from science fiction. What my opponent fails to understand, is that taking a non-literal approach, does not means fiction. According to the non-lateral approach the bible is figurative. There is an important difference between figurative and fiction. In fiction the author is conveying a story, made up, but a story. In the case of the bible if it is to be understood non-literally, the "story" that uninformed readers read, is not what is being communicated. The literal approach: Again my opponent harps on the word "prepared". I already wrote in R4 that my point was not the word "prepared", but rather the word "of". Making the 1st verse an intro, rather than part of the narrative. & I detailed why it must be read that way. Then with regard verse 2, I showed how the word "aretz" which is usually translated ground, land, country, earth, can be used to refer to the; universe as a whole / matter as a whole / or the pre big bang "earth". I brought some support in the previous round based on a top medieval commentary there but there are many others who understand the word aretz this way (not just recent scholars but ancient scholars as well). See "Artscroll Tanach Series" an anthology for more commentators, evidence, & examples. Being that my opponent did not contest this translation I did not bother to bring more evidence than I already have. And as I said the light of the 3rd day could be photons that are not from the sun /stars. It could be the energy/ light that was produced by the big bang. This to my opponent did not refute. Then my opponent asks a bunch of new questions in violation of the rules stated in R1. One approach is Gerald Schroder: "When the Bible describes the day-by-day development of our universe in the six days following the creation, it is truly referring to six 24-hour days. But the reference frame by which those days were measured was one which contained the total universe," -- a universe that was rapidly expanding. Because of the time/velocity connection, that change in perspective changed the meaning of time -- or of, say, six days."[2] Light II "It doesn't matter if the Bible doesn't say that the moon makes its own light; it isn't a light; it is a reflector. If light from a light bulb shines on a mirror, the mirror isn't a "light" whatsoever." 1st of all my opponent doesn't address the 1st answer which was; "the light reflected by the moon does not have the same wave length as the incident light so it is a source of its "type" of light, i.e. the wavelength." But even the 2nd answer is valid: Even in English the moon is referred to as a light. Ex. moon light, light of the moon, etc. Further more pro makes the fallacy of assuming that the Hebrew word "or" has the same implications as the English word "light". omnis traductor traditor - EVERY TRANSLATOR IS A TRAITOR http://en.wikipedia.org...(O) A more accurate translation would be "luminary"[3]. Luminary - An object, such as a celestial body, that gives light. [4] Literary something, such as the sun or moon, that gives off light. [4] The luminaries were what traditional astrologers called the two astrological "planets" which were the brightest and most important objects in the heavens, that is, the Sun and the Moon. [5] Noah's ark "The total number of non-bacterial species in the world has been estimated at 8.7 million." Pro repeats his position without giving data to back it up. Many of those species are minuscule like dust mites, flees, insects etc. Pro has not laid out the #'s to show that it is impossibility, he just makes baseless assumptions. Without doing the math to back it up. As I pointed out there is an entire book, " Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" with approximately 1,200 references. The author actually goes through the facts & math. The conclusion is that it is theoretically possible. (Pro similarly asserts that it is impossible for Noah to have take only from each genus, and get many species in so short a time. I maintain that through, mutations &, breeding, god could do it. It's not much worse than the theory of punctuated. Pro simply states, that it's imposable, there by not fulfilling the BOP, which is on him.) With regard the boat being too big my opponent continues with his history lesson about how it was never done, and when they tried it failed. He does not provide any scientific / engineering basis showing that it is actually scientificly imposable. This is a logical fallacy, has not been done does not = cannot be done. My opponent addressed only one of the pieces of evidence for the flood. But there were a couple more, which he did not address. With regard pro"s questions on the flood: Pro does not dispute my point that lack of evidence is not always evidence of lack. That a question does not make something unscientific. If it did, evolution would be unscientific because there are problems with the fossil records. Many/most/all scientific theories have / had unanswered questions. Unanswered questions do not make it unscientific. My opponent gave no response to this, explaining why his questions should make it unscientific. "...It is obvious today that every field of scientific inquiry stands incomplete...For instance, quantum theory, regardless of the issue of determinism, stands incomplete since we do not have a quantum theory of gravity and have still many unanswered questions surrounding the behavior of subatomic particles."[6] "The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers; he's one who asks the right questions." - Claude L"vi-Strauss I have refuted all pro's arguments. + my non literal aproach. VOTE CON OOR [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Genesis and the big bang [3] Young's literal translation ad loc. [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...(astrology) [6] http://cogprints.org... http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...