The Bible Contains Scientific Errors

My opponent has made many points, and sub-points, I hope I will have space to address all of them. If not, I will get to them in the next round, or touch on them briefly in this round, and elaborate on it in the next round. REBUTAL I. Backward Progression There are 2 main approaches to Genesis, a) literal b) Not literal [1] If we take the non-literal approach there is no problem. The bible is replete with such instances, for example, "song of songs". (If you find this approach acceptable, skip to "II light") Even if you take a literal approach, there is no contradiction, provided that you have a proper command of the Hebrew language, and familiarity with biblical style: Let"s take the 1st point that my opponent makes, that according to genesis, earth was created before light. He does not write were he got this from, but I presume he gets it from the 1st verse. There are 2 basic ways of reading/understanding this verse: a) As an introduction to the creation story b) In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --[2] Either way, that verse is not describing the order of creation, and thus there is no contradiction. II. Light Here too, if we go with the non-literal/metaphoric/symbolic approach there is no problem. (If you find this approach acceptable, skip to "III Noah's ark) If we go with a literal reading, the answers are as follows: In my opponents 1st point on light he presumes that the only light producing object is the sun and stars. Take something as simple as fire, a light bulb, etc. Besides if god is creating ex nihilo does he really need light producing objects to create light, He can just create photons/ light waves /light partials/ light waveicals, whatever you want to call it. Next my opponent is bothered that, "Genesis 1:16 claims that the moon a "light" even though it is just a reflector"[sic]. Gerald Schroeder PhD answers: "Actually 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. The moon is a great light in the heavens. The text does not claim that the moon makes its own light, merely that it is a light and it is." (It is also interesting to note that the Hebrew word for light/luminary and the Hebrew word for mirror are nearly identical [3]) Lastly for this section my opponent is bothered by: "Genesis 1:17 asserts that the stars are set "to give light to the Earth"" There are a number of answers: 1) Schroeder - "Light from all stars within our light cone reaches the earth. We merely cannot see them with the unaided eye. "In other words, even though you don't see them with the naked eye, the light from them still reaches the earth. 2) The verse is somewhat ambiguous, it states "and God pu them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth," it is not clear what "them" refers to. Based on the context and scriptural style "Them" can be referring to just the sun and the moon, or the sun, moon, and some of the stars. 3) Even if they are not visible with the naked eye, they are visible with modern technology. It is entirely plausible that this is what god means. Our discovery & realization of the vastness of the universe is really something very special to contemplate and be aware of, (not to mention fascinating), regardless of what you believe. III. Noah's Ark Again if we go with the non-literal approach there is no problem. (If you find this approach acceptable, skip to "IV pi".) If we do go with literal understanding these problems can be answered as well. 1) "It's too small" This is really a practical/ logistics problem, not a scientific one. My opponent makes numerous false assumptions in this problem that I will point out. a) How big was the ark? The bible uses a unit called "Amah" which is not known, (there are those who claim to have a general idea, but it cannot be proved). b) He assumes all species that scientists estimate exist today were in the ark. Perhaps he only took in one species from every Genus. c) My opponent asks about food. There need not be so much food; the offspring of one animal provides food for another. d) My opponent asks about fish. Fish were not in the ark. Remember, this is a flood. e)"They need water." Again, this is a flood. Just open the window. f)"Plants need sun." There are many problems with this point, Due to lack of space I'll just mention one, and that is as I said before this is a flood, live plants need not be saved. The seeds will grow after the flood is over. Another approach is that indeed it was too small, and it was simply a miracle. [4] 2) "It"s too big" (1st of all as mentioned previously, we don't know the size of the ark.) But this is not a science based question at all. My opponent mentioned no scientific fact or theory which restricts the possible size of Noah's boat. Just one final point that really irks me is that my opponent makes a most baseless assumption that Noah had no ship building knowledge. Where did that come from? If you want to criticize the bible you have to know it first. 3) Where did the water come from and where did it go? With regard to the question, here, again it is not a scientific error. It is a practical question, which can have many possible answers. The simplest one being God created it ex nihilo and then made it nihilo. Or perhaps he took it from mars or some other place in this vast universe and then put it back. I could go on the point is there is no scientific error here. Lastly my opponent asks why there is no geological record; the link he provides does not say that there is no geological evidence. Furthermore lack of evidence does not always mean evidence of lack. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't no explanation is provided here why lack of evidence is evidence of lack in this case. Lastly many say that there is evidence [5] IV. Pi The most simple and obvious approach to this problem is that the number is not intended to be exact but rather rounded. [6] V. Rabbits 2 points here: 1) Mistranslation - Remember what you are reading is a translation. The terms used in the bible are; arneves & shafan. The true identity of these creatures is unclear. It is not even certain that they still exist. [7] 2) Even if the translation is correct these creatures can be considered to "bring up their cud": 11:5 - Since it has a maw like ruminant it is considered to "bring up its cud." 11:6 - I can be considered to "bring up its cud", since it regurgitates its food in the early morning and eats it latter. [8] VI. Insects and Birds - the verse implies they have 4 legs. "Fowl" - In this case it wasn't even a mistranslation, and they still messed it up. The verse, even in the English translation quoted, does not say "fowl". It says "winged creatures". Flying insects - The "hind legs" are not counted, since they are for jumping not walking or standing. (Alternatively the back 4 are called legs, while the front 2 are called "hands") VII. Leprosy Again a translation error. It is not leprosy. As is evident from the scripture speaking about it appearing on clothing, and walls. See also http://www.webspawner.com... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Living Torah, based on Rashi & Targum Onkelos. See also, http://yltbible.com... [3]http://translate.google.com..., http://translate.google.com...) [4] Ramban ad loc. [5]http://en.wikipedia.org..., etc. [6] See art scroll, the Rubin addition of the early prophets" page 73. See Ralbag & Malbim. http://ohr.edu... [7] http://bible.cc... http://www.zootorah.com... http://osdir.com... [8]Living Torah ad loc. http://carm.org... Out of space.