The Bible Experiment And Thoughts...

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
Random

Random

Which of the two creation stories are you talking about? One of is Adam and Eve made together, and the other was Adam made from dust and Eve from his rib.

Edit

Apollo's picture
1. No shrubs yet appeared: -

1. No shrubs yet appeared: - the author is just going back to the time there were no shrubs, and giving more detail to the story. Incidently, it is good you used the word "story". the bad part is you are critiquing literature, a story, as if it should be science. It isn't science, so critiquing it as if it was, is a fundamentally flawed critique. For example, if you read "the Great Code" by Northope Frye you will get an excellent critique of the bible. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bible-Literature/dp/0156027801

2. Snakes can speak because it is literature. Its a story. Its not a science book. Often in stories, animals talk.
God says serpents will eat dust:- Its a story, not a science book. God did not dictate the Bible to Moses. The Bible is written by people, (not god,) who were inspired by their belief in God.

3. You call this an "experiment", "The Bible Experiment" but you assume (assume = unproven belief) the Bible is a science book. Your assumption is flawed, therefore your experiment is flawed.

Essentially, the creation story just expresses the belief god created the universe and life. It doesn't say or claim to say how God did it. Explaining how the universe works is the job of science.

Sapporo's picture
Apollo: 1. No shrubs yet

Apollo: 1. No shrubs yet appeared: - the author is just going back to the time there were no shrubs, and giving more detail to the story. Incidently, it is good you used the word "story". the bad part is you are critiquing literature, a story, as if it should be science. It isn't science, so critiquing it as if it was, is a fundamentally flawed critique. For example, if you read "the Great Code" by Northope Frye you will get an excellent critique of the bible. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bible-Literature/dp/0156027801

2. Snakes can speak because it is literature. Its a story. Its not a science book. Often in stories, animals talk.
God says serpents will eat dust:- Its a story, not a science book. God did not dictate the Bible to Moses. The Bible is written by people, (not god,) who were inspired by their belief in God.

3. You call this an "experiment", "The Bible Experiment" but you assume (assume = unproven belief) the Bible is a science book. Your assumption is flawed, therefore your experiment is flawed.

Essentially, the creation story just expresses the belief god created the universe and life. It doesn't say or claim to say how God did it. Explaining how the universe works is the job of science.

Next you'll be telling us that the bible is not a history book nor a work of philosophy.

Sheldon's picture
A deity that can do no better

A deity that can do no better than the incoherent ignorant ravings of bronze age human superstitions, do behave. It isn't a science book, well duh!

"Essentially, the creation story just expresses the belief god created the universe and life. It doesn't say or claim to say how God did it. Explaining how the universe works is the job of science."

Yes it does say / claim how a deity was supposed to have done it, and science has utterly refuted this superstitious flimflam, so either human science is more inexplicably more knowledgeable than an omniscient deity, or the book and it's creation myth are entirely human in origin, and thus it's erroneous claims are rationally explicable. It's a no brainer unless you're desperate to cling to the belief it's a message from a deity.

Cognostic's picture
I have another suggestion for

I have another suggestion for you. The Bible is on Audio files all over the place. You can listen as you putz around the house and do important things. You may also want to go to YouTube and listen to "The Bible Reloaded, Atheists Read the Bible."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGVjG8-wD-I&list=PLCgW8bgP5lDHK8WhWIlFRz...

Anyway, have fun - BTW - You will still be credited with reading the entire bible if you skip over all the Begets.

arakish's picture
@ RandomHero1982

@ RandomHero1982

When you get to those first "begets," think of this.

The Days of Their Lives

Was laying about while still recovering from surgery, working on my novel, and one of the characters started a narration with, “Many moons ago...” For some strange reason, this caused a Fuzzy to jump into my head, and I started thinking about the centuries men lived in Genesis. Thus, I wrote up the below.

I already know everyone here has probably already figured this mess out, but I decided to post it and see if any Absolutists wanted to assert how terribly wrong I am.

“Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives...” — Opening line for the soap opera Days of Our Lives.

Me thinks ancient illiterate Levantians and Mesopotamians not know math and time too good.

Then again, today’s Christians ain’t much smarter/knowledgeable than 4000 years ago...

I rounded these numbers for ease’s sake. Approximations are good enough to prove my point, with approximations = a result that is not necessarily exact, but is within the limits of accuracy required for a given purpose.

1 lunar revolution = 29.5 days.
1 lunar rotation = 708 hours.
1 terran revolution = 365.25 days.
1 terran rotation = 24 hours.

Now here is one question for you uneducated Absolutists:
1) Way back in ancient times, excepting the solar day, what was the most prominent synodical period of that time?

Cannot answer, can you?

It was the synodical period of the moon.

As Native Americans used the moon, so did the Levantians and Mesopotamians. Thus, I GUARANTEE those numbers given as years are actually the number of synodical periods of the moon. Let’s take a look...

The actual equation used to calculate the true number of years:
    B × M ÷ D = Y;
where B = the Bible number of years,
M = number of days in a lunar revolution (29.5),
D = number of days in a terran revolution (365.25),
and Y = actual number of years.

Note: days (d) below are rounded to nearest ¼ day.
All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, then he died.
    930 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 75.1129363 years; 75y 41.25d.

All of the days of Seth were nine hundred twelve years, then he died.
    912 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 73.6591376 years; 73y 240.75d.

All of the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years, then he died.
    905 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 73.0937714 years; 73y 34.25d.

All of the days of Kenan were nine hundred ten years, then he died.
    910 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 73.4976044 years; 73y 181.75d.

All of the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred ninety–five years, then he died.
    895 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 72.2861054 years; 72y 104.5d.

All of the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty–two years, then he died.
    962 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 77.6974675 years; 77y 254.75d.

All the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty–five years.
    365 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 29.4798084 years; 29y 175.25d.

All the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty–nine years, then he died.
    969 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 78.2628337 years; 78y 96d.

All the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy–seven years, then he died.
    777 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 62.7556468 years; 62y 276d.

All the days of Noah were nine hundred fifty years, and then he died.
    950 × 29.5 ÷ 365.25 = 76.7282683 years; 76y 266d.

See. They were kind of correct. It was just that the Christians who made the King James Version do not know how to truly read/translate way back in 1600–1611.

The numbers now make absolute sense. There never has been any human who has lived for centuries. Fossils would have proven this. Thus, until someone actually finds remains that can be definitively dated to have lived for several centuries, I know for a fact that the listing of Adam’s lineage was listed as the number of “months” or lunar synods. NOT years.

rmfr

Randomhero1982's picture
And, so it would appear that

And, so it would appear that arks can have doors on the side of them, be filled to the rafters with two of all animals... and find no noted issue with water ingress...

Odd, to say the least!

LogicFTW's picture
The story of Noah and the Ark

The story of Noah and the Ark. I remember finding many major issues with the story even when I was ~12 years old. As I have grown older and more educated and refined my ability to critically think, the story becomes completely laughable now. It would require miracle after miracle after miracle on god's part to make it all work. Yes the god idea is infinitely powerful, but why do it in such a roundabout way, then leave the story in popular references about god? To deliberately grossly mislead people that can think critically into concluding the entire story is made up? To deliberately mislead people that go out and look for physical evidence and find evidence that contradicts the bible? Why is it the bible own stories drive any critical thinker that requires reasonable evidence to make conclusions away from the idea of the god portrayed in the bible?

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

's picture
Logic, when I was out of my

Logic, when I was out of my mind and a Fundie bible school teacher for six year olds, the first thing they say to the Noah story is:
WHERE ARE THE DINOSAURS?? from the boys, and the girls will say, "WHAT ABOUT THE UNICORNS?"

The question is quickly diverted to something else.

Sheldon's picture
Clearly Noah fucked up, and

Clearly Noah fucked up, and housed the dinosaurs, dragons and unicorns on deck 4, with the carnivores. The mermaids luckily didn't need a boat, but have been shy of humans ever since.

Voila!

arakish's picture
Not to mention the methane

Not to mention the methane problem with only one window.

rmfr

Apollo's picture
Its a story, not a science

Its a story, not a science book or a ship engineering book.

Would you take the movie ET and critique it as if it were a scientific documentry on alien life visiting earth? Probably not since you would recognize it as a story. The Bible is filled with stories. Why can't you recognize that fact?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

You have made this "story" assertion" in several posts...okay, agreed so much of the bible is so unbelievable it must be a story...all of it? or are you picking the bits that are "metaphor" other bits that are "allegory" and yet others that are just fairy tales for various reasons. How do you know which are which?
Is Leviticus a fairy story to be disregarded? Or is it a metaphor? or is it God's laws? Please let me know so that I can use your methods to decide.
Similarly the "toss the Mulberry into the sea" to prove your faith..story? fact? allegory?
Only minister to the Jews? Story, Fact, or Allegory?
Exodus? Story, Fact, or Allegory?
Resurrection? Story Fact Allegory?,

Clearly give your basis for differentiation...

Apollo's picture
If you read the book, "The

If you read the book, "The Great Code" you'll get your answers and I'll discuss it with you.

arakish's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

Had to search for it. I remember that book. It was one of two texts for a religious philosophy class I had way back in the late 80s. It joined other books on my "special" shelf of my library known as Shelf 13.

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"If you read the book, "The Great Code" you'll get your answers

Nope that is pure evasion. You made the assertion abut the bible texts, this is a debate forum. I asked YOU to justify YOUR methodology of telling fact, metaphor, allegory and pure fiction apart in your bible.

I even gave you specific instances to demonstrate your method. Please reply to the post.

(edit: last 2 sentences added for clarity)

Tin-Man's picture
@Apollo Re: "Its a story,

@Apollo Re: "Its a story, not a science book or a ship engineering book. "

Bwaaaaa-haaaaa-haaaaaa...... That's awesome! Too bad Ken Ham did not have you as a consultant. He could have saved himself a whole bunch of money.

Sheldon's picture
"Would you take the movie ET

"Would you take the movie ET and critique it as if it were a scientific documentry (sic) on alien life visiting earth? "

Does the movie ET claim to be a message derived from an omniscient deity? You're talking complete nonsense.

"The Bible is filled with stories. Why can't you recognize that fact?"

Atheists generally do, and they're entirely man made stories of course, which is why they are flawed, why can't you recognise that fact?

Cognostic's picture
Bible School Teacher - Ha!

Bible School Teacher - Ha! The answer is easy - Genesis 7:14–15.
For instance, there are many different long-neck sauropods, such as Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, Saltasaurus, and Diplodocus, but only two needed to go onto the Ark if they were just one kind. This fact dramatically reduces the estimated number of dinosaurs on the Ark. Also, even though some dinosaurs grew to be large creatures, the average size was only about the size of a large sheep or bison. Even the largest dinosaurs were quite small when hatched. The Lord may have selected younger (and therefore smaller) representatives of some of the larger kinds, so there was plenty of room for all of the dinosaur kinds aboard the Ark. (NEVER QUESTION THE BIBLE)

Job and his friends in Job 38, 39, 40 and 41. God is calling attention to His great power in creating and sustaining all things.’

“Finally, He calls attention to His two greatest creations in the animal kingdom, the behemoth (Job 40:15-24) and leviathan (Job 41:1-34). Most commentators suggest the behemoth is either the elephant or hippopotamus and that leviathan is the crocodile. However, the actual descriptions (and these, coming as they do from the mouth of God Himself, certainly refer to real animals) obviously do not apply to any animals known today. The most reasonable interpretation is that they refer to extinct animals, a dinosaur and leviathan a marine dinosaur.

But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark — you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. (20) Of the birds after their kind, of animals [behemahs] after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive (Gen 6:18–20; cf. Gen 7:2, 8, 14; “animals” Lev 11:2–3).

Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals [behemahs] that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided (Gen 8:1).

NO CHRISTIAN SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER EVER HAD A PROBLEM STRINGING TOGETHER BIBLE VERSES TO SUBSTANTIATE DINOSAURS ON THE ARK.

As for unicorns - they are a biblical misinterpretation...
In the OT, an animal of great strength (Hebrew re’em) is mentioned in several places—eg. Numbers 23:22, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-12, Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10. The translators of the KJV incorrectly translated “re’em” as “unicorn.” Later translations of the Bible like the NKJV, NAS, RSV, NIV, NLT, ESV corrected this, and translated the animal as “wild ox.” Scholars believed that the Biblical writers had the now extinct aurochs in mind in these verses. Noah Webster, however, in his very first edition of his dictionary (1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language) says that the unicorn is the rhinoceros. —K.T. Sim

NO SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER WOULD EVER HAVE ISSUES WITH THESE QUESTIONS. THE ANSWERS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG - BUT NO SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER WOULD EVER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM

YOU WANT ANSWERS TO YOUR BIBLICAL QUESTIONS - "ASK AN ATHEIST"

's picture
cog, I'll have you know I was

cog, I'll have you know I was the most funnest, bestest bible study school teacher this side of Mars. It was a party every week.

Twizzlers, chocolate pudding, and M&M's. On a Sunday morning. How cool is that??

Plus, when I had the money, we'd bag church, and head for McDonald's for Happy Meals and ice cream. I should have won an award.

Cognostic's picture
Makes sense to me ----- Keep

Makes sense to me ----- Keep the kids mouths full of yummies so they don't ask any difficult questions. I would do the same thing if I hadn't read the Bible and was asked to teach a Sunday School class.

Sheldon's picture
Kudos, the number of Sunday

Kudos, the number of Sunday mornings I was forced to waste on that vapid nonsense still breaks my heart. I could have been fishing, or off cycling / exploring somewhere.

arakish's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I feel for you dude. All those Sundays I had wasted when I could have done the same thing. Makes me want to cry.

rmfr

Randomhero1982's picture
So, I've been incredibly busy

So, I've been incredibly busy with work of late... seismology is always a hectic field!

But got around to at least reading the book of Genesis...

Well..... what can one say...

's picture
"It was the best of times.

"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."

oh, sorry, wrong book.

Sheldon's picture
My favourite book as it

My favourite book as it happens, I have always been an avid fan of Charles Dickens.

Apollo's picture
A fan of Dickens, the theist.

A fan of Dickens, the theist. Presumably you recognize his stories as stories and not science books. that's a step in the right direction.

Tin-Man's picture
@Random Re: "But got around

@Random Re: "But got around to at least reading the book of Genesis... Well..... what can one say...?

"Alice in Wonderland" is far more entertaining.... and almost as believable. *chuckle*

's picture
I have never understood the

I have never understood the attraction of Alice. For its time, I'm sure it was revolutionary, but I never got what's so great about it. Which is too bad. It was probably fantastic when it was written. You know, like, reading Voltaire during Francisco Goya's era, compare to reading it in the 21st centurey.

Remember when 1984 came out, or are you that old? early 70's I think. I remember being shocked and horrified.

Grinseed's picture
"1984" written 1948 published

"1984" written 1948 published 1949. It wasn't so surprising...more lkke disturbing, even today as Orwell was pretty close to the mark...Big Brother on Twitter...televised wars...restrictive homeland security legislation...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.