Thursday, April 18, 2019

Answering Cosmic Sceptic on Bible Accuracy

Video commented on
Is The Bible 100% Accurate? This Pastor Thinks So
CosmicSkeptic | 14.VIII.2016

0:50 You have a problem, you take the billions of years as literal truth.

I'm not sure on whether one could use it as symbolic truth, but it definitely qualifies as literal untruth.

1:01 "As we know, the Sun was created before the Earth"

Know from where? Your favourite Pagan origins myth doesn't have "created."

1:14 "above which is a vast ocean"

Sorry, but you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Guess what two molecules are the most frequent ones in interplanetary space in the "solar system" and in interstellar space?

H2 and H2O. Both of them would qualify as water in Biblical terms (there was no specific term for hydrogen, and hydrogen gas is "instant water" - just add oxygen and a spark and you get water). And that far up would fairly and squarely qualify as in the upper part of the firmament (I am no expert in Hebrew, but I wonder if there is no adverbial phrase translated "above" which can also mean "in the upper part of").

1:31 To be a light source a thing can either "emit" or "reflect" light on your distinction.

1:38 First of all, we do not know stars are the same as the sun.

Second, what you mean by stars is only one of the meanings of star in older literature, so you have to deal with planets as well, and sun and moon traditionally count as planets (they make circuits around the zodiac).

Since stars are both types of celestial body, fix star and planet, the Bible is not actually coordinating them with either sun or moon.

4:21 Have you heard of adoption?

Matthew and Luke give physical and adoptive fathers of Joseph.

5:34 Contradictions involving Genesis 1 or 2:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Solution: Light of first three days was independent of sun, so was separation of night and day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

Solution: Trees in general were definitely created before man, but either Genesis 2:4-9 speeks of the specific trees in Eden as created after Adam or part of the past tenses are really past perfect.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Solution: See B.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Solution: See B.

GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, yet--
GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.

Solution: Interpretation of Genesis 2:15-17 is wrong interpretation, man was meant to have knowledge of good and evil from conversing with God.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Solution: Matter of dissolution, they were created same day (same time) but also not same hour (sometime later).

[I probably meant resolution, right, photographers?]

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

Solution: After man's disobedience, reproduction, of itself very good, has an evil side in man, transmitting Adam's sin to descendants.

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.)

Solution: God was pleased with His creation before the fall of Adam, and Genesis 6 tells of a pre-Flood world in which disobedient man had basically made the world a kind of Mordor.

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

Solution: Genesis 2:4 was written by Moses. For the rest, there are at least two solutions.

i) 4:26 implies Elohim or other words used before the Flood are valid names as well as Adonai. So does Genesis 12:8 and 26:25. So does 22:14-16 and if so Moriah is in fact a translation from an earlier name, by Moses.

ij) OR : Exodus 6 implies Abraham, Isaac and Jacod did not know the name Adonai by direct revelation. They could have known it by philosophical inference or by tradition. Also, it nowhere says God had not previously revealed the name to Adam and Eve or to Seth's son Enosh.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

Solution: King David in Psalm 89:4 and St Peter in II Peter 3:8 say:

For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,

But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And 930 years after one's creation is within 1000 years of eating the forbidden fruit.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Solution: Again, the interpretation of Genesis 2:15-17 is a wrong interpretation. However, the interpretation of Hebrews 5:13-14 is nearly correct.

After Adam's disobedience, we no longer live alongside God's perpetual sensed presence, most of us, and therefore (and also for validating the presence as divine for those who sense it) we need to painstakingly build up a discernment of good and evil. However, the immature are not totally unable to do so, and Hebrews 5 doesn't say they are, it says they are unskilful, that is do so with a degree of clumsiness.

Do you want more?

6:34 Somewhat mis-citing Romans 10:17.

"hearing of the word of God" he said, but actually:

Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

Since Christ is in fact God, this is a quibble, in a sense, but ... there is a point to it.

"word of God" would refer to all God revealed, specifically the Bible
"word of Christ" would refer to the logia of Christ

And perhaps especially to one related to "hearing". In fact there is one.

Luke 10:16 Christ tells a specified clergy of disciples: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

There is another word about Faith from hearing just a few verses earlier, which confirms this:

Verses 11 to 15 in Romans 10:

For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

6:59 Breaking the circle, "inspiration" of certain Scriptures was both OT times and NT times guaranteed by an Institution one could call "the Church" - first the Jewish Church from Aaron to Kaiaphas, then the Catholic Church from Simon Kephas on to this day and to Doomsday.

This double institution (the Jewish Church belonging to Catholic Church and not to Jewish synagogue despite its claims to continue it) has for each of the canonised books (73 of them) gathered sufficient evidence that it's written by a man speaking for God.

If you believe in science, you should be familiar with a continuous institution spanning several generations gathering evidence.

7:20 "on a flat earth which is only a few thousand years old, despite the fact we have trees that are older than that"

  • Flat Earth? Not in the Bible.
  • A few thousand years old? 7200 years.
  • Trees older than that? No. In fact the oldest living trees (or recently dead ones, which is when you can count its tree rings to determine its age) are not even in contradiction with LXX based dates for the Flood as c. 3000 BC or 5000 years ago.

7:33 Yes, I'm looking it up.

III Kings 7:23 here:

He made also a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round all about; the height of it was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about.

Solution for pi not being three, which we agree it isn't : diameter is taken brim to brim of a wider circle, circumference is taken at a less wide circle under the brim.

If you read on to verse 26 it says:

And the laver was a handbreadth thick: and the brim thereof was like the brim of a cup, or the leaf of a crisped lily: it contained two thousand bates.

A handbreadth would be about the difference in width of the two concentric circles.

Remember that the difference in width is like a difference in radius, not diameter.

Now what is 30 cubits divided by pi?

9.5492965855137201461330258023509 cubits.

10 - 9.5492965855137201461330258023509
= 0.45070341448627985386697419764914 cubits - this is the difference between diameters.

So this divided by two is:

0.22535170724313992693348709882457 cubits.

Now, a handbreadth is 0.1666667 cubits, a bit less, but one can suppose either another version of the measures than the modern ones, or some curving out near the top.

7:53 A circular object will often not involve just one circle, but two concentric ones. Or more concentric ones.

Your error of interpretation lies in treating the diameter and the circumference as being from the same circle.

8:44 "but trust me"

Continues "I was there all these billions of years, because I'm God almighty"?

Or continues "I was there all these billions of years, because I'm a spaceman, and I only appear one day each thousand years, living one day of my life, so I could record in my last ten years of existence 3 652 425 Earth years of evolution, that's right, I saw both Lucy and the first Neanderthals and every stage between"?

Or ... wait, I can actually allow you to speak for yourself:

"there's a lot of people on the planet who can"

No, I don't need to take their statements on faith, by taking your trust in them as not misplaced on faith in you.

8:59 A fossil in the wrong place would usually lead to redefining the place.

Pre-Flood Ammonites and pre-Flood Biarmosuchians are not found fossils of [in the same place] because Biarmosuchians live on land and Ammonites in the sea.

Hence Grand Canyon was sea up to Flood and Perm district (or the parts where Biarmosuchians were found and so named) and Karoo were land up to Flood.

Perm is in Russia and Karoo in South Africa, not far from Bloemfontein and Lesotho, by the way.

This means, diverse faunal biotopes have left diverse remains on diverse parts of the earth. And no, you do not dig in Karoo to find Grand Canyon type fauna below the Biarmosuchians.

Trust me, I checked on the internet where scientists were actually finding the fossils.

And no, it was not on Creationist sites, but on wikipedia and other resources where any bias would be evolutionist.

On the other hand, finding an alternative explanation is not exactly disproving evolution.

So ... chromosome numbers in mammals. A mammal cannot survive tetraploid conception. In man there are some ways to get aborted spontaneously before birth, and trisomy 1 trisomy 3 and tetraploidy are three of these ways. One tetraploid boychild did survive a few months, but was born very sickly and died accordingly. Hope he got baptised first.

This poses a problem for any placental mammal having a chromosome number higher than the supposed first placental mammal they all are supposed to develop from.

I said "a fossil in the wrong place would usually lead to redefining the place," but actually it would even more often lead to redefining the range of a certain fossil as index fossil. Find a Sauropod in late Cretaceous and Sauropods no longer belong to the Jurassic only, etc.

9:05 "then you would revolutionise biology and change the world"

Sounds as if Harriet Beecher Stowe personally, with no help from Lincoln or general Ulysses Grant or anything abolished slavery ... not how things happen.

I mentioned Adam sinned, right?

10:01 Yes, Kangaroos did travel from Middle East to Australia.

Perhaps Mungo man brought them on a ship (and Mungo man is carbon dated to c. 20 000 BP, the 40 000 BP date is in fact another method, and 20 000 BP is exactly how I think carbon dates would look for within the post-Flood life span of Noah, somewhere in the middle between year of Flood and 350 years after Flood, which is when Noah died.

Good carbon dates for the extremes of this period are:

  • extinction of Neanderthals for Flood
  • Younger Dryas or beginning of Göbekli Tepe (Babel) for after Noah died.

Or, during the ice age (which did happen in the period) kangaroos got over a Sahul Sunda bridge.

10:10 "massive sea" was not so massive in the post-Flood ice age, Sahul Sunda again, and no traces between, well there were very few to begin with and so, either the Ark couple came all the way to Australia or their small ones did, and one couple is not likely to leave a trace as for instance a huge population would.

10:30 "misogyny"

As a rabid feminist would define it, right?

"homophobia, fascism"

As if these were wrong?

"scientific inaccuracy"

Which you haven't shown.

10:46 The Islamic Ummah is not the equivalent of either Jewish Church in OT times or Christian Roman Catholic Church since then.

It is not in continuity with either, and it did not witness actual miracles.

(One can quibble on whether it ever, when very small, claimed to have witnessed Mohammed splitting the moon, but this miracle was nothing like a condition for its existence - unlike Exodus through Red Sea for Jewish Church, unlike Risen Christ for Catholic Church).

Other thing : Quran makes claims contradicting Moses and Gospels, but at same time also claims (contrary to classic Sunni explanations) Jews and Christians have (not just had earlier, but still have) presumably unadulterated Tawrat and Injil - it therefore very massively contradicts itself.

11:35 You could say that one about some slaves living in Sudan or Mauretania and about the Quran.

The law of Moses on this one was given a few years in advance of Israelites getting slaves who, when free, had been sacrificing children to Baal and similar things.

The law of Christ, based on a fairly human practise of Jews under OT, involves sth about Epistle to Ephesians. Check out what it has to say about master and slave relations (and don't forget to take modern employers into the equation, some may be worse than Christian slave owners of 1st C AD).

11:47 "stoning of homosexuals"

Forgetting two things:

  • stoning was a capital punishment in a legal framework when Jewish Church was the state religion of a free or near free Israelite state community, and NT books don't seem as if Christianity favoured reclaiming independence against Romans by lynchmob stonings;
  • homosexuality was not the issue, sodomy was.

    A homosexual like Josh Weed would not have been stoned.

12:20 "please don't spread"

Is it a polite request, or is it a harassment against the liberty of expression?

13:13 You forget we have, historically, a scientific and research culture at all, because of belief in the Bible.

Mathematic slant to natural sciences (way more than in Aristotle) - where does it come from?

It comes from the second half of this Bible verse, adressing God:

"Yea and without these, they might have been slain with one blast, persecuted by their own deeds, and scattered by the breath of thy power: but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight."
[Wisdom 11:21]

Also, no one ever claimed that "all the answers are in the Bible".

  • 1) The Bible doesn't tell what diet I am on (somewhat rich in sugar, due to some people believing me an alcoholic and trying to informally "medicate" me with a substance of known antabus effect, I presume, plus how much I got used to it and how much sugar is indispensible with coffee after too little sleep)
  • 2) The Bible doesn't tell us the actual name of Antichrist, just the gematric number value of the name
  • 3) The Bible doesn't tell us when Christ will return, just a few circumstances (like before Catholic Church ends, before Antichrist dies and so on, and after Enoch and Elijah will have made a very spectacular appearance in Jerusalem, see Apocalypse 11 - though the names aren't mentioned, the Church interprets the two as being these).

Just in case you prefer seeing all comments together in sequence, here is the link to that blog post:

[link here:]

As the comments stand separately, each point can be debated by comments under my comments, if anyone wants debate.

No comments: