Bible and Bats
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2013, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2013 08:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 07:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but despite the bible claiming that bats are birds, it was a fair thing to say given the time period.

There isn't an objective definition of "bird". For the sake of biological classification, scientists defined what "bird" means. But that doesn't mean that it has always meant what it currently means, nor does it mean that scientists necessarily had to define birds the way that they currently do.

You could still argue that God lacked foresight, because someday bats would not be seen as birds and this part of scripture would look primitive and "stupid". However, given the period it was written in, bats may have fit the definition of birds at the time (creatures that fly?) and so it wasn't stupid in context.

For further clarification, let me give you an analogy. Let's say that you bought an SUV, and you write an email to someone about how happy you are with your new car. Then a few years down the road, SUV's are re-classified by your state as an entirely separate type of vehicle that is (for legal purposes) not referred to as a "car". Would it be fair for someone to make fun of your email for calling your SUV a car? Of course not. At the time that you wrote it your SUV was a car. The point is not whether they knew enough at the time to call a bat a "flying mammal". The point is they KNEW NOTHING everyone else at the time did, and therefor NO extraordinary claims can be made about those texts.

Problem is there is not a huge set of people claiming that your calling it a "car" was "inerrant", and all sorts of other "magical" shit, and the ORIGINAL use was "true for all time, and all people", and "the Word of a deity". The fact is, if there was any sort of really "extraordinary" information imparted to/by the writers of the Bible, they would have displayed it at least once. They never, ever do. And that is a perfectly valid argument against the crap that it was "inspired" and "inerrant", or that they knew ONE thing, anyone else in the culture did not. The fact that it is PERFECTLY 100% syncretic with the cultures that produced it, IS a very powerful argument against it's "divine origins".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-08-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Problem is there is not a huge set of people claiming that your calling it a "car" was "inerrant", and all sorts of other "magical" shit, and the ORIGINAL use was "true for all time, and all people", and "the word of a deity". The fact is, if there was any sort of real "extraordinary" information imparted to the writers of the Bible, they would have displayed it at least once. It never, ever does. And that is a perfectly valid argument against the crap that it was "inspired" and "inerrant", or that they knew ONE thing, anyone else in the culture did not. The fact that it is PERFECTLY 100% syncretic with the cultures that produced it, IS a very powerful argument against it's "divine origins".

Yeah. That.

If it's inerrant and eternal then that excuse doesn't hold horse piss.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Problem is there is not a huge set of people claiming that your calling it a "car" was "inerrant", and all sorts of other "magical" shit, and the ORIGINAL use was "true for all time, and all people", and "the Word of a deity". The fact is, if there was any sort of really "extraordinary" information imparted to/by the writers of the Bible, they would have displayed it at least once. They never, ever do. And that is a perfectly valid argument against the crap that it was "inspired" and "inerrant", or that they knew ONE thing, anyone else in the culture did not. The fact that it is PERFECTLY 100% syncretic with the cultures that produced it, IS a very powerful argument against it's "divine origins".

And I conceded that. If you were to go back in time, knowing what you know now, you would not try to convince someone to classify bats as birds in your holy book. It's nonsensical for someone with omniscience to do so. But it doesn't necessarily make the bible untrue or "errant". Nobody's claiming that calling an SUV a car is "inerrant" because it was just an analogy I made up. But no Christian is claiming that the original description of bats as birds was "true for all time, and all people". In fact, most Christians see the OT dietary laws as written for different people in a different time period and they don't see it as still applicable.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 10:16 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Problem is there is not a huge set of people claiming that your calling it a "car" was "inerrant", and all sorts of other "magical" shit, and the ORIGINAL use was "true for all time, and all people", and "the Word of a deity". The fact is, if there was any sort of really "extraordinary" information imparted to/by the writers of the Bible, they would have displayed it at least once. They never, ever do. And that is a perfectly valid argument against the crap that it was "inspired" and "inerrant", or that they knew ONE thing, anyone else in the culture did not. The fact that it is PERFECTLY 100% syncretic with the cultures that produced it, IS a very powerful argument against it's "divine origins".

And I conceded that. If you were to go back in time, knowing what you know now, you would not try to convince someone to classify bats as birds in your holy book. It's nonsensical for someone with omniscience to do so. But it doesn't necessarily make the bible untrue or "errant". Nobody's claiming that calling an SUV a car is "inerrant" because it was just an analogy I made up. But no Christian is claiming that the original description of bats as birds was "true for all time, and all people". In fact, most Christians see the OT dietary laws as written for different people in a different time period and they don't see it as still applicable.

But bats are objectively not birds, ans birds can are objectively defined.

The evolutionary tree of life is an objective classification unlike cars or books or stamps.

The Bible shows ignorance of reality by the writers, not divine guidance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 10:34 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
(22-08-2013 10:16 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Problem is there is not a huge set of people claiming that your calling it a "car" was "inerrant", and all sorts of other "magical" shit, and the ORIGINAL use was "true for all time, and all people", and "the Word of a deity". The fact is, if there was any sort of really "extraordinary" information imparted to/by the writers of the Bible, they would have displayed it at least once. They never, ever do. And that is a perfectly valid argument against the crap that it was "inspired" and "inerrant", or that they knew ONE thing, anyone else in the culture did not. The fact that it is PERFECTLY 100% syncretic with the cultures that produced it, IS a very powerful argument against it's "divine origins".

And I conceded that. If you were to go back in time, knowing what you know now, you would not try to convince someone to classify bats as birds in your holy book. It's nonsensical for someone with omniscience to do so. But it doesn't necessarily make the bible untrue or "errant". Nobody's claiming that calling an SUV a car is "inerrant" because it was just an analogy I made up. But no Christian is claiming that the original description of bats as birds was "true for all time, and all people". In fact, most Christians see the OT dietary laws as written for different people in a different time period and they don't see it as still applicable.

It's a piece of a puzzle. And every detail is important. It does, as a whole, IN SUM, relegate the Bible to nothing better/different than any other piece of HUMAN literature. "Most Christians" ?? Really. Let's see the poll. There are significant groups of Fundamentalists that claim that there is NOT ONE error in the entire Bible. THAT is why every detail like this IS important, to refute their crap. BTW, "still applicable" (or not), dietary laws, is not the same as blatant scientific ignorance. This is not about "still applicable". It's about IGNORANCE, and proof of "non-inspiration" by yet another among countless elements, that prove that *ON THE WHOLE*, the texts are simply cultural artifacts of their own day.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-08-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
I've addressed this topic before, but for the life of me, I couldn't find the post.

Anyway, this "contradiction" is a non-issue. Biological Classifications is a man-made system that did not occur until the mid 1800s.

You cannot hold any ancient culture's understanding and classification of things by the current scientific standard that we know today. There was no mammal, reptile, bird, etc. They only knew birds of the sky, beasts of the earth, and fish of the sea.

A bat can fly. It was known as a "bird" because it flew like a bird. Pretty cut and dry.

If you want to pick out Biblical science contradictions, go with something else. Like I said, this isn't even near a "contradiction".

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 01:58 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2013 05:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Bible and Bats
" I've addressed this topic before, but for the life of me, I couldn't find the post."

It's hell getting old. Big Grin

The presumption by Biblical "inerrant" claimers, is that everything in the Bible is the "inspired Word of God". So we have to make up my mind what we're actually talking about.

If we're talking about (presumably) a "divinely inspired text" then the ancient "cultural context" argument is irrelevant, as one is arguing the texts are inspired. Period.
In this case you can expect total truth. Not JUST the truth limited to what was known in an ancient culture. There is NO such "disclosure" in any Bible text of anything that was not known at the time they were written/assembled, AND they reflect ONLY culturally/socially accepted norms from THAT day, which where "sanctioned", (taken from the cultures data base) and imported into the texts. (Not the other way around). There is not one example of a "socially progressive/unknown" law or proscription, from *out of the blue*, that just somehow appeared for the first time in the Bible, and can claim "uniqueness". It debunks "inspiration". The ancient Hebrews never made the claims of "inspiration", (or inerancy). Christians did not even start making the claim of "inerrant inspiration" about ONLY the NT texts until much later. James and Paul said "holy writings" were "inspired", but they were not talking about only Bible texts.

So I agree man made classification systems are irrelevant, BUT, the ABSENCE of knowledge of the distinction between birds and (flying) mammals IS NOT irrelevant, IF one is claiming "inspiration" and "inerrancy". You can't hold the ancient culture to modern standards, but you sure as hell can hold a god doing the "inspiring" to modern standards, and perhaps a LOT more. The problem is not the apparent contradiction. The problem is the huge gaping lack of knowledge and known cultural origins, with all their limited knowledge.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-08-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
(23-08-2013 11:11 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I've addressed this topic before, but for the life of me, I couldn't find the post.

Anyway, this "contradiction" is a non-issue. Biological Classifications is a man-made system that did not occur until the mid 1800s.

You cannot hold any ancient culture's understanding and classification of things by the current scientific standard that we know today. There was no mammal, reptile, bird, etc. They only knew birds of the sky, beasts of the earth, and fish of the sea.

A bat can fly. It was known as a "bird" because it flew like a bird. Pretty cut and dry.

If you want to pick out Biblical science contradictions, go with something else. Like I said, this isn't even near a "contradiction".

No and no.

Systema Naturae, Carl Linnaeus - 1735

And no one called it a contradiction, just a flat-out error.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-08-2013, 02:52 PM
RE: Bible and Bats
You're right, Chas... my mistake.

But, the whole thing isn't an error. The term "bird" and "bat" mean zero in the context. All it denotes are animals that fly.

Differentiating between a bird and a mammal is irrelevant for the text and for "needing" to be divinely inspired.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 05:46 AM
RE: Bible and Bats
wow cheers you lot...

So I will add this to my limited refuting armoury on the basis that the book is the word of god (the creator) and he, or she should know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: