9 "Science" False Messiah, Apologetic Defens

Issue No. 9 September 1983

COMMENTARY
Biblical "Science"

The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself, believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:

The bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

Some statements are so vague that apologists can often evade dilemmas by creative rationalizations. As Ingersoll said: "If the holy writer uses general terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize a seemingly preposterous statement with the most obdurate fact. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 37). For instance, Gen. 1:7-8 says: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;... And god called the firmament Heaven." Realizing the scientific implausibility inherent in this narration, some apologists attempt to portray the firmament as nothing more than the atmosphere separating the moist clouds above from the oceans below.

*Some biblical allegations are not only erroneous but have been fatal to their adherents.

For instance, Mark16:17-18 says: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils;.... They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them."

Not many believing Christians are willing to drink poisons or handle rattlesnakes to prove the Bible's accuracy, although some have tried. Many individuals have died because they put their trust in the Biblical injunction to pray ("And the prayer of faith shall save the sick," James 5:13-15) and, not wanting to make Asa's mistake (2 Chron. 16:12), shunned physicians.

*The unscientific aspect of biblical teachings is also shown in the fact that many mythological creatures are spoken of as if they were, in fact, real. The manner in which they are described and the context within which this occurs show biblical writers felt they actually existed. Some of the prominent examples are:

cockatrices (Jer. 8:17, Isa. 11:8 59:5),
unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),
satyrs (Isa. 34:14, 13:21)
fiery serpents (Num. 21:6),
and flying serpents (Isa. 14:29, 30:6).

*One should note the hundreds of miracles contained within the Bible. Perhaps more than anything else they prove the Book lacks scientific validity. Miracles, by definition, have supernatural causes, and science, by definition, doesn't work with the supernatural. In order to avoid an extended discussion as to the existence of miracles, I will simply say that nearly all reputable scientists deny their existence and feel all events have a natural, material cause. Believers in miracles can never produce a supernatural event when asked to do so. Challenges are invariably left unanswered.

Any book claiming a woman turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), the sun went backward 10 degrees on the sundial (2 Kings 20:11), and quails came from the sea (Num. 11:31) is going to have great difficulty demonstrating its scientific precision to any reasonably scientific mind.

"Virtually every child has heard about the parting of the Red Sea, the whale swallowing Jonah, the stick turning into a snake, and Jesus' walking on water. In fact, many people begin their critical analysis of the Bible by doubting the authenticity of these stories. Logic, reason, and skepticism accompany a scientific mentality; not one of faith and uncritical belief.

In recent years the conflict between science and the Bible has become especially pronounced with respect to the struggle between evolution and Creationism. The battle has been, and is being, fought in many forms--e.g. the schools, libraries, and courts. BE will not enter the fray because the subject matter not only lies outside the Bible per se, but is highly technical and of little interest to many people. Few scientists and even fewer laymen really understand the intricacies of all the sciences that are involved in a really thorough discussion of evolution. Paleontology, geology, biology, astronomy, archeology, chemistry, and anthropology are some of the disciplines one must comprehend in order to proceed wisely. However, it is interesting to note how the struggle between science and the Bible has evolved.

Originally, scientific findings were denounced as blasphemous lies. But as science has expanded and the evidence has mounted, many apologists have adopted a more realistic stance. They have increasingly rewritten the Bible by either changing literal statements to figurative meanings or alleging, "What the Bible really meant was..." For example, they assert the seven days of Creation weren't really days; they were eras or epochs. When the Bible describes miracles it doesn't mean to imply they exist. It is merely relating instances in which naive people were fooled by trickery and other mechanisms.

With characteristic wisdom, Ingersoll took note of this slow evolutionary change: "The church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every device that cunning could suggest or ingenuity execute, but the conflict could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerned, was in danger of being driven from the earth. Beaten in the open field, the church began to equivocate, to evade, and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having failed to harmonize the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was not a scientific book,....(Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p.220)."

"In matters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be a regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the Bible. The tables have been turned, now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with science. The standard has been changed." (Ibid. Vol. 2, p. 242).

"In other words, the standard has been changed; the ancient is measured by the modern, where the literal statement in the Bible does not agree with modern discoveries, they do not change the discoveries, but give new meanings to the old account. We are not now endeavoring to reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the Bible with science." (Ibid. Vol. 8, p. 151).

Only staunch fundamentalists continue trying to erase the handwriting on the wall. In the 5th chapter of Daniel, Belshazzar didn't try to erase the unpleasant handwriting on the wall. He listened and acted accordingly. One would think believers in the Bible would learn from his experience. In summary, the Bible is not inerrant with respect to science. Many statements reflect the era in which they were written and assertions to the contrary are weak at best.

Jesus, the False Messiah

Jesus often made statements and committed acts which invalidate any claims he made to the Messiahship. Examples, such as the following, are worthy of note.

Mark 9:25-26 says: "...he (Jesus) rebuked the foul spirit, saying into him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him;..."

Jesus' statement is false, because if the spirit was deaf, how could he have heard Jesus and come out? If he was dumb, how could he have cried out?

In Mark 10:19 Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Jesus needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. There is no Old Testament commandment against defrauding. The only relevant statement about defrauding is in Lev. 19:13, which says: "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor." This is an OT law, but is not listed with the Ten Commandments.

In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.

REVIEWS

In some of their apologetic works, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart provide common responses to those who question the Bible's scientific qualifications: "The Bible is not a textbook on science. Its purpose is not to explain in technical terms the technical data of the natural world, but to explain God's purpose and relation to man, to deal with spiritual things. It is definitely not a technical textbook for scientists. The descriptions which the Bible gives concerning nature are neither scientific nor unscientific, but phrased in words that are non-technical and often general, so that even the common reader can follow the thought. This does not at all mean the statements are incorrect." (Answers to Tough Questions, P. 104) The problem with this explanation is that it's irrelevant. Whether or not the Bible is a scientific textbook or whether it's intended to be a technical work doesn't matter. The fact is, scientific statements contained therein are either true or false. They are either correct or they aren't. That's all that matters. And any book alleging a bat is a bird and some foul are four-footed is incorrect. The assertion that "The descriptions which the Bible gives concerning nature are neither scientific nor unscientific" has no truth whatever. They definitely lie within the scientific sphere, and are false. McDowell and Stewart continue: "The Scriptures entertain no fanciful ideas of science and of the natural world,.... It was Ptolemy who suggested that the earth was flat. We read statements such as these and laugh, but there are no absurd statements in the Bible similar to these." (Ibid. P. 105). Such comments hardly merit a response. The Bible is permeated with miracles and erroneous scientific comments.

In The Bible is a Scientific Book apologist Gordon Lindsey not only defended the Bible, but asserted: "The Bible foresaw the great inventions of our day" (p. 8). He contends many biblical statements are nothing more than prophecies of scientific developments in the 19th and 20th centuries. For instance, Lindsey claims that Isa. 31:5 predicts Jerusalem would be defended by airplanes, as occurred in 1917 and during the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. Isaiah 31:5 says: "As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it, and passing over he will preserve it." Yet several parts of the verse show the Lord is the "Airplane" referred to, The "as birds flying" phrase applies to God himself. He will hover over and defend Jerusalem. There is no justification for assuming airplanes are intended. The phrase "And passing over head he will..." makes the same point. God is doing the flying and protecting.

On page 16 Lindsey says: "Peter, quoting from Joel 2:30, apparently refers to atomic warfare: 'And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke' (Acts 2:19). It requires no imagination to see that this is an apt allusion to nuclear war." On the contrary, it requires great imagination to relate this verse to nuclear war, since any war has blood, fire and smoke. Lindsey contends the advent of radio is predicted in Job 38:35, which says: "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" But lightnings or electricity are not sent through the air by radio. Radio waves are sent, and they aren't electricity or lightnings. Lindsey refers to Psalm 90:10 as evidence the Bible forsaw a life expectancy of 70 years. The verse says: "The days of our years are three score and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we fly away." Lindsey concludes: "Some 3,500 years ago Moses,...said that a man's life would be 70 years.... It is amazing that Moses, living in a period when life expectancy had been rapidly dropping, should make this statement. For turn to your world almanac, and you will see that today, after every means of modern medical science has been exhausted, longevity is 70.2 years. Science, try as it may, is unable to break the barrier.... God has cut down the life expectancy of man to 70 years, and there it has stayed for 3,500 years. Another proof of the veracity of the Holy Scripture" (Ibid. p. 27-28). Anyone seeking evidence as to why the Bible and its evangelical proponents should not be allowed to dominate science in the classrooms need look no further than this line of thought. It's hopelessly inaccurate. In the first place, life expectancy in most countries of the world is far below 70 years. In India and Bangladesh, for example, people are considered old at 50. Only the more advanced countries have life expectancies approaching 70 years. Lindsey should realize most people don't live as long as his native Texans. Secondly, the life expectancy of the average American hasn't been as low as 70.2 years since 1965. So any assertion to the effect that science has reached an impassable barrier is false. Thirdly, the life expectancy of man has not stayed at 70 years for 3,500 years. Quite the opposite, constant improvements in medicine and nutrition have generated a steady lengthening of the life expectancy, and only recently has it attained an average of 70 years. Tendentious reasoning, such as that shown by Lindsey, can only lead to erroneous conclusions.

*In Biblical Difficulties W. Arndt alleges the Bible does not say the earth is flat in Psalm 136:6 and Isaiah 11:12, or rests on pillars in 1 Sam. 2:8. After contending these are merely figures of speech in poetic jargon, Arndt says: "If no better arguments against the world view of the Bible can be presented than those looked at, the Bible has little to fear on this score." (Ibid. p. 165). To begin with, 1 Sam. 2:8 (RSV) does say the earth rest on four pillars, and Isaiah 11:12 does say the earth has four corners. It's difficult to see how anything could have corners without having flat sides. But if Arndt insists on giving a figurative interpretation to these imprecise statements, so be it. They are not definite enough for either side to make a conclusive argument. But what about comments that are definite? The Book of Leviticus, for example, has more inaccurate scientific comments than any other book in the Bible, but is ignored entirely by Lindsey and only lightly touched by Arndt. In response to the comment in Lev. 11:6 that hares chew the cud Arndt says: "It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter--the hare and the hyrax--do not ruminate at all,...but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating.... The statement that it cheweth the cud is to be taken phenomenally, not scientifically.... Moses speaks of animals according to appearance, and not with the precision of a comparative anatomist...." (Ibid. p. 119-120). The fact is the statement is false. Lev. 11:6 says hares chew the cud. In truth, they don't. That's the bottom line. Rationalizing just won't save the day.



Letter from J.S. of Dayton, Ohio
In compliance with my recent request for a free copy of Biblical Errancy, you promptly sent me the June edition. I was amazed. Never before had I seen anything like it; I knew, of course, that many people had written essays attacking belief in the literal verity of scripture, even in books, but I scarcely thought that there was a periodical dedicated to providing a forum that discussed the Bible's validity. Neither had I met or heard of any skeptic (with few exceptions) who demonstrated such a thorough knowledge of the book itself. I was a sophomore at...University, and have waited for many years to find someone who understands my religious position. Most of the people I know, whether they are theists, agnostics, or atheists, all seem to share a common trait: dogmatism. With biblical apologists, of course, it is obvious. Most of the agnostics and atheists are as bad, despite the fact that they say they reject dogma. However, their agnosticism is, for the most part, a rebellion against parental religious indoctrination, not the result of critical thinking. In the case of both believer and unbeliever, a position is taken and then arguments are constructed to support the position. The critical thinker must follow where the arguments leads; the dogmatic thinker already knows where he wants to go, even if he has to go through the most elaborate verbal and intellectual gymnastics to get there. As Bertrand Russell points out in his History of Western Philosophy "The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy but special pleading."
No clearer has the attitude which Russell criticizes shown itself than in the orgy of book burning and censorship that is sweeping the country and fast becoming an American pastime. The awesome threat of the Religious Right is usually well publicized; nearly every day there is an article in the newspaper about a school in Oklahoma which threw thirty-two copies of Slaughterhouse Five into the furnace, or a revival which boasted a bonfire, fueled with the writings of Satan's ministers (e.g. Voltaire, Russell, Satre, etc.). What is rarely reported are the infractions of the Left, as in the case of the Unitarian Church service in which various parts of the Bible, Koran, and other works that were described as sexist or racist were ceremonially burned on the altar; the congregation was much edified. (For further examples read, "When Nice People Burn Books" in the February edition of The Progressive). This is the real lesson these people are teaching their congregations (whether rightist or leftist): the way you deal with ideas you don't like is to burn them.

I am glad that Biblical Errancy provides a sane alternative to this madness: open rational debate. I only wish that some of your more zealous subscribers would be a little less emotional and dogmatic, and a little more like you. I refer specifically to the person from Richmond, Indiana (See: Letter #3 in June, 1983 issue) who calls the bible "a horrible book" (a somewhat surprising reference in view of the occasional biblical statements on the importance of loving one another), and who acknowledges that he or she has never read it, while maintaining its falsehood. In fact, he or she is overjoyed to have found rational arguments for a position taken long ago, without the use of reason: "I'll let you do all the work and I'll have all the discussions with my Christian friends. This is just the fuel I've needed." And another person from my home town writes, "I can go to the Christian bookstore and obtain all of the tracts I could care to burn..." (See: Letter #16 in the June, 1983 issue). I guess all you can do is be a good example and avoid invective yourself. I think a great many of your readers respect you very highly, and would become more interested in truth than in "proving a point." So far it seems you have done a fine job in this respect.

Editor's response to Letter #20
Dear J.S. You demonstrate wisdom beyond your years. Although much of your commentary lies outside the Bible, per se, and, not within the normal scope of BE, I'd like to respond to some of your more salient points. First, your distain for book-burning is well-founded. As part of its response to such activity, BE not only doesn't burn writings of the opposition, but prints them. Secondly, your description of BE as a forum for open, rational debate is right on target. It's a forum for both sides, not a podium or pulpit for one. Thirdly, BE doesn't always agree with views expressed in letters-to-the-editor. They are printed to provide food for thought, not holy writ. And lastly, although BE avoids invective and pejoratives, they are by no means absent in letters BE receives. If and when such letters are published, BE will not join in with the language being used. Far too much needs to be said about the Bible to devote oneself to anything other than objective, dispassionate analysis. However, if some readers wish to express themselves more graphically, that's their prerogative.

Letter #21 from BLC of Green Bay, Wisconsin
Dennis. After careful reading of the free copy of your June issue I can say that I find your work fascinating and provocative. I would like to know if you would or have ever extended your publication to include debate about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. From what I have read, the Shroud appears to be proof positive that (a) Jesus Christ did live, (b) he was crucified in the matter stated in the N.T., and (c) most importantly, it appears that the only way the image could have been projected onto the cloth was by an instantaneous burst of radiation, emanating from the body. It appears that many scientists who examined the Shroud in 1978 are reluctant to admit this, because they cannot duplicate this feat in a lab, and because the scientific method precludes the possibility of a supernatural being. (BLC concluded by saying he feels the scientific evidence supports the Resurrection and quoted from Verdict on the Shroud, in which two scientists claim the odds "that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ are one in 82,944,000"-ed).

Editor's Response to Letter #21
Dear BLC. After an extensive and involved scientific analysis of this issue, two staunch defenders of the Bible concluded: "The evidence so far in no way supports the Shroud's authenticity as the burial cloth of Christ." (Answers to Tough Questions, by McDowell and Stewart, p. 169). I, too, find it difficult to believe this cloth could be traced back 2,000 years to a particular person. I can't help but feel the odds are one in 82,944,000 that it is the shroud of Jesus Christ. In any event, the subject lies outside the Bible and, thus, outside the purview of BE. The latter does not discuss extra-biblical subjects with any depth, unless they are unavoidable. The Bible can't be approached effectively by relying on subjects of this nature. One must go within. Extra-biblical discussions often become more entertaining than revealing or persuasive.