Skeptic's Challenge

[DLH]

If the Bible disagrees with science then the Bible contains at least one scientific inaccuracy. Therefore your claim that you will 'successfully refute' any scientific inaccuracies provided is quite obviously not something you can achieve.

Correct. If you can actually distinguish which portion of the Bible contains scientific inaccuracies.

 

[DLH]

Good question. No. It doesn't. For a thorough explanation read my Skeptic's Study Bible | Genesis Chapter 1 including the Academic's Annotated Bible and Skeptic's FAQ. It isn't as lengthy a read as it sounds.

Many theologists have used the genealogy between Adam and Christ, given in various Scripture to determine the Earth is somewhere between 5 and 7 thousand years old. Is this accurate?

I'm not familiar with such an endeavor but I don't see how it could possibly determine the age of the Earth. From Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6 you can go from Adam's creation to the flood being 1,656 years. From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

 

[dystopian]

They were sentenced to roam in the wilderness for their lack of faith. Hebrews 3:7–4:11; Numbers 13:25–14:38.

This does not answer the question. The wilderness simply wasn't large enough to keep them contained for 40 years as they traveled it. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that none of them would just walk out of there long before the 40 years was up, just because god said so? That is absurd beyond belief. In order to actually answer the question, you need to provide some credible reasons as to why they wouldn't or couldn't leave. You have not done so.

Challenge remains unanswered.

Although some object to the references to Philistine there is no solid basis for doing so. The New Bible Dictionary edited by J.*Douglas (1985, p. 933): "Since the Philistines are not named in extra-biblical inscriptions until the 12th*century BC, and the archaeological remains associated with them do not appear before this time, many commentators reject references to them in the patriarchal period as anachronistic. . . . There is no reason why small groups of Philistines could not have been among the early Aegean traders, not prominent enough to be noticed by the larger states."

This is nothing more than a cop-out; there is absolutely no evidence that the philistines EXISTED in ANY form before that period. Your attempt to answer the question is equivalent to saying that just because there's no references to artificial satellites existing before 1957, there's no reason why satellites couldn't have been out there but simply not prominent enough to be noticed. It is an attempt to answer the problem by *inventing* people out of nowhere. The logical conclusion to them not appearing before a certain time and for there also to not be any archeological remains associated with them before that time... is to conclude that they didn't exist. It is completely unsupportable to claim that they "could" have been around there.

Besides, even if they could have been; that doesn't mean they *were*. What COULD be true is not an argument for something being *actually* true.

Furthermore, even if there actually were small groups of philistines in the area; this does not actually solve the problem, because the bible doesn't mention "there were small groups of phillistines here and there."; no, it explicitly makes reference to a land of the philistines; a reference that one wouldn't make in regards to an unnoticed handful of people.

Challenge remains unanswered.


How about another challenge (I'll still expect you to properly challenged the preceding two, however) This one actually involves firm dates, so you should be able to answer it without resorting to vague "could"'s

Daniel 1:1

"In the third yearof the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it."

Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king during this year. Nebuchadnezzar first attacked Jerusalem 9 years later; when Jehoiakim was already dead.

 

[Bronzeage]

Many theologists have used the genealogy between Adam and Christ, given in various Scripture to determine the Earth is somewhere between 5 and 7 thousand years old. Is this accurate?

I'm not familiar with such an endeavor but I don't see how it could possibly determine the age of the Earth. From Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6 you can go from Adam's creation to the flood being 1,656 years. From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

I am surprised you are not familiar with the idea. James Ussher (1581–1656) is my favorite, because he declared the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC. This happens to be my birthday, as well.

Many who followed Ussher improved his calculations and came up with various numbers, some allowing a 10,000 year old Earth. Is it possible to date the Earth's creation from scripture?

 

[Keith&Co.]

From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

Adam's creation was the sixth day, right? You can count the age of the Earth on your fingers, then.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pharaoh issue unaddressed, is there an allowable question about the disordered creation of man and animals (ie Day 6 of the First Story of Creation verses the Second Story of Creation)?

 

[Kharakov]

So, it begins by stating that the Earth existed as a place with water before the sun existed. This is scientifically inaccurate. In the second sentence of the book.

It's only scientifically inaccurate if you assume some scientifically inaccurate stuff like a designer cannot implement a world with water, that does not yet have working specific source lighting, although it has diffuse ambient lighting and occlusion. I wonder about the shadow maps? Weren't they needed for accurate water depiction, or did they just sort of fudge it?

Then, we have light on the Earth before the sun or any other stars are around. What was this light and how did we get night and day without a planet's rotation around a star?

Uhh. It's easier to implement a single source light that travels around a sphere, than to generate a universal system of lighting with a fractal generation of "old" light sources due to a specific evolutionary algorithm. In fact, there is reason to believe that the heliocentric model was opposed by the early church because the geocentric model was still implemented at that point in time. We didn't get the GR update until more recently, which came after the Newtonian update.

Then, we have water above the sky instead of space. This is just plain wrong as well.

Really. You want a whole universe generated before a world? Demanding. How about a world, with add-ons that make it look like it came from a universe, instead of demanding everything all at once. Seriously, I'd like to have FF XL before FF I.

Then, we have plants around producing seeds, which they do by absorbing energy from the sun, but this happens before there's a sun around for them to get energy from.

I know. It's like the seeds you get in Alundra (or was it the SNES Zelda??), that you plant to grow a beanstalk growing without an actual sun, in a world that has day and night, without an actual sun implementation, or directional lighting. I find it horrible that someone would implement a working seed function, prior to a completely designed ecosystem that has the appearance of naturally evolving.

Finally, we have the sun coming along. This happens after we already have a fully formed Earth complete with plant life, as opposed to this happening billions of years previously. Also, all the other stars come along at this point as opposed to having been around for billions of years. This is just plain wrong and totally scientifically inaccurate.

The star background has been upgraded over time to give it the appearance of being ancient. It's a testimony to the awesomeness of the design power of God that atheists all over the world bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now if only there was some natural limitation in place, to prevent humans from actually exploring way out into the cosmos before the implementation of the local cosmos is complete.

That's just the first chapter. Everything in it is a mistake scientifically.

It's not actually scientific to propose that the current implementation of natural law was in place before it was in place. It's atheistic, but not scientific. There is a huge difference.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not familiar with such an endeavor but I don't see how it could possibly determine the age of the Earth. From Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6 you can go from Adam's creation to the flood being 1,656 years. From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

I am surprised you are not familiar with the idea. James Ussher (1581–1656) is my favorite, because he declared the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC. This happens to be my birthday, as well.

Holy fuck you're old.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not familiar with such an endeavor but I don't see how it could possibly determine the age of the Earth. From Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6 you can go from Adam's creation to the flood being 1,656 years. From Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E. to the present as 6, 040 years but how could you possibly expect to extrapolate a period prior to that from the latter period?

I am surprised you are not familiar with the idea. James Ussher (1581–1656) is my favorite, because he declared the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC. This happens to be my birthday, as well.

Holy fuck you're old.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the Earth was quite old when I was born.

 

[DLH]

And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5

Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Acts 1:18

How did Judas die, and what did he do with the money?

Matthew gave the method of attempted suicide while Luke gave the results. Either Judas' rope or the tree limb from which it was hung broke and he fell down the cliff he tried to hang himself from and was split open by the rocks below.

Matthew was referring to a prophecy in the book of Zechariah 11:12, 13. He referred to it as "Jeremiah the prophet" most likely due to Jeremiah likely having been placed first in a group of books that included Zechariah. So Judas went to the Priests to return the money but they wouldn't accept it, and he threw it into the temple. The chief priests took it on his behalf and bought the potter's field to bury him in it. Matthew 26:14-16; 27:3-10

 

[DLH]

I don't know whether this is a challenge for skeptics but most Christians seem to believe that God is the creator of everything. According to Genesis it is not true:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

It is quite common in creation mythologies that in the beginning there was water, the sea, and the earth was created in the middle of the sea sea and heavenly bodies above it. As it is in the Bible too.

In my local mythology earth and heaven were born of a pochard's ("the bird of the air") egg which fell on the sea, breaking. A part of the yolk became earth, another part became sun and pieces of the shell became other heavenly bodies. If we don't mind literal explanations, both myths are practically equal. Genesis seems to assume the air too.

You have to keep in mind that at Genesis 1:1 the heavens and Earth were complete. The Hebrew use of the word asah is perfect state which means it was a completed action. The creation "days" or periods of time thereafter were progressive, in which the Earth was being made habitable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How did Judas die, and what did he do with the money?

Matthew gave the method of attempted suicide while Luke gave the results.

Can you justify that this is true, and not just a rationalization?

Sorry, but I've been to Star Trek conventions. Some stuff, the actual answer is that two different writers wrote two different episodes and they did not have the same understanding of the fictional mechanics of a fictional piece of gear used by fictional characters in a fictional future. But damn, the Trekkers are really good at jimmying up a rationalization that protects both episodes as if the story were factual and not contradictory nonsense.

So, what tells you that this is true?

 

[DLH]

Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


I know I Pity Da Fool. BAM!

Now we're talkin! But of course, both are true.

 

[DLH]

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is scientifically inaccurate. Cosmologists estimate the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old (Source) while Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old (Source). Therefore the earth was not created in the beginning.

Again. The Hebrew word asah (created) is perfect state, indicating completion. At that point the heavens and the earth were complete. So there is no conflict with current science.

 

[DLH]

Produce any alleged contradictions, imperfections, historical or scientific inaccuracies you perceive in the Bible and I will successfully refute them.

Isn't that backwards?
I don't accept the Books as authoritative because I don't believe it's the word of a god I don't believe in.

Shouldn't the effort be to prove that gods exist at all, then that a specific god exists, that he/she/it/they have given us their testimony, then that it's been recorded accurately and presented to us as The Books?

Proving that you can either
1) jimmy up an explanation to make the Books appear internally consistent or
2) blame the reader for erroneous assumptions

or blaming the transcribers for introducing errors from a mythical, and curiously unavailable, perfect scripture is not going to prove that any gods exist. Nor even that there's perfect scripture, somewhere.

Especially if the best the 'skeptic' can hope for is for the thumper to say, 'yes, that's an error, but I do not confess a touch because it's an unimportant error.'

Big whoop.

What we really are doing is addressing the common misconceptions the average or at least attending skeptics have regarding the Bible. Science minded atheist read somewhere the current science. They don't repeat the methodology that brought the conclusion themselves, they simply buy into the current science. Then, without any real research they read some skeptical perception on the Bible and, again, without any real research or much thought, conclude that 1. Science is good. 2. They are smart if they keep up with the latest science. 3. Science has most of the answers, is what little hope we may have. 4. The Bible is stupid and untrue. 5. People who believe in the Bible are intellectually inferior. 6. There is no real hope in the Bible or any supernatural being for mankind.

It's sort of like the Christians with hell. The doctrine of hell simply makes the Christian feel morally superior. They give it no real thought, but they can get mighty defensive about it.

 

[none]

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is scientifically inaccurate. Cosmologists estimate the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old (Source) while Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old (Source). Therefore the earth was not created in the beginning.

Again. The Hebrew word asah (created) is perfect state, indicating completion. At that point the heavens and the earth were complete. So there is no conflict with current science.

except the part where stellar nucleosynthesis is what created the matter that was brought together with gravity and formed the Earth not God, God didn't do it.

 

[DLH]

I'm trying to think . . . what scientific paper was that conclusion drawn in? What reason do you have not to believe he actually exists? What is he, in fact?

Where was that scientific paper that refutes the existence of a teapot in orbit around the sun?

Here! Here! I give science a hard time when I talk to atheists because it challenges them. It (atheism) is a world view very similar to religion. But I have nothing against science, imperfect as it is. However, if you start proclaiming that things can't be, vaguely in the guise or name of science, I think that not only are you being inaccurate in your own propaganda, but you are doing science and knowledge a disservice.

 

[Sarpedon]

As opposed to someone who believes

1. The Bible is good. 2. They are smart if they read the Bible. 3. The Bible has all the answers. 4. Science is stupid and untrue. 5. People who believe in Science are intellectually inferior. 6. There is no hope for anyone who believes differently.

So on the face of it, there's no difference between you and us.

Except that science works, and the Bible doesn't. And in your heart, you know it. If you really believed in the Bible, you wouldn't be wasting your time on here arguing with us. You would be out sacrificing livestock and praying.

 

[DLH]

The gospels of Matthew and Luke both present genealogies for Jesus, both of which agree at first, but diverge completely at David. How can both genealogies be correct?

I will provide an answer from I already have on my website and we can discuss it further if you like or have questions. I would just give a link but skeptics tend to ignore them.

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31 / Matthew 1:6, 7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that Joseph became father to Jesus but that he was "the husband or Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, page 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6 / Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son in law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." (Compare Matthew 1:12 / Luke 3:27 / 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So, Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35 / Romans 1:1-4)

In the first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles 1-3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis / Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis / Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. Its best to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important. Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5 , left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6 ) Pathway Machine | Bible Topics: Jesus Genealogy

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You have to keep in mind that at Genesis 1:1 the heavens and Earth were complete. The Hebrew use of the word asah is perfect state which means it was a completed action. The creation "days" or periods of time thereafter were progressive, in which the Earth was being made habitable.

No. This is a statement which is unrelated to what the Bible says. At Genesis 1:1, the heavens and earth were without form and void. Then God goes along distinctly and specifically putting together the different parts in a manner which is unrelated to how those parts actually came together.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What we really are doing is addressing the common misconceptions the average or at least attending skeptics have regarding the Bible.

The most common conception atheists have about The Books is that it's an artifact of mankind as there are no gods.
Are you going to get around to addressing that as a misconception?