Contridictions in the Bible

[PipeBox]

ManofGod, please go back and watch the 14th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism I posted a couple pages back.  Creationism is not valid science.  At BEST it is watered-down philosophy carrying the claim that we can't prove that the universe didn't come into existence 6000 years ago (or 5 seconds ago) in situ, with only the appearance of being far older and everything, including light's travel, radioactive decay, evolution, already being in progress.  In science, which is the study of the universe, creationism fails miserably.

Watch that video.

[Hitsumei]

I should mention that when I said "look up on a cloudless night, and you can see galaxies that are billions of light years away" this was more for rhetorical flair than bureaucratic-accuracy. One can only actually see about ten thousand stars with the naked eye on a clear night -- you need a telescope to see other galaxies.

[curiosityandthecat]

I should mention that when I said "look up on a cloudless night, and you can see galaxies that are billions of light years away" this was more for rhetorical flair than bureaucratic-accuracy. One can only actually see about ten thousand stars with the naked eye on a clear night -- you need a telescope to see other galaxies.

I love you.  

[PipeBox]

Well, take your pick, we can still see things that are a lot further away with our naked eyes than we ought to be able to if the universe just sprang into existence 6,000 years ago near-simultaneously.  The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away, but there's also the Triangulum galaxy which you can see with an exceptionally clear sky, and it's about 3 million ly away, and is the third largest galaxy in local group.  And then there's M81 (Messier object 81) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_81, the most distant object visible from Earth (using the naked eye) as far as I know.  It's a rather awesome-looking galaxy in the Ursa Major constellation, and is about 12 million ly away!  You'll only be able to see it using averted viewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision and under awesome viewing conditions with the naked eye, but it's easily seen with binoculars or a small telescope in good conditions (still not gonna see it from a city or its outskirts).  I've never seen it unaided (it's just too bright around here), and it wasn't charted by anyone prior to modern times, so it's not likely you'll catch it without aid, but hey, it's 12 million light years away!  

My greatest sin is that I don't take it out very often anymore.  I meant to invest in a camera connection and a couple eyepieces (it's only got two, 24x and 48X), but the clock drive and mount'n'tripod is A-MAZ-ING.  Anyway, point is, I got cheap, and when I get cheap with a hobby, I tend to let it diminish.  Like I said, sin.

RE-EDIT

Yeah, I just strayed horribly from the topic.  As you were!

[Hitsumei]

I guess I was wrong, there are five (barring our own) galaxies that can be seen with the naked eye. Although only two can be seen from the northern hemisphere, and they are quite difficult to make out, one being the hardest objective to see with the naked eye. None that are billions of light years away though.

I didn't know that.

[PipeBox]

It's cool, one of my friends thought the Andromeda galaxy was just a science fiction name up until about a week ago.  But I tend to consider it that optics are as reliably as eyes, properly fashioned.  So when I see someone suggest that we're doing mirrors wrong ... http://www.fixedearth.com/nasas_hanky-panky.htm http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/ sporting such profound, malicious ignorance, it pisses me off.  In fact, everything at fixedearth pisses me off.  I'd think they were a Poe's Law if there weren't so much of it.  Anyway, as I was saying, I consider it of no consequence if we need a few wide mirrors and a lens to focus the light that must be there onto our eyes.  Albeit, it's not terribly simple, but thanks to modern science, it's solid stuff.  So when I say we can see a galaxy 11.7 billion light years away, I should't get the response "it's not really there."  Maybe "you can't trust the redshift," but then I'll just invite them to submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal and become famous for bringing down the unsubstantiated, false doppler shift.  I mean, they clearly know more than the scientists.  

Anyway, I'm off topic again.  >_>

[McQ]

It's cool, one of my friends thought the Andromeda galaxy was just a science fiction name up until about a week ago.  But I tend to consider it that optics are as reliably as eyes, properly fashioned.  So when I see someone suggest that we're doing mirrors wrong ... http://www.fixedearth.com/nasas_hanky-panky.htm http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/ sporting such profound, malicious ignorance, it pisses me off.  In fact, everything at fixedearth pisses me off.  I'd think they were a Poe's Law if there weren't so much of it.  Anyway, as I was saying, I consider it of no consequence if we need a few wide mirrors and a lens to focus the light that must be there onto our eyes.  Albeit, it's not terribly simple, but thanks to modern science, it's solid stuff.  So when I say we can see a galaxy 11.7 billion light years away, I should't get the response "it's not really there."  Maybe "you can't trust the redshift," but then I'll just invite them to submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal and become famous for bringing down the unsubstantiated, false doppler shift.  I mean, they clearly know more than the scientists.  

Anyway, I'm off topic again.  >_>

As I read that link you provided, I kept hoping it was an "Onion-esque" satire or something. Sadly, it looks like whoever made it is serious. Too bad. When I was giving classes in astronomy as part of the country's oldest amateur astronomy group, I would always point out the Andromeda Galaxy and mention its distance, and then put it into manageable perspective for people. Every now and then I'd come across a young Earth creationist who would either Tsk-tsk me, or just argue outright. It was always frustrating to see the profound willful ignorance.

I consider talking about astronomy in this thread highly relevant by the way, since it can show contradiction when comparing the bible to what we know about the solar system and galaxy, as well as the universe. So this is all on topic IMO.

[Hitsumei]

I find it sad that so many know so little about the universe we occupy, when there is so much known. I personally can never get enough. I spend a considerable amount of time reading popular science books, and watching documentaries.

Not just the raw facts, and pure knowledge of science either, but the genius of philosophy, and the robustness, drama, absurdity, comedy and stories of history.  

Reality is an very interesting, beautiful, and enthralling place -- I can't help but feel that many are simply missing out on.

[curiosityandthecat]

Reality is an very interesting, beautiful, and enthralling place -- I can't help but feel that many are simply missing out on.

Welcome to being an atheist.

[Hitsumei]

Welcome to being an atheist.

[Kodanshi]

I have issues with which the Hebrew peoples have twisted the defeat of people they have ‘conquered’ to justify their waging war against them. Like using Philistine as a synonym for uncultured thick git, or mistranslating Babel (gateway/door of god) as ‘confusion’, or the way they came up with the story about Esau selling his birthright to retcon their war against the Edomites.

Bit of a rant, but your use of ‘philistine’ in a pejorative sense set me off.

[Hitsumei]

The Philistines were probably a fictional people anyway, but I apologize to their memory if they were not.

[Recusant]

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/ sporting such profound, malicious ignorance...

 

... I kept hoping it was an "Onion-esque" satire or something.

The first link (fixedearth) seems sincere, as hard as it is to believe.  I'm not entirely convinced, but there are some incredibly "faithful" people who seem to be very willing to discard any portions of what we've learned through science in favor of their religious texts.

The second (blogs4brownback) is not, at least according to one entry in the comments section of the "The World is Flat" part of the blog:

 

With regard to recent press reports about WordPress hosting a blog entitled “Blogs 4 Brownback”.

WordPress has received some worrying comments with regard to this blog through our admin site. The “Blogs 4 Brownback” site is a parody. Please do not forward any comments with regard to racist language, personal abuse or civil action suits to WordPress as we are not responsible for the content on the blog, merely as a host for the site.

Please use the “Blogs 4 Brownback” blog as it was intented: for entertainment purposes only.

Thank you,
The WordPress Team.

Comment by WordPress Admin â€" June 18, 2007 @ 4:47 am

That hasn't kept both Christians and non-believers from commenting on it in all sincerity.
As Poe's Law implies: "... it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they may both espouse equally extreme beliefs."

 
 

The Philistines were probably a fictional people anyway...

Interesting.  I had not heard this.  What is your source?  It's generally agreed that the present day Palestinians are not the descendants of the Philistines.  Still, as far as I knew, there were people inhabiting the area at one time who were known as Philistines, who are commonly associated with the "Sea Peoples" mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions.

[Hitsumei]

Interesting.  I had not heard this.  What is your source?  It's generally agreed that the present day Palestinians are not the descendants of the Philistines.  Still, as far as I knew, there were people inhabiting the area at one time who were known as Philistines, who are commonly associated with the "Sea Peoples" mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions.

The only source of their existence is Hebrew oral tradition, and the word literally means "invaders" in Hebrew. They just seemed to be an antagonistic people for Jewish heroes to thwart.

[Recusant]

The only source of their existence is Hebrew oral tradition...

Ah.  I'm not quite ready to totally discount oral tradition as a source of historical information, as long as it has some corroboration from other sources.  For instance, the Iliad is oral tradition, yet there seems to be archaeological evidence that some of the events described actually took place.  I would give the same credence to the Hebrew oral tradition, given archaeological evidence for the existence of the people known in that tradition as "Philistines:"


 

Much like the Israelites, the Philistines were an immigrant culture which appeared in the Levant at the beginning of the Iron Age I period (c.a. 1200, B.C.) The Bible first mentions this culture in Genesis 10:14, stating that the Philistines came from “Caphtorim,” which scholars now believe to be the island of Crete or another island in the Aegean (Dothan, Anch. 1). Several pieces of archaeological evidence support this claim. For instance, motifs in Philistine pottery, such as spirals, fish, and birds come from the Mycenaean culture in the Aegean (Trude Dothan 198-199, 203). The material culture from Philistine cultic practices also implies an Aegean origin. Hearths, which are connected with cultic shrines, have been found in the middle of Philistine structures and are Aegean in origin (Dothan, Anch. 5). Additionally, at Ashdod, archaeologists found a ceramic figure of a seated female deity, which is indicative of Aegean cultic practices (Dothan, Anch. 7-8). Likewise, the Philistine burial practice of using rock-cut chamber tombs was also a burial practice of the Mycenaean culture in the Aegean (Dothan, Anch. .
Egyptian texts give further background information on the Philistines’ origins by associating them with the Sea Peoples, who left the Aegean during a general eastern migration at the end of the Late Bronze Age (Dothan, Anch. 1). Records in the mortuary temple of Rameses III tell of a great battle between the ships of the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians (Dothan, Anch. 1). Amongst the scenes of Rameses’ great victory, the Egyptians name the Philistines as part of the Sea Peoples (Dothan and Dothan 21-22). Another Egyptian text, the Harris Papyrus I, corroborates this evidence, naming the Philistines as one of the Sea Peoples as well (Dothan, Anch. 2). Thus, scholars believe that the Philistines were part of a group of Aegean migrants, who, after their defeat in Egypt, settled on the coastal plain of southern Palestine (Dothan, Anch. 1-2).

Dothan, Trude. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven:
    Yale University Press,   1982.

Dothan, Trude, and Moshe Dothan. People of the Sea: The Search for
    the Philistines. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992.

Dothan, Trude. “The Philistines.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D.N. Freedman.
   CD-ROM. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

(Quoted from http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bel9/index.html )


While it may be true that the name "Philistine" is anachronistic as it appears in the bible, and an appellation of Hebrew origin(?), there does seem to be evidence from outside the biblical tradition for the existence of a people known as "Philistines."

Actually, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary:

"Philistine:
O.T. people of coastal Palestine, who made war on the Israelites, c.1340, from O.Fr. Philistin, from L.L. Philistinus, from Late Gk. Philistinoi, from Heb. P'lishtim, "people of P'lesheth" ("Philistia"); cf. Akkad. Palastu, Egyptian Palusata; the word probably is the people's name for itself."

All this does not refute your statement that they probably were fictional, since in fact the bible is indeed oral tradition, and therefore suspect as history. As a self-confessed barbarian, and therefore one with a natural interest in the subject, I just wanted a little clarification for my own edification.  I really knew very little about the Philistines before you brought the subject up, and am pleased to have learned a few things (I hope.)  Thank you for providing the incentive for that.