Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[glockmail]

LEV 11:6
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.

These rules are simplifications meant for a broad audience. Although the hare is not a true ruminant, it appears to chew its cud like one, so it was included so as not to confuse ancient man.

 

[LOki]

These rules are simplifications meant for a broad audience. Although the hare is not a true ruminant, it appears to chew its cud like one, so it was included so as not to confuse ancient man.

Despite its good intentions, the Bible asserts that the hare chews its cud, and is wrong on that account?

 

[glockmail]

Despite its good intentions, the Bible asserts that the hare chews its cud, and is wrong on that account?

I explained my interpretation why it was written that way. The alternative would have been:
"You can eat the hare even though it looks like it chews its cud, its really not." Chances are ancient man would have misunderstood.

 

[LOki]

I explained my interpretation why it was written that way. The alternative would have been:
"You can eat the hare even though it looks like it chews its cud, its really not." Chances are ancient man would have misunderstood.

I understand now, that you have a theory as to why the Bible might say that the hare chews cud, but the fact remains that the hare does not, in fact, chew cud--correct?

Until your theory is proven (and the burden of this proof is now fully upon you) to be the case in fact, or is accepted as valid by those you pose this question to (i.e. "Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?" ), it is not applicable. At that point, and not before, will your theory be relevent to the question, "Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?"

So, "...the hare, because he cheweth the cud,..." is a statement of erroneous fact, asserted in the Bible (for any number of theoretical reasons you might manufacture); thus, in-so-far as the Bible asserts that the hare chews cud, the Bible is proven wrong.

 

[MissileMan]

I understand now, that you have a theory as to why the Bible might say that the hare chews cud, but the fact remains that the hare does not, in fact, chew cud--correct?

Until your theory is proven (and the burden of this proof is now fully upon you) to be the case in fact, or is accepted as valid by those you pose this question to (i.e. "Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?" ), it is not applicable. At that point, and not before, will your theory be relevent to the question, "Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?"

So, "...the hare, because he cheweth the cud,..." is a statement of erroneous fact, asserted in the Bible (for any number of theoretical reasons you might manufacture); thus, in-so-far as the Bible asserts that the hare chews cud, the Bible is proven wrong.

Don't be shocked when you get some lame-brain answer like "Rabbits from the time when the Bible was wriiten were, in fact, cud-chewers...prove they weren't."

 

[glockmail]

I understand now, that you have a theory as to why the Bible might say that the hare chews cud, but the fact remains that the hare does not, in fact, chew cud--correct?

Until your theory is proven (and the burden of this proof is now fully upon you) to be the case in fact, or is accepted as valid by those you pose this question to (i.e. "Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?" ), it is not applicable. At that point, and not before, will your theory be relevent to the question, "Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?"

So, "...the hare, because he cheweth the cud,..." is a statement of erroneous fact, asserted in the Bible (for any number of theoretical reasons you might manufacture); thus, in-so-far as the Bible asserts that the hare chews cud, the Bible is proven wrong.

Nice try, but the burden of proof still rests with you, or anyone else who wishes to prove the Bible wrong.

 

[glockmail]

Don't be shocked when you get some lame-brain answer like "Rabbits from the time when the Bible was wriiten were, in fact, cud-chewers...prove they weren't."

LOki has come up with an interesting problem. Why not come up with one of your own instead of trying to be his water boy?

 

[glockmail]

Leviticus 11:6 is sometimes used as an example of an error in the Bible; it states that hares chew the cud. Hares are not usually known as cud-chewing, or ruminating, animals. Is this really an error in the Bible, or did Moses know what he was talking about?
When a cow swallows a mouthful of grass, it goes first of all to one compartment of the stomach referred to as the rumen. The culture of microorganisms that exists in the rumen digests the grass and converts much of it into nutrients which the cow can utilize. Then the cow brings the microorganisms and leftover grass back to her mouth, one mouthful at a time. She chews it and sends it on through the rest of her digestive tract. Thus the cow really doesn't subsist directly on grass alone, but also on the protozoa and bacteria that she breeds in her rumen (Carles 1977).
The process of digestion of grass by microorganisms is referred to as fermentation, and it occurs in many other animals besides the cloven-hoofed ruminating animals. Special forestomachs for fermentation are also found in kangaroos, whales, dugongs, hippopotamus, sloths, and colobid monkeys (McBee 1971). Other modifications of the stomach or some part of the intestines to provide a fermentation chamber are found in rodents, rabbits and hares, gallinaceous birds...

http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

It appears that the definition of "ruminating" has changed ever so slightly, therefore the Bible is once again proven to be correct.

 

[MissileMan]

LOki has come up with an interesting problem. Why not come up with one of your own instead of trying to be his water boy?

I already defeated your premise with the account of the great flood, or have you forgotten already. What litany of lame excuses are you going to deliver today?

 

[glockmail]

I already defeated your premise with the account of the great flood, or have you forgotten already. What litany of lame excuses are you going to deliver today?

In your own mind, perhaps. Here we go with your emotional cycle again. Are you female?

 

[LOki]

http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

It appears that the definition of "ruminating" has changed ever so slightly, therefore the Bible is once again proven to be correct.

The Bible does not mention "ruminating." Your defense is not relevent.

The hare does not chew cud; the Bible says it does--the Bible is wrong in this regard.

 

[MissileMan]

In your own mind, perhaps. Here we go with your emotional cycle again. Are you female?

You're the one who tucked tail and disappeared. You can try to deflect and dodge and distract all you want, the fact remains that the Bible very clearly relates an account of the great flood covering the whole earth and destroying all mankind. Yet because this account then creates an impossibility (middle-eastern Jews becoming oriental bhuddists and Indian Hindus within a handful of generations), you claim that THAT part of the Bible can't be taken literally, but nonetheless is STILL true. That argument is illogical and fallacious and whether you acknowledge it or not, totally defeated.

 

[glockmail]

The Bible does not mention "ruminating." Your defense is not relevent.

....

Do you expect ancient man to know about ruminating? Of course not, as he has no knowledge of the digestive sytem. Your defense (as the burden is on you) is irrelevant.

 

[glockmail]

You're the one who tucked tail and disappeared. You can try to deflect and dodge and distract all you want, the fact remains that the Bible very clearly relates an account of the great flood covering the whole earth and destroying all mankind. Yet because this account then creates an impossibility (middle-eastern Jews becoming oriental bhuddists and Indian Hindus within a handful of generations), you claim that THAT part of the Bible can't be taken literally, but nonetheless is STILL true. That argument is illogical and fallacious and whether you acknowledge it or not, totally defeated.

Actually, I explained that to you early on in some detail. Obviously you know that, otherwise you wouldn’t still be here. Apparently you forgot. I’m starting to think that you have memory problems.

Alas, I'm not here to spoon feed you. Maybe if you weren't in this virtual menstrual cycle I'd have more patience, but you are and I don't. Sorry, sister.

As it is I have spent way too much time proving that the Bible is true, when the nature of this discussion is that you or someone else has to prove that it is false. As I recall, you already capitulated that point a few pages ago. But then, well, there’s that memory issue again.

 

[Annie]

Actually, I explained that to you early on in some detail. Obviously you know that, otherwise you wouldn’t still be here. Apparently you forgot. I’m starting to think that you have memory problems.

Alas, I'm not here to spoon feed you. Maybe if you weren't in this virtual menstrual cycle I'd have more patience, but you are and I don't. Sorry, sister.

As it is I have spent way too much time proving that the Bible is true, when the nature of this discussion is that you or someone else has to prove that it is false. As I recall, you already capitulated that point a few pages ago. But then, well, there’s that memory issue again.

Glock, you are bordering on name calling, can you please stick with the topic debate?

 

[MissileMan]

Actually, I explained that to you early on in some detail. Obviously you know that, otherwise you wouldn’t still be here. Apparently you forgot. I’m starting to think that you have memory problems.

Alas, I'm not here to spoon feed you. Maybe if you weren't in this virtual menstrual cycle I'd have more patience, but you are and I don't. Sorry, sister.

As it is I have spent way too much time proving that the Bible is true, when the nature of this discussion is that you or someone else has to prove that it is false. As I recall, you already capitulated that point a few pages ago. But then, well, there’s that memory issue again.

You haven't explained anything, only provided lame excuses. Again, it comes down to only two possibilities, but you have to add a qualifier to one of the possibilities in order for it to even come close to true. Not true mind you, but close to true. Since you don't even believe the literal account of the great flood, I'm puzzled why you continue to make the claim that the Bible is 100% true. I can only conclude that you lack sufficient intelligence to separate fact from myth. BTW, localized flooding is hardly what I'd call a divine act...next thing you know, a swarm of locusts might descend on a field of crops somewhere. Will miracles never cease?

 

[glockmail]

Glock, you are bordering on name calling, can you please stick with the topic debate?

Look, this guys been denying the obvious for some 500 posts now. It's getting tedious.

 

[Annie]

Look, this guys been denying the obvious for some 500 posts now. It's getting tedious.

That may well be, but let's tone down the 'female' 'menstral cycle' whathaveyou. Drop out of the thread and it will die.

 

[glockmail]

I concede that the Bible has never been proven wrong. ...

Tiring, very tiring.

 

[glockmail]

That may well be, but let's tone down the 'female' 'menstral cycle' whathaveyou. Drop out of the thread and it will die.

[emp. m.] I figgered that's what this was about.