bill Nye plays the Devil's advocate with this stunning analysis

[Turf1600]

http://religionisaproblem.com/2007/08/12/bill-nye-booed-by-bible-believers-for-pointing-out-moon-reflects-the-sun/

[Lucas.B]

Wow.

The ways in which people are "proving" the Bible wrong are as ridiculous as the ways in which people are trying to "prove" it right.

The Bible is a source (and a wealthy one at that) of IMPLICIT insight, belief in it's teaching is completely faith-oriented - thus completely ruling out any need or association with "proven fact" - with proof there would be no need for faith.

sorry to rant but i cannot stand the battle between science and "religion" - the two only became opposite ends of some spectrum because a series of misinterpretations

[TwoJ's]

Or because science contradicts it.

[Farbin Kaiber]

A nice, concise quick and easy way to disprove the bible. Good job turf, you've won this battle. I will return victorious.
















J/k.







An interesting view of things, but, as we can both agree, the biblical text referenced is nothing more than "god's word", written, and explained by man. There are ancient historical texts, (Not religious, non biblical) that refer to bright Chariot's of the God's. (Serious, no e30 reference) but, in later historical inspection, the dates of the God' Chariots coincided with scientifically proved meteorite strikes. Thus, thousands of years ago, it would make sense for misguided mans explanation for a tangible, visible reference without understanding of its scientific explanation.

[TwoJ's]

Thus, thousands of years ago, it would make sense for misguided mans explanation for a tangible, visible reference without understanding of its scientific explanation.

Absolutely. It was also completely sensible to think that the world was flat. The difference is you are crazy if you still believe that the world is flat, but you are just religious if you buy in to some of the biblical text; literal or not.

[deutschman]

i like looking at the bible as a bunch a just so stories. you know, like the ones where the grass hopper spends all his time fucking around and the ant spends all his time saving food for the winter. to me the bible is a set of stories on how to live your life interlaced with some historical fact.
this is coming from someone who has been to church maybe twice in his life. hahaha

[mtechnik]

Why can't some people just give it a darn break. Going to such lenghts to discredit the Bible with scientific analysis. Sheesh.
Didnt even bother to read much of the darn link.

[Turf1600]

Why can't some people just give it a darn break. Going to such lenghts to discredit the Bible with scientific analysis. Sheesh.
Didnt even bother to read much of the darn link.

Give what a break? It's just a funny article.

I think it's probably likely that the woman in the article had never heard the bible verse until that moment.

[mtechnik]

Give what a break? It's just a funny article.

..

Yeah i got a little worked up there for a second. my bad i guess...

[Massive Lee]

Funny. I personally only see the bible as a set of urban stories that nobody can prove. Especially that the first "stories" were written 300 years after the death of the last apostle, and been rewritten, over and over, in order to better suit the people in power. No need to use scientific "facts" for that.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Funny. I personally only see the bible as a set of urban stories that nobody can prove. Especially that the first "stories" were written 300 years after the death of the last apostle, and been rewritten, over and over, in order to better suit the people in power. No need to use scientific "facts" for that.

I like that, Urban stories. Must be the language barrier from here to our north. I think you mean Urban Legends. Most of the stories you speak of, (written by/about the Apostles) were written 70 years after Jesus' death. Not 300, and, furthermore, the majority of the remainder of the NT (New Testament, second half of the bible) were written by Paul. One of Jesus's sidekicks, so to say.

And, in regards to the OT, (Old Testament) the first five books are also known as the Torah, or, the Pentateuch, or, The Five Books of Moses, are the same in both books, exact same. And, it's Jewish law that the text be exactly the same, to the letter from the first time, to every time it's been copied by hand, and the transcribers were required by Jewish law to not make a mistake, if one was made, no matter how far into the scroll, they would have to start over from the beginning.

I understand your statement, but the only leg you have to stand on regards the bible (KJV) Is that King James required the transcription into olde English, thus leaving the present day bible with all those strange, dated words.

[cferb]

I don't believe in God, but it seems like this is just nitpicking...No the moon isn't a source of light by the technical interpretation, but the reflection of light lights the earth at night. And yea the sun is a star, but the word 'other' isn't that important in the context, you don't generally refer to the sun as a star, even though it is, when you say "stars" you mean all the little sparkly dots in the sky at night.

And there's nothing you can say that will convince me that the bible hasn't changed over the years, how do you explain how all of the religions have different bibles? It's also been in several different languages.

[Massive Lee]

In regard of "the" bible, wasn't there as many versions as there were disciples. With every version telling a whole different story? Not to forget the last main rewritting done was under the Great Inquisition in he 14th century, when only one vision had to remain (mainly St-John's), and one religion had to stand over the other Christian religions, and other Gods.

Until the Inquisition, Christians, Jews and Muslims were all in good terms. Exchanging in many ways. Even religious Christian monastary songs sounded very arabic. Look on Google for "Chants Ambroisiens" (from Pope St-Ambroise, the last pope before the great Drakness, sorry, Inquisition).

[e30evolution]

"Is somebody claiming that Moses should have made it clear that moon light is a product of reflection from the sun, making it an indirect source of light rather than a direct source of light? I gather that he probably didn’t know that God designed it in this way. Adam and Eve probably didn’t know either. What’s the big deal? The moon reflects light and therefore can be described as the source of the moonlight."

Religious nuts are ridiculous and the people that spend their lives disproving it are just as bad

[Farbin Kaiber]

In regard of "the" bible, wasn't there as many versions as there were disciples. With every version telling a whole different story? Not to forget the last main rewritting done was under the Great Inquisition in he 14th century, when only one vision had to remain (mainly St-John's), and one religion had to stand over the other Christian religions, and other Gods.

Until the Inquisition, Christians, Jews and Muslims were all in good terms. Exchanging in many ways. Even religious Christian monastary songs sounded very arabic. Look on Google for "Chants Ambroisiens" (from Pope St-Ambroise, the last pope before the great Drakness, sorry, Inquisition).

You are speaking of the Gospel's or translated as, "Good Word" so, yea, infarct the NT did have portions that were carried via oral tradition. But, when the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the oldest verifiable manuscripts of the OT (Torah/Pentateuch) are exact duplications from those found in the caves. Letter for letter, the same from begining to end. It still is exactly the same, thousands of years later.