Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: muir_redwoods
... it seems reasonable to me for the human writers of the Bible to have made some. Review Leviticus chp 11 wherein bats are referred to as birds, review Joshua, chp 10 (I think) where it described the sun going around the earth. The mistakes and errors do not detract from the ethical and moral message and guidance extractable from the Bible.

1. Our 'scientific' definition of 'birds' was not the word available in Hebrew, Greek or any language back then so the definition used to refer to 'bats' is correct for that time - not an error - obviously the word "bird' means any creature that has wings and flies. Hence the so called 'error' is a reading back into the text of a foreign definition of a word - it's a common mistake made by some theological liberals who are trying to find fault with the Scriptures.

2. The reference to the sun setting is not an error - its the way we still talk in phenomenological language.

Cordially,

207 posted on 09/28/2005 8:27:21 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]


To: Diamond
So as long as you can explain away the errors and mistakes they aren't errors and mistakes. I get it.

Seat yourself comfortably because there are about 1500 to 2000 more of them for you to work with if you're interested.

The bible is a man made document. It is full of the kinds of errors people make. It is no less valuable as an ethical and moral guide because of these errors and mistakes but it is worthless as a biology text.

208 posted on 09/28/2005 1:38:06 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson