|
CIRCLE OF THE EARTH
A Debate
consisting of eleven
articles:
Creationism: Fact Or Fallacy? Kirk Straughen (Investigator 52, 1997
January)
Introduction This
article is a response
to the creationist
claims in "Evidence for a Young World", which appeared in Investigator
No 47.
For the sake of brevity I have not addressed all the claims in the creationist article. However, I have addressed the central beliefs of creationism, and shown why they are false.
What
is creationism?
Creationism is a religious
belief held by Christian Fundamentalists that includes the following:
* That the Universe was created by God in six 24 hour days; * That the Biblical flood of Genesis inundated the entire Earth, and that all modern terrestrial life is descended from the organisms carried on the ark; * That there is scientific evidence that supports their religious beliefs. I shall now proceed to demonstrate why creationism is without foundation. Is The Bible A Textbook On Science? Creationist
claims have
been examined by
members of Australian Skeptics and other similar organizations around
the
world, and these claims have been proven wrong. There is no evidence
that
the Earth is only 10,000 years old; no evidence for a global deluge;
and
no evidence for a super-natural creation. "The efforts of tens
of thousands of scientists
who have produced data relevant to the age of the earth
or universe have been motivated by a search for truth. If the age of the earth were 10,000 years or less, that result would have been proclaimed by many and accepted by all. In contrast, those who propound creationism have started with a literal interpretation of the Bible. They have no substantial body of experimental data to back their prejudices. The truth is not on their side. In the end their activities must bring only harm to their cause." (Philip H Abelson (1982): Science, vol. 215, page 119. As quoted in: Creationism, an Australian Perspective, page 21) In view of this fact, I think that the following question is pertinent: If God did create the Universe in the manner the creationists claim, then why did It do so in such a way that the theory of evolution is endorsed by the testimony of the natural world? The reason why creationists reject the theory of evolution is not because it is wrong, but because it conflicts with their literal, albeit untenable interpretation of Genesis. It appears that they are prepared to sacrifice their reason on the altar of faith in the quest for religious certainty.
"In the creation story,
in the creeds of
Christianity, and in countless stories in the biblical drama, a
non-operative,
prescientific, and clearly false view of the world is perpetuated.
Those
who seek to preserve these biblical understandings have to become
anti-intellectual
or must close off vast portions
of their thinking process or twist their brains into a kind of first-century pretzel in order to maintain their faith system." (Bishop J.S. Spong: Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, pages 26-27.) The creationist's thesis is that the Bible is literally true, every word, and what's more, that it is "inerrant", that is, that it can't be wrong. However, at one point I think that even they would draw the line. The creationists would find it extremely difficult to insist that the Earth is flat. After all Columbus didn't sail off the edge of the world, and observations made from space prove that the Earth is spherical.
If
the creationists were
to admit that the
Bible assumes the Earth is flat their entire thesis of inerrancy falls
in a heap, and if the bible is wrong in so basic a matter as the shape
of the Earth, then this clearly demonstrates that it is not a reliable
guide to the natural world.
Now
the Bible doesn't
bother saying right
out "In the beginning God created the heavens and the flat earth"
because
the people of that time and culture never heard anyone saying that the
Earth was anything other than flat.
However, we can see the flatness in their description of the Earth as a circle and of the sky as a tent:
style="font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif;">
"It is he who sits
above the circle of the
earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the
heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in."
(Isaiah
40:22)
Now
a "circle" is a
two-dimensional figure;
a sphere is a three dimensional one. The Earth is very nearly a sphere;
it is certainly not a circle. A coin is an example of a circle. In
other
words, what the author of this passage is referring to when he speaks
of
the "circle of the earth", is a flat Earth with a circular boundary; a
disc-shaped object.
Now
observe the comparison
of the heavens
with a "curtain", or a "tent". A tent, as it is usually pictured, is
composed
of some material such as linen. The material is spread outward above,
and
then down on all sides until it touches the ground.
A
tent is not a spherical
structure that
surrounds a smaller spherical structure. No tent has ever possessed
this
configuration. It is in most schematic forms, a semisphere that comes
down
and touches the ground in a circle. And the ground underneath a tent is
flat. This interpretation is in accord with the ancient Hebrew view of
the Universe which is illustrated in Figure 1.
[Figure 1 is here omitted.] Now
let me emphasize that
there are many
sincerely religious Jews and Christians who do not take this
illustration
seriously. They view the Bible in terms of poetic imagery, metaphor,
and
allegory. They consider the Bible to be a guide to theology and
morality,
to be a great work of poetry; but not to be an infallible textbook on
science.
Conclusion Creationisin
is
fallacious. It can't account
for the origin of the universe, life, and humanity; the reason
being
that it is based upon a false assumption–namely that the Bible can be
used
as a scientific textbook.
"The early books of the
Bible represents
an ancient Middle Eastern people's attempt to come to grips
with the mysteries of existence, in the light of their culture's traditional beliefs. They are not literally true (in fact they cannot be, considering all the inconsistencies); to try to maintain that they are is not only pseudoscience, but phony theology as well." (Dr Colin Groves: Skeptical, page 22.) If
creationism is
unfounded, why is it
that its adherents still cling to their beliefs? The answer is
psychological.
Some people have a great need for certainty during periods of rapid social change brought about by increases in scientific knowledge; knowledge which threatens traditional views of humanity and our place in the universe. "One
may look upon
fundamentalism as one
rather clear cut response to the set of challenges presented to modern
Protestantism. The nineteenth-century discovery of historical methods
of
probing the Bible, the rapid increase in scientific knowledge and the
large
social changes of the period were bound to provoke a need for certainty
in religion which in its own manner fundamentalism has continued to
provide."
(Ninian Smart: The
Phenomenon of Christianity,
page 103.)
This
article is too
short to adequately
refute creationism and should be viewed as a preliminary brief for the
major article The Antiquity of the Earth to appear in
INVESTIGATOR
during 1997.
Bibliography Bridgestock, Dr M. (Ed) & Smith, Dr K (Ed) Creationism, an Australian Perspective, Australian Skeptics, 1989 Groves, Dr C Creationism in Laycock, D (Ed) et al, Skeptical, The CanberraSkeptics, 1989 Hogan, P Introduction in Hogan, P (Ed), Creationism: Scientists Respond, Australian Skeptics (Victorian Branch) Inc, 1991 Smart, N The Phenomenon of Christianity, Collins, London, 1979 Spong, J S Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 1991 Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version) CIRCLES,
PILLARS and TENTS
Anonymous (Investigator 52, 1997
January)
1 Mr
Straughen rightly
points out that belief
in the Earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old is contrary to science.
Such
belief is also contrary to Genesis chapter 1.
For
extra details see
INVESTIGATOR 38. Briefly:
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is
a summary of the creation story which follows. The creation story,
therefore,
starts in verses 2 & 3 and there the earth already exists –
although
covered in water. (1:9) This point affects the interpretation of
all of Genesis 1. It also means that the Bible gives no indication of
the
age of our planet or of what happened on the planet prior to the
intervention
of "God" described in verses 2 & 3 onward.
For
a discussion on how
the "earth" got covered
in water see INVESTIGATOR 38.
2 Mr Straughen makes a common error in his subsequent discussion. He
wrongly assumes that
"earth" in the Bible
means planet "Earth". In the Bible "earth" refers to the "dry land"
however
far it extends. See Genesis 1:10. In the Bible the word "earth" therefore does not include the oceans and seas. Fundamentalists who quote Isaiah on "the circle of the earth" and claim this teaches that planet Earth is round need think again. (Isaiah 40:22) The Bible often uses "phenomenal" language i.e. the language of perception and observation. Anyone who stands on a large plain or on a hilltop and looks to the horizons will see himself in the middle of a large circle. This, the circle he sees, is the "circle of the earth" i.e. "the circle of the dry land." Of course if someone travels a lot and notices that he is always in the middle of a large circle then the most plausible explanation of this is that all the circles constitute the surface of a large sphere. But the Bible does not reason that far. The Bible also mentions the "circle of the sea" or "the circle of the deep". (Proverbs 8:27) I suppose had astronomers named our planet "Ocean" or "Sea" instead of "Earth" then Fundamentalists would claim the Bible teaches the "Ocean" or "Sea" is a sphere! The "circle of the sea" is the circle an observer sees himself in the middle of when he looks to the horizons from a ship, island or seashore. Another "circle" of the sea is: "the boundary between light and darkness." (Job 26:10) This phrase makes sense if we rely on modern knowledge and see our planet from Space – one half lighted by the Sun, the other half in darkness. The "boundary between light and darkness" would then be the dividing line between the two halves. Alternatively, from Job's viewpoint, the circular "boundary between light and darkness" refers to the sun when below the horizon. The observer would notice himself in twilight whereas beyond the circular horizon the sun would presumably still shine. Job
26:7 says, "He (God)
hangs the earth
upon nothing." Again, from our modern viewpoint the earth or "dry land"
sticks up from the surface of planet Earth and the whole set-up moves
through
space and "hangs upon nothing."
3 Mr Straughen described a "tent" carefully. Bedouin tents can be flat and long or round and tapering. The sides might be raised or lowered or not even attached. The tents might have one room or two or three and be of skins or cloth. Prior to being set up on poles the "tent" would lie flat and spread out on the ground. However, Isaiah 40:22 "spreads them (the heavens or sky) like a tent" is not a comparison of structure, shape or material. The comparison is of God's greatness with man's insignificance: "To whom then will you liken God?" (40:18) The idea is that humans spread out tents but God has spread out the heavens. Similarly,
the comparison
of humans to "grasshoppers"
(40:22) does not describe our appearance. Few humans would mistake
themselves
for a grasshopper upon looking in a mirror! Rather, the idea is
that
grasshoppers are small and insignificant compared to humans who in turn
are insignificant compared to God.
4 What,
then, are the
"pillars of the earth"?
This phrase occurs twice in the Old Testament. (Job 9:6; Psalm
75:3)
And what are "The pillars of heaven"? This phrase occurs only
once.
(Job 26:11)
Skeptics and critics like to take these phrases literally and draw pictures of literal pillars. The Hebrew word for "pillars" – "anmud" – occurs about 100 times in the Old Testament. People tend to think of stone "pillars". But in the Bible we read of stone, wood, brass, marble and iron pillars. The word is also used to describe the shape of clouds and of smoke. (Judges 20:40) The
"pillars of the
earth", then, would be
whatever is beneath the "dry land" on which the dry land rests. To
claim
that literal pillars are meant, goes beyond the Bible. The Bible also
has
a dozen references to the "foundations of the earth" without specifying
what those foundations consist of. The "foundations" of anything,
however,
would not normally consist of literal "pillars".
Geologists
speak of
"continental crust" and
"tectonic plates" and the "mantle". If we're addressing laymen, then
any
of these could be termed "foundations of the earth."
Foundations of the earth. Two Hebrew words used:
5 "Heavens" in the Bible usually refers to what people at ground level observe when looking upward. "Heavens" usually means "sky". What are "The pillars of the sky?" (Job 26:11) Since the phrase occurs only once we have to guess its meaning. It could be a figure of speech referring to mountains and mountain ranges. Alternatively the phrase might refer to clouds – since Job 26:8-9 mentions clouds. A third possibility is that since the sky is viewed though the air or atmosphere the "pillars" would be whatever the atmosphere rests on. If so the "pillars" would be the seas and the land.
Mr Straughen
apparently
relied on the essay
The
Circle of the Earth by Isaac Asimov published in The
Magazine
of Fantasy and Science Fiction (February 1982) and reprinted in Asimov
on Science A 30-Year Retrospective (Doubleday 1989). Asimov in turn
took literally the few Bible passages involved.
Ancient Cosmographies Kirk Straughen (Investigator 54, 1997
May)
Introduction This essay is a
response
to "Circles, Pillars
and Tents", and outlines why I am unable to agree with Anonymous.
The Circle of the Earth Even if we
exclude the
oceans from a definition
of Earth, and confine the concept to the "circle of the dry land", then
the Biblical Earth is still flat. "Dry land however far it extends",
would
include the land mass of the entire world, and to describe this land
mass
as circular is to imply that it is flat.
To interpret the
"circle
of the earth" as
referring to the horizon only, is viewing things from a modern
perspective.
We know that the earth is spherical, and that the world extends over
the
horizon. However, the author of Isaiah may not have held this belief.
That is to say
he may have
conceived of all
the dry earth as a vast circle, and as I pointed out in my article, a
circle
is a two-dimensional figure.
The word "earth"
has more
than one meaning.
For example: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
(Gen.1:1). This is a summary of Genesis, and therefore the word "earth"
can also be interpreted as EARTH. God is credited with creating the
Universe:
everything that is above the world (heavens), and everything that is
below
the heavens (dry land & oceans). In other words the EARTH. The
Hebrew
word for earth is 'eres':
"The Hebrew
word 'eres'
also occurs frequently
in the phrase "heaven and earth" or "earth and heaven". In other words,
the Scriptures teach that our terrestrial planet is a part of an
all-embracing
cosmological framework which we call the universe."
(Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, page 66).
And again:
"The material
world had
a beginning when
God "made the earth by His power", "formed it", and "spread it out"
(Isa.
40:28; 42:5; 45:12,18; Jer. 27:5; 51:15). Because He did so, it follows
that "the earth is the Lord's" (Ps. 24:1; Deut. 10:1, Exod. 9:29; Neh.
9:6). No part of it is independent of Him, for "the very ends of the
earth are His possession" including "the mountains", "the seas", "the
dry
land", "the depths of the earth" (Ps. 2:8; 95:4-5; Amos 4:13; Jonah
1:9)".
(Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, page 66). Note: Underlining is mine. Also:
"Eretz is
earth as
opposed to heaven, or
dry land as distinct from the sea (Gen. 1.1, 10). The word is also
applied
to the whole earth (Gen.18.18), to any division of land (Gen. 21.32),
and
even to the ground under one's feet (Gen. 33.3)."
(The Universal Bible Dictionary, page 134) Therefore, when the Bible says of God "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22), the word "earth" can be interpreted as EARTH. And since God is everywhere it is the entire Earth that He sits above, which includes all lands, seas, and oceans, and to describe the earth as circular is to imply flatness.
I can't agree
with
Anonymous that Gen.1:2-3
indicates that the Earth already exists. It says of the Earth that it
"was
without form and void" in other words it had no shape, no substance, no
existence:
"Was without
form and
void. Heb. tohu wa-bahu – an
alliterative description of a chaos, in which nothing can be
distinguished
or defined".
(Westminster Commentaries: The Book of Genesis, page 3). Tohu is a word which is difficult to express consistently in English. However, it can be defined as denoting something that is unsubstantial.
Genesis displays
cultural
influences from
the Babylonian Captivity (ca 6th century BC). The main source of
influence
seems to have been the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, the chief
texts of which were found in the library of Ashurbanipal and date from
the 7th.century BC.
According to the
Enuma
Elish, which is older
than Genesis, the world was born from a watery chaos:
"Now this is
how the
people of Sumer and
Akkad explained the origin of the world.
In the
beginning when
'the sly above had
not been named and the earth below was nameless' there existed only
Apsu,
the primordial ocean, and Tiamat, the tumultuous sea". (New Larousse
Encyclopedia
of Mythology, page 51).
The Biblical
account
of the creation
derives its imagery from a general fund of Sumero-Semitic myth of which
the Enuma Elish is an example:
of the second verse of Genesis, and that as the wind of Anu blew upon the deep and that of Marduk into the face of Tiamat, so in Genesis 1:2, "the wind (or spirit) of Elohim hovered (or was blowing) over the face of the waters". Moreover, as Marduk spread out the upper half of the mother-body as a roof with the waters of heaven above, so in Genesis 1:7; "Elohim made the firmament and separated the waters that were under the firmament from those that were above the firmament". (J Campbell: The Masks of God, Occidental Mythology, page 85). The type of
cosmography these myths engendered
is as follows:
"The world of
the
Babylonians, Egyptians
and Hebrews was an oyster, with water underneath, and more water
overhead,
supported by the solid firmament... The Babylonians' oyster was round,
the earth was a hollow mountain, placed in its centre, floating on the
waters of the deep; above it was a solid dome, covered by the upper
waters.
The upper waters seeped through the dome as rain, and the lower waters
rose in fountains and springs. Sun, moon and stars progressed in a slow
dance across the dome, entering the scene through doors in the East and
vanishing through doors in the West."
(A Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, page 19) The similarities to Biblical cosmography are: circular Earth (Isaiah 40:22), waters above firmament (Gen.1:7), the great deep (Prov. 8:27-28 & Gen. 7:11), fountains of the deep (Prov. 8:27-28), doors in heaven (Ps 78:23).
In the light of the above quote, the order in which Genesis 1:1-19 describes God creating the world begins to make sense. Figures 1 - 4 illustrate those parts of Genesis which I think are relevant to our discussion:
[The four
diagrams are
here omitted.]
Parts of the
Bible reflect
the extent of
scientific knowledge (derived from Babylonian civilization) available
to
the authors who wrote it, and I think that it is highly likely that the
author of Isaiah would have believed that the Earth was flat, and
either
consciously or unconsciously conveyed this idea in his writing. The
reason
being that this belief was part of the ancient Hebrew conceptual
schema:
"The earth was
regarded
as a flat surface,
bounded upon all sides by the watery deep. Above, the heavens formed a
hollow vault, which, resting on the waters, might be said to describe a
circle upon
them (Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27). This vault was thought to be solid, and was spoken of as a firmament (rakia, something beaten or hammered out; Gen. 1:6 etc), or, in the language of poetry, a tent spread above the earth (Is. 40:22, Ps.19:4). Upon the farther side of the firmament, called by the Babylonians kirib sami, 'the inner part of the heavens', there was again water, 'the waters which are above the firmament' (Gen.1:6 f.). Indeed, one of the earliest creative acts was the placing of the vault of the heavens, in order to cleave in twain the watery deep (tehom, Bab. Tiamat), and thus make possible the appearance of dry land (Gen. l:6-8, Prov. 8:28 f.). Beneath the earth was the realm of the underworld (Sheol), and the whole was perhaps conjectured to rest ultimately upon the waters of the deep. (Ps. 24:2; 136:6)". (Encyclopaedia Biblica, page 4780). For ancient cultures "down" was a cosmic direction. Things fell down not because of gravity, but because "down" was down. We can see this in the writings of the Christian father, Lactantius (ca AD 240 - ca 320). He used ancient arguments to refute the idea of a spherical Earth, namely: the impossibility of walking upside down, and the absurdity of places where rain and snow fall upwards.
The concept of a
flat
Earth is based on a
simple fact of observation: if I stand out in the middle of the desert
and turn in a circle, then the Earth appears to be a flat disc and the
sky a solid dome that rests upon it. In discussing this subject we must
keep in mind that:
"Early ideas
were
coloured by a number
of prejudices, all of them understandable and comforting. For a start
there
was the reassuringfact that the Earth stood still. If it was moving, we
would feel ourselves moving. It must be flat, otherwise we would fall
off..."
(S Berthon and A Robinson: The Shape of The World, page 10).
The facts
available to
date strongly suggest
that the ancient Hebrews thought that the Earth was a flat disc with a
solid semispherical sky, and that the Bible reflects this belief.
Bibliography Campbell, J. The Masks of God, Occidental Mythology, Condor Books, London. (date unknown). Koester, A The Sleepwalkers, Grosset and Dunlap, New York, 1963. Tauber, G E Man's View of the Universe, Crown Publishers Inc., New York, 1979. Vine, W E et al Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, New York, 1985. Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version) New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Hamlyn, Publishing Group Ltd. London, 1989. Encyclopaedia Biblica, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1914. The Universe Bible Dictionary, R.T.S. - Lutterworth Press, London, 1939. Westminster Commentaries: The Book of Genesis, Methuen and Co., London, 1904. "MYTHOLOGY'S
LAST GODS"
Brian De Kretser ( Investigator 54, 1997 May)
Some of the things mentioned in the book Mythology's Last Gods (William Harwood) are: 1 Conflicting accounts regarding the date Jesus Christ was born. Matthew's account was totally dependent for its credibility on the dating of that event to 4 BCE or earlier, whereas Luke's account was equally dependent on dating that event to 7 CE (AD). 2 Yahweh promised King David that his dynasty would be kings in Jerusalem forever. Yet in 586 BCE David's line of kings was deposed and has never been restored. 3 One by one the various books of the Bible were proved to be lies and errors of fact and inaccurate guesses. The current Pope appointed his own historians to examine the secular historians' conclusions and to find flaws in their evidence that the Pope believed must be there. The outcome was that the Papal historians' confirmed that the Bible really was falsifiable fantasy. The Pope suppressed the report. 4 One passage in Genesis states that Noah was to take two of each kind of animal into the Ark. Later it says seven of each. Ian Plimer's book Telling Lies for God shows the Flood story is ridiculous. 5 The rising from the dead myth was in fashion 3,000 years before Jesus Christ copied it. The Egyptian god Osiris rose from the dead. One thousand years before him the goddess Ishtar rose from the dead. Between Osiris and Jesus Christ there were Greek, Assyrian, Phoenician, Persian, Hittite, Chinese and dozens of other saviour gods who rose from the dead. The Bible stories are mostly recycled myth. 6 Centuries before the 3-person god (Father/Son/Holy Ghost) of Christianity ancients worshipped a three-person goddess. 7 One thousand years before God according to the Bible gave the 10 commandments to Moses, the Babylonian Sun God, Shamash, dictated an almost identical law code to Hammurabi. Furthermore the 10 Commandments were composed 400 years after Moses death. 8 The names of the Christian gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – have been used for the anonymous authors of those books. 9 The Judaeo-Christians reflect the ignorance of the authors of the Bible. They endorse a flat Earth. Daniel 4:10; Matthew 2:9; 4:8; Apocalypse 7:1; 6:13, 14; Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; Job 22:14; Acts 10:11; Genesis 1:16. They also state that the universe was created by God less than 10,000 years ago instead of between 12 & 17 billion years ago as science has proved. 10 God invented. Pharoah lkhenatun 1380 BCE, known as the Mad Pharoah conceived of Monotheism. The Jews reinvented this idea later and created Yahweh their single, male, sky God, their God of the Bible. Societies create their Gods according to their own moral and physical image. Cultures that were sane and virtuous by the standards of 5,000 years ago, but evil by the standards of today, created gods that were insane and evil by the standards of today. E.g. in the Old Testament, God ordered the killing of entire populations – men, women and animals. The invention of writing led to the depiction of capricious, temperamental, xenophobic, genocidal, morally-retarded gods in sacred scrolls in which their atrocities and irrationality was acknowledged and applauded. The gods were like the societies which created them. 11 The Jews and the Israelites were separate peoples. The Jews were in the area from Ebla in the south to Mount Yahweh in Anatolia, near modern Adana, in the north. In the 4th century BCE they conquered and settled the area south of Jerusalem. The homeland of the Israelites was Midian. They were driven out by the conquering Easterners which included the most powerful of the Jews led by Yahuwshua. They were invited by Pharoah Ikhenatun to settle in Goshen on the eastern shore of the Nile Delta. In return they were to help Egypt defend the northern border. One hundred years later they were expelled from Egypt by Pharoah Ramoses II. Their reception in Midian was not hospitable and so they settled peacefully in a section of Phoenicia north of Jerusalem and formed an alliance with the Jews that lasted until the death of Solomon. 12 The David and Goliath story was invented to raise the status of David after his election to the dual crown of Israel and Judah. Goliath was killed by Elkhanan. (2 Samual 21:19) 13 The Bible has myths of the birth of a dangerous child and attempts to kill that child thwarted by God's protection: Moses; Perseus; Kyros; Oidipus; Paris; Abraham; Krishna; John the Immerser; Jesus the Nazirite; Sargon I; Theseus; King Arthur. These are all recycled myths. 14 Flood myths
were around
over 1,000 years
before Yahweh was invented. The most primitive version known is that of
the Hindus – the Rain Goddess
attempt to
destroy all life.
15 Satan invented. In a fable by Enoch the seraphs were expelled from the skies for disobedience and sentenced to eternal darkness. Their leader Khazazel (the planet Venus) became known thereafter as the Enemy (Ha-Satan) occupying a position in Jewish mythology analogous to the Zoroastrian Prince of Darkness. Many religions had the concept of their God versus an evil enemy. Buddhism had Mara the Great Tempter. Babylonians had Tiamat the Dragon. The Devil got his traditional form and attributes from the Greek god Pan. 16 The Adam myth was borrowed from a Greek tale – that Prometheus fashioned the first human from clay. 17 The myth of rising from the grave on the 3rd day started with the Osiris myth. The god Seth killed King Osiris who was later resurrected. Later stories of sacred kings followed this pattern: Eurystheus prince of Tiryns; Oedipus of Greece. The Moon goddess Semele suffered death for the sins of the world and rose again to everlasting life. In Egyptian myth Dionysos died for the sins of the world and was resurrected. In Syria the Adonis myth was the same. In Babylonia the risen saviour was called Tammuz the only begotten son of the King and Queen of Heaven–Ea and Daukina. In Anatolia the resurrected saviour was called Atthis, in Persia Mithra. In China he was Dreng and his virgin mother Shinga-moo. There is a
lot more
information but I have
supplied enough to prove that the Bible is a book of fiction.
CIRCLES,
PILLARS & TENTS
Part 2
Anonymous (Investigator 54,
1997 May)
INTRODUCTION In Investigator 52 I showed that "earth" in the Bible means "land" and excludes the oceans and seas. Therefore "earth" cannot refer to planet Earth. It follows that attempts by skeptics to construct a Biblical idea of planet Earth by what the Bible says about "earth" or "land" misrepresents the Bible. I argued that
the Bible
phrases "circle of
the earth" and "circle of the deep (=sea)" refer to the circular
horizon.
And the "foundations of the earth" refer to whatever the land and
continents
rest on.
Mr Straughen and
Mr De
Kretser have disagreed.
Therefore I now present further details:
REPLY TO MR STRAUGHEN The Hebrew word "eres" (or "ehretz") meaning "earth" or "land" occurs about 2,500 times in the Old Testament. We get phrases such as: "The whole land (eres) of Ethiopia" Genesis 2:13; We also get the
phrase
"the ends of the earth"
(Psalm 2:8; 59:13; 72:8; Isaiah 40:28). This makes sense since all the
continents and islands are not infinite in extent but end at the
seashores.
The word "earth", then, can refer to all land of what we call "the continents" or to a portion thereof such as one country or empire or area. Mr Straughen quoted Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. W E Vine was a scholar but even scholars occasionally make a mistake. There is no
verse in the
Bible where "earth"
includes the seas. (Jonah 1:9) The phrase "depths of the earth" cited
by
Vine can refer to valleys as opposed to mountains and/or to whatever is
under the land. (Psalm 71:20; 95:4-5; Amos 4:13)
What, then,
about "earth"
and its creation
in Genesis chapter 1?
CREATION OF "EARTH" - GENESIS 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) One
interpretation is that
verse one summarized
the creation story which follows [it]. If so, then the actual account
of
what God "created" starts in verses 2 & 3. And in verse 2 what
would
become the "earth" already exists although covered in water. Verse 10
makes
this plain by informing us that "earth" (eres) is the dry land.
(Investigator
38 pp. 34-37)
In effect, the account tells us that "God created … the earth" or land by removing the water from it. There is no talk here of planet "Earth" but of the "land" – the sort of land that the readers could see around them. Similarly,
"heavens" in
the Bible usually
refers to the "sky" – what the reader could see by looking up. (Compare
"heavens" in 2 Peter 3 and scientific explanation of 2 Peter 3 in
Investigator
43)
The Genesis 1
creation
story, then, describes
what a hypothetical observer at sea or land level would have observed
when
"God created". The story
describes what
the reader would have seen had
he been there. Just as the land could be created by removing the water
that covered it, so the "heavens" or sky could be "created" by removing
whatever covered the sky and prevented our hypothetical observer from
seeing
it. The heaven or "firmament" which God created (1:6-8) therefore was
not
the Universe. Similarly the "light" too could be "created" and be seen
by our hypothetical observer by removing whatever obstructed the light.
Genesis 1 is a
story of
the land and sky
in a state of destruction and being repaired by God. The oceans are not
said to be created because their water was already there – covering
everything.
The phrase "spirit of God" (1:2) is often mistakenly related to the
Trinity
doctrine. The Hebrew "ruach" usually means "wind". The phrase "wind of
God" is a figure of speech referring to an exceptionally powerful wind.
What sort of an
event
could cover all land
on our planet with the oceans, blot out all light, make sun and moon
invisible,
leave the planet without plants or animals or birds or fishes, and
cause
a "wind of God" over the surface?
Creation in Genesis begins after the event in question. This
interpretation
differs from the majority
who prefer to speak of "creation ex nihilo". (Newman et al 1981)
However,
my explanation follows from regarding verse 1 as an introduction and as
a one-sentence summary of Genesis 1 and from letting the Hebrew words
(e.g.
eres = earth = land) mean what they mean.
It's possible that other Bible passages - such as in the New Testament - refer to the creation of the Universe. If so such passages would refer to events long before Genesis 1. But that's another story. What is meant by
"formless
and void?" (Genesis
1:2) Context tells us. Void means empty. The land, at that stage
covered
by sea, was empty or void of the creation to follow. "Without form"
refers
to outline or shape. Imagine tidal waves sweeping over an island and
you
trying to draw a map of the island perhaps while observing from a
helicopter.
The form, outline, or shape of the island as determined by where its
land
meets the sea would change second by second. The high points like hills
would also look different second by second subject to how much is
water-covered
at any instant. You just won't be able to draw or describe one form,
outline
or shape which describes the island. In that way it would be "without
form".
Well, that was the condition of all land at creation!
A comment about
the
"firmament"? W E Vine
explained:
What then is
the
"circle of the earth/land"
(Isaiah 40)? What is the "circle of the deep" (Proverbs 8)? The
Jews
knew that individual countries and empires and seas are not exact
circles.
What they could and did observe is the circular horizon as explained in
Investigator
52.
The word
"circle" is
singular. So is the
word "earth". From any one location the observer sees only one portion
of land and/or sea and one circular horizon around it. Isaiah 40:22
therefore
teaches that God is bigger and greater than the sky above the reader
and
the circular horizon around the reader.
By regarding
"earth" as
land including the
continents we remove problems in understanding the following:
REPLY TO BRIAN DE KRETSER Brian De Kretser cites additional supposed proofs that the Bible teaches a flat planet Earth: Daniel 4:10 describes Daniel's vision of a: "tree in the midst of the earth." This simply means that the tree in the vision was in the middle of the land that Daniel saw in the vision. Revelation (Apocalypse) 7:1 mentions the "four corners of the earth." This probably refers to the four directions in terms of which most people think. Matthew 4:8 is about the temptations of Jesus: "Again, the devil took him to a very great high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them…" The
argument
in using
this verse seems
to be that to view all kingdoms from one mountain implies a plain-like
planet Earth – flat except for mountains on it.
Moses was shown
the
promised land from a
mountain. (Deuteronomy 34) But he couldn't from such distance see "the
glory" of any particular kingdom. By "glory" we'd imagine the palaces,
pomp, wealth, power, workers and armies. However, no matter how high
the
mountain we wouldn't see any of this due to limitations of eyesight.
The
Jews knew this obvious fact as does any reader of Matthew. Jesus, then,
could have been "shown" the "kingdoms" and their "glory" not by direct
looking but by imagining and visualizing. The "high mountain", whether
real or part of the vision, would serve psychologically to increase the
temptation with height inducing a sense of exhilaration and freedom.
THE BIBLE IS SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT The Bible has
thousands of
instances where
"earth" refers to the land and excludes the sea. In only a few verses
is
there initial ambiguity in the meaning of "earth". The phrase "depths
of
the earth" (Psalm 95:4), for example, refers not to the oceans but to
valleys
as distinct from mountains.
Psalm 24:1-2
says:
"The earth is
the Lord's
and the fullness
thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein; for he has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers." Skeptics sometimes apply these words in Psalm 24 to planet Earth and draw a flat disc floating upon a "universal sea".
But "earth"
means the
land. Oceans surround
the land, and rivers dissect it. The land, however, is also "upon" the
seas and rivers in the sense that there are vast amounts of water in
and
under the continents. Over long geological ages some of this water
recycles
through the oceans. An article in the magazine The Sciences about water in the Earth's mantle started off: "Enough water could be locked in the Earth to fill the oceans ten times over." (Jeanloz 1993) Besides this
mantle
water there is also
vast amounts of fresh groundwater which flows into the oceans via
"tidal
pumping" at a rate (measured in California) equal to 40% of river flow.
Discover
magazine says:
"Nearly all
of the
Earth's fresh-water – some
97% – consists of groundwater." (Svitil 1996)
If we accept
that
"earth" in the Bible
means the "land" and not planet Earth then the Bible is correct in its
statements about the "earth".
QUOTATIONS FROM HEATHEN WRITERS Both Mr
Straughen and Mr
De Kretser cite
writers who link Bible statements to mythologies of surrounding nations
and consider the Bible "recycled myth".
To demonstrate a
vague
similarity is not
sufficient to prove that one story is derived from another. If we read
newspaper reports of surgeons resuscitating seemingly dead persons or
even
of persons misdiagnosed as dead waking up in body bags we don't claim
that,
"The journalists are recycling the Osiris myth."
It is quite
possible for a
similar idea to
occur in thousands of stories and for no story to be derived from any
other
and for some of those thousands to be true reports while others are
fiction.
When the New
Testament
quotes the Old Testament
we're informed with such phrases as "It is written", "the Spirit says",
"Isaiah says", etc.
The Bible also
refers to
non-biblical sources
– e.g. Jude 14; Titus 1:12; Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Kings 8:23; etc. However to
claim
a link between an event recorded in the Bible and a narrative of
another
nation when such link is not directly stated constitutes an opinion or
interpretation.
Some 19th
century scholars tried
to link the story of Jonah to ancient Greek stories of Andromeda and
Hesione
rescued from sea monsters by Perseus and Hercules respectively. Others
linked Jonah to the Assyrian fish god Oannes. (Cheyne & Black 1914)
Such links, however, were not sustainable.
GENERAL COMMENTS De Kretser
supplies an
impressive summary
of alleged Bible errors. The "flat Earth" claims have been answered.
Some
of the others will be answered in future.
Back around 1971 I observed something strange and unusual about the Bible. It is this: Hundreds of
statements in
the Bible seemed
wrong and were called "erroneous" by some scholars/scientists;
thousands
of other statements could not be tested but were also presumed false by
certain scholars; yet one by one the "false" and "erroneous" statements
were being revealed as correct after all by later research and later
science.
Werner Keller in
The
Bible As History
named scholars who "denied the truth of the Biblical tradition of … the
mass
deportation from Judah" which occurred in 587 BCE. Excavations from
1926
proved that indeed, "The Babylonians made a clean sweep." (p. 285)
Ideas that the
books of
Moses were written
around 700 to 400 BCE are being challenged by accuracies in those
books.
It's possible, for example, that the altar Joshua built on Mount Ebal
(Deuteronomy
27:2-9; Joshua 8:30-31) has been discovered. (Machlin 1990; Mazar 1990)
In previous
articles in Investigator
I've shown many Bible statements to be accurate when allegedly they
were
false in the areas of biology, geography, history, medicine,
psychology,
etc. Prior to the discovery or research which proved a certain point
correct
no amount of debate could settle it but after the new research much of
the previous debate was exposed as wasted ink and wasted time.
Two questions to consider are: 1 How far and how long will this trend extend and continue? And as pointed
out
previously we must allow
for figures of speech, and poetry and we must certainly get our word
meanings
right and not, for example, mistake "earth" for "Earth."
References Anonymous
Asteroids &
Genesis 1, Investigator Magazine, No. 38, September 1994, pp. 34-37
Ancient
Cosmographies
Kirk Straughen (Investigator 58, 1998
January)
Introduction This essay is a
final
response to "Circles,
Pillars and Tents Part 2" which appeared in Investigator No.
54,
and outlines the reasons why I am still unable to agree with Anonymous.
Creation Myths Is Genesis
derived from
Mesopotamian mythology
or is the Biblical account of the world's creation wholly uninfluenced
by gentile culture? I think that the evidence supports the view that
there
has been some influence from Mesopotamian civilization. Firstly, we
know
that the Hebrews were held captive in Babylon, and therefore came into
contact with the culture of this civilization.
Secondly, we
know that
there are parallels
between the Enuma Elish arid Genesis, and that the Enuma Elish is the
older
myth (pieces of the text found at Ashur are as old as 1000 years BC).
Thirdly,
history is full of examples of one culture borrowing ideas from
another.
The influence of Greek and Roman civilization on western culture is a
prime
example of this phenomena.
In support of my claim that aspects of Genesis are derived from Mesopotamian culture, I quote the following: "But while the Hebrew version of primeval times had been adapted to biblical tradition and religion, much of the background material of these early narratives comes from Mesopotamia. This is borne out by the archaeological discovery of ancient libraries containing collections of mythological texts. The process of remoulding old traditions is common in the history of cultures. The same approach was followed by the Hurrians who adopted Mesopotamian traditions and eventually brought them to Canaan… The biblical genealogies before the Flood parallel the antediluvian dynasties of Sumer, the kings of which are credited with enormous lifespans. The names of some of the antediluvian patriarchs reflect Akkadian (Babylonian) characteristics. The stories of Eden and the Tower of Babel are largely Mesopotamian in substance, as are other cycles of primeval history." (G. Cornfield: Archaeology of the Bible Book by Book, pages 5-6). Are these
similarities, and the similarities
I pointed out in my previous article on this subject evidence of
Mesopotamian
influences? Even Christian scholars have drawn the following conclusion
from the available evidence:
"Wide as is
the
difference between the
polytheistic assumptions and fantastic imagery of the Babylonian
narrative
and the sober dignity and elevated monotheism of Genesis there are yet
coincidences in general outline and in detail which are too marked and
too numerous to be ascribed to chance ... it cannot reasonably be
doubted
that the Hebrew narrative is dependent on Babylonian models."
(Dictionary of the Bible, page 165). Anonymous says that "to claim a link between an event recorded in the Bible and a narrative of another nation when such link is not directly stated constitutes an opinion or interpretation" (Investigator No. 54, page 48).
In response to this I will point out that:
In view of
these facts I
think that my
comments on pages 38 and 39 of Investigator No. 54 remain
valid – namely
that the Hebrews borrowed aspects of Cosmography and mythology from
Mesopotamian
sources, and that one of these ideas was the concept of a disc-shaped
world.
The Circle of the Earth Additional
archaeological
evidence which,
in .my opinion, suggests that the author of Isaiah 40:22 is describing
a flat earth is indicated by a Babylonian model of the world, inscribed
on a clay tablet:
"The
impression on a
clay tablet is tiny
- 5 x 3 in (12.5 x 8 cm) - the size of a hand. There are two
lines
running down the centre of the flat, round Earth and these probably
represent
the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In a central circle are Babylon and
other
important cities. Surrounding these is the circular 'Bitter River'
beyond
which lived all sorts of legendary beasts."
(S. Berthon & A. Robinson: The Shape of the World, pages 11-12). The illustration accompanying the text shows that even if we define earth as dry land only, the phrase "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22 still describes a disc-shaped world.
The idea of a
flat earth
was a common feature
of Near Eastern Cosmology upon which the creation story of genesis is
based,
and as further support for this contention I quote the following:
"The world was
thought
of as a self-contained
structure; in Israel, it was first conceived of as bipartite
(heaven-earth)
and later, under Mesopotamian influence, as tripartite
(heaven-earth-abyss).
Heaven represents a gigantic bell-shaped dome inverted over the earth;
above it are the waters of heaven and
the heavenly palace of the deity, below it the stars and constellations move about. The earth is a flat surface with four corners or, on account of the horizon, a round disc..." (G. Fohrer: History of Israelite Religion, page 180).
After having
undertaken
additional research
in relation to the shape of the Biblical Earth, I find myself arriving
at the same conclusions as outlined on page 40 of Investigator No. 54 –
namely that the ancient Hebrews thought the world was flat, and that
scripture
reflects this belief.
Why were the
ancient
Hebrews no different
from the contemporary cultures of the surrounding gentile nations with
regard to the concept of a flat Earth? The answer is simple – in
addition
to cultural borrowing, the authors of scripture were fallible men who
were
the product of a prescientific culture, and the references they made to
the natural world reflect the limited and inaccurate knowledge of their
age.
Bibliography Cornfield, G. Archaeology of the Bible Book by Book, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1976. Fohrer, G. History of Israelite Religion, S.P.C.K, London 1975 Dictionary of the Bible, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1914. COMMENT ON MR STRAUGHEN'S CRITIQUE Anonymous (Investigator 59, 1998 March)
Mr Straughen
(Investigator
58) has offered
further criticism to my articles
Circles Pillars and Tents. (Investigator
52 & 54)
Mr Straughen postulates a two-stage process whereby: 1. Mesopotamian mythology moved into Hebrew culture; The point which led to my disagreement with Mr Straughen was the phrase "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22. I previously
pointed out
that "earth" in
the Bible does not mean planet Earth. It means land – sometimes land on
a
local scale and sometimes all land as far as the land extends. The
2,500
occurrences of the word "earth" are spelt with a lower case "e". The
word
never includes the oceans in its meaning. Just as "circle
... of the
deep"
(Proverbs 8:27) does not refer to a planet called "Deep" so "circle of
the earth" does not refer to a planet called "Earth".
Isaiah 40
presents God's
greatness and man's
insignificance by comparison with things people of those days couldSEE
– dust on the scales, the heavens (=sky), the stars, grasshoppers,
etc. The "circle of the earth" that readers could see, and
which
illustrated God's greatness to them, was not a Babylonian model of
planet
Earth but the "circular horizon".
Once this is
understood we
find that
the Bible anticipated a number of scientific accuracies in its comments
about "earth". (Investigator 52 & 54)
Regarding the
above-mentioned two-stage process:
Stage 1 seems plausible since the Bible itself condemns Israel for
adopting
foreign beliefs and customs.
Stage 2 is
based on
"coincidences in general
outline" (No. 58 p.11). However, unless we have direct quotation it
remains
true that: "It is quite possible for a similar idea to occur in
thousands
of stories and for no story to be derived from any other..." (No. 54 p.
48)
AGREEMENT STILL NOT REACHED Kirk Straughen (Investigator 60, 1998 May) I am still
unable to agree
with Anonymous
(Investigator 59 p. 4 letter) and quote the following commentary on
Isaiah
40:22 in support of my original contention:
This
conception of the
world as a circle
or disc appears to be late (cf. Job xxii.14; Prov. viii. 27), in which
we have the concepts of the two discs corresponding to one another as
counterparts:
the circle of the earth and the vaulted sky.
(Page 60 of: Isaiah Vol. 2. The Century Bible, T.C. & C. Jack, London, date not shown). As I have already
mentioned,
the idea of a disc-shaped
world and solid firmament were common ideas in Middle Eastern
cosmologies
(Inv. 54, p. 38). Anonymous' comments regarding "earth" are
contradicted
by:
(Page 173
of:
Cassell's Concise Bible Dictionary,
Cassell & Co. Ltd., London; 1909).
Finally, we don't need a quote from the Enuma Elish in Genesis 10 deduce that it is derived from this pagan myth. If Anonymous had quoted my quote more fully, he would have seen that there are "coincidences in general outline and in detail which are too marked and too numerous to be ascribed to chance." (Inv. 58, p. 11). REPLY TO MR STRAUGHEN Anonymous (Investigator 60, 1998 May) The word "deep" (Hebrew tehom) in "circle of the deep" (Proverbs 8:27) occurs in some 35 Old Testament verses. It refers to the sea (sometimes just the Mediterranean) not to he heavens or sky. The word "circle" (=chug) occurs three times. We have the "circle of the earth [=land]" (Isaiah 40:22), the "circle of the sea" (Proverbs 8:27), and circle of the heaven [=sky]" (Job 22:14) Many Bible
translators
translated Job 22:14
as "vault of heaven". Some, e.g. The Jerusalem Bible, are
clearer
and have "the rim of the heavens". The "rim" or "circle" of the heavens
would be where the sky, as observed, meets the sea or the land. So,
again,
as in the other two instances we can understand this circle as the
horizon.
As previously explained "earth" refers to "land" (in over 2,000 Bible verses) and does not include the seas. Therefore, "earth" cannot mean planet Earth. Therefore attempts to make the Bible teach a disc-shaped planet, are mistaken. Mr Straughen's 2nd
reference is
self-defeating. If "erets" is "the globe on which we dwell" then the
Bible
would be right since we dwell on a "globe". But the reference is
mistaken
since "erets" means "land" not "globe" in over 2,000 instances.
In seeking the
"too
numerous" details showing
the Bible teaches a flat planet Earth I checked Mr Straughen's longer
article
in The Skeptic.
However, that article has no relevant details not
already answered in Investigator.
Debate
about word-meanings
can easily befog
matters. Therefore I recommend re-reading of my articles (Investigator
52 & 54) where some scientific accuracies in the Bible's comments
about
"earth" [=land] are shown.
FAITH IN
THE BIBLE
Brian De Kretzer (Investigator 55, 1997 July)
In addition to
ignorance
of the scientific
world "Anonymous" still hides behind anonymity. By referring
to "Heathen Writers" (Investigator 54 p. 48) his fanatical
Fundamentalism
shines through. (Heathen: One who adheres to a religion that does
not acknowledge the "God" of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.)
Today with
advances in
knowledge, science
and reason there is no excuse to be ignorant. In spite of this millions
of this world continue to be led up the garden path by all religions,
usually
conceived and controlled by fanatics who push their own concepts along
using a non-existent deity as a tool gain power or money or both.
Knowledge
and reason are the only weapons that can combat this. Their supporters
like "Anonymous" go it on "faith" alone because they do not have the
intellect
to reason.
"Faith and reason cannot co-exist in the same person, at the same time, with respect to the same object of knowledge. Reason and faith are irreconcilable since the presence of rational demonstration negates the possibility of faith." (George H Smith) It would take a
whole issue
of Investigator
to list the authors, scientists and researchers and even theologians
who
agree that what is written in the Bible cannot be sustained or
justified
by normal rational methods.
"Anonymous" mentions the "books of Moses" (Investigator 54 p.49) yet must be aware that Moses did not write any books. These were written, rewritten, added, subtracted, interpolated, changed many times by many anonymous authors lost in the mists of time.
The proof of
this is in
the Bible itself
where there are several versions of the one story. There are
quite
a few historical events in the Bible, but most have been distorted to
fit
in with God's supposed doings or instructions.
Bible
predictions come
true – if you consider
the laws of probability and give a wide margin of a thousand years or
so.
Anyone can do this.
In A Skeptics Case Book Harry Edwards shows how to make predictions within a span of three to five years with amazing accuracy. My
predictions within the
next year: An airplane
crash; Political upheavals in the Middle East; A dictator or two
overthrown; A few cyclones, earthquakes and floods in
Asia;
A change of government in the U K.
Response To Brian De Kretser Anonymous (Investigator 56, 1997 September)
I appreciated the comments of Mr de Kretser. (No. 55 p. 4) "Heathen", Mr De Kretser notes, means, "One who adheres to a religion that does not acknowledge God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam." However, De Kretser is mistaken in suggesting that the use of the word "heathern" implies the user is a "fanatical fundamentalist". I used the word (No. 54 p. 48) because W E Vine, quoted earlier, (p. 46) also used it. Mr De Kretser
says, "What
is written in the
Bible cannot be sustained or justified by normal rational means" and
says
that I "go it on faith alone" because of lacking "the intellect to
reason."
This
misunderstands what I
do. What
I do is test the Bible statement by statement, claim by claim –
anything
I find that is testable – by checking it against the latest scientific
research I come across. Relying on mainstream science and news journals
is part of "normal rational means."
I allow for figures of speech in the Bible, poetry, context, parable, and discoveries of textual critics. I've noticed
that hundreds
of Bible statements
which were considered false by scholars and critics were later proven
correct
and the critics wrong.
Sometimes I
generalize
this observation and
predict that Bible statements currently thought erroneous will likewise
in future be shown by science to be correct.
Occasionally I
even
predict future discovery.
For example in January 1974 two university skeptics who visited me
called
the Old Testament unreliable because its date for the Exodus (15th
century
BC) disagrees with the c.1300 BC date in virtually all modern
references.
On the basis of
my
observation – that proof
of the Bible accumulates gradually – I predicted that the date would
start
to be challenged later this century. That "start" may have been
made
in the article Score One for the Bible in Time
magazine.
(1990 March 15 p. 55)
If the
observed trend of
increasing corroboration
continues it has terrific implications built on scientific foundations.
More than 700 articles about the Bible including
many debates on this website:
https://ed5015.tripod.com/ https://investigatormagazine.net
|