Talk:Science and the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science and the Bible article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] links

Err, the links from the human origins section entitled "bigbang" seems to link to a norwegian rock band...

[edit] rewrite

This entire article needs a major rewrite. Numerous claims without documentation are made. It would be better to remove this article than leave it up with so many ambiguous claims

[edit] redirect

Why redicrect talk pages. If there's something to discuss over there, do it there, if there's something here, it belongs here. Str1977 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Because encouraging discussion of the same things with the same people on two different pages is tantamount to trolling. Clinkophonist 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General problem

There is a more general problem with this article. It is titled "Science and the Bible". Now this is very broad and might include any topic included in the Bible that's tagently scientific. Fair enough. There's Biblical precepts on circumcision and what does modern science say about circumcision.

This can result in a very long list of topics. IMHO it should be made clear why this is discussed (e.g. the food taboos and nutritional value is quite useful).

Unfortunately other sections included here are more of the "science shows the Bible to be wrong" issues, and these are not the most solid parts of that series. I mean, the "Bible claims lions eat straw" argument should really not be used for the protection of those making it - it's so absurd.

Actually, those arguments were mostly moved from the "examples" section of Bible scientific foresight, cast into better "topic areas", and a start on de-Povving them was made. They were actually presented as "science shows the Bible to be true", so presenting them more neutrally (i.e. without the word "examples" at the top) clearly shows how flimsy the arguments are. But the arguments are made, you should have seen the linkfarm. Yes the "Bible claims lions eat straw" is absurd, but it is an intrinsic part of the "lions are herbivores" argument - the biblical quote specifically refers to eating straw rather than more vague notions of herbivory, and it is important to note that "an herbivorous lion proves bible foreknowledge" is really taking a quote out of context. Clinkophonist 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The article (or rather editors) must decide which path to take.

Also, the mathematical section is out of place, as Maths is no science (in the narrower sense of the term).

Str1977 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Maths is science. A BSc is awarded for maths, for example. If you want to have a whole Maths and the Bible article, go ahead, there is certainly stuff that could go in it. E.g. Pi=3, and that attempt by that american state to declare that it was so. Clinkophonist 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Title of this article

I suggest the Title should be changed to: "Scientific support of the Bible." The current name seems too neutral for the clearly biased content. Chickrepelent 15:48, 24 December 2005 (EST)

  • Or change it to "The Bible Is Science". I found most of the entries concerning religions are far more biased toward the concerned religions than being neutral. Believers are much more aggressive than non-believers in editing these entries. --Roland 02:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate this article for deletion?

Why should we have this article? The section called "Electrical Engineering" seems more like science-fiction than what really happened (God was the one who brought fire down on those who disobeyed him...) . Also, why just mention some of the many ways the bible supports science ? Would it make sense to nominate this article for deletion?

Anyway, I don't know much about the whole deletion process etc, so your comments are appreciated in advance...

--EChronicle 19:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, It wouldn't make sense to delete this article. It exists to bring together several "the bible predicts modern science", "the bible is good at healthcare", "science contradicts the bible", topics into a single place, in such a way that they can be presented neutrally.

It is NOT neutral to claim that God brought fire down on those who disobeyed. It presumes God exists, and that God brings fire down on people, and that the events in the Bible actually occurred, and that God reacted as the Bible said he/she/it/they did.

Why just mention some of the ways the bible supports/contradicts science? Because this is an encyclopedia not an almanac; it is not intended as an exhaustive list, just a representative sample. Clinkophonist 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT neutral to claim that God brought fire down on those who disobeyed. It presumes God exists, and that God brings fire down on people, and that the events in the Bible actually occurred, and that God reacted as the Bible said he/she/it/they did. --> Oh really? I thought the rule was verifiability, my dear Clinkophonist. You can't prove that God doesn't exist... You can't prove that God doesn't bring fire down on people, and you can't prove that the events in the Bible didn't happen. But, we can prove that God exists, that the events in the Bible actually did happen, and (therefore) that God does bring fire down on people.

Since you obviously have not researched this issue, why not just read Josh McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict", Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ", and "The Signature of God" by Grant R. Jeffrey.

--EChronicle 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you can't prove that God does exist. You can't prove that God does bring fire down on people, and you can't prove that the events in the bible did happen. Time machines don't exist at present. Now, rather than such flimsy references, maybe you could refer to something from a real scholar on your side of the argument like Tom Wright, and maybe you should read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein or Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russel. Notice how my references are notable enough to have articles on wikipedia, and are by hugely well respected scholars and philosophers. Clinkophonist 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You could prove God exists. You can prove it logically as long as you use true postulates that generate that conclusion. It's just that some people don't agree that the postulates of say the Ontological Argument are true. You could also prove God exists scientifically by of course finding God. But would you recognize God if you found God? Roy Brumback 00:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens and stuff

"...that the Ark of the Covenant was an extraterrestrial communications box ... considered unlikely by mainstream archaeology..."

Unlikely? As in "aggression is unlikely to solve financial problems ... but might on occasion". Why haven't we written "considered total nonsense" ? Clinkophonist 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This entire article is hugely biased. There are references to exactly what the editors god was thinking and so on. Needs radical cleanup.Retsudo 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

...Indeed. I'm not sure why this page exists, though there appears to be some sort of historical issue here. But isn't it rather absurd to have a page entitled "Science and the Bible" with no mention of the many Bible verses which contradict scientific findings, other than "many scientists believe there are several discrepancies with science"? --Robert Stevens 10:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: even this has been watered down, with "many scientists" replaced with "some scientists". This is ridiculous. I have replaced this with "While almost all scientists consider the Bible to be inaccurate in various details (notably the Genesis creation story: see Creation-evolution controversy)..." According to the Newsweek citation on that page, only 700 out of 480,000 American scientists are creationists: and America is the only nation in the developed world where creationism is more than a small minority belief. --Robert Stevens 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how can my sanitation edit be removed

if its allowed at the leviticus article? Portillo

[edit] Toxic food section

The section is repetitive. Also couldn't the cirrhosis correlation be because worldwide, people who eat pork are also more likely to drink? KittyHawker 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Rewrite

This is, by far, one of the most biased articles I have encountered on a religious subject during my time on Wikipedia. There is virtually no reference whatsoever to the numerous scientifically absurd portions of the Bible, and the entire article reeks of non-neutral POV. It is blindingly obvious that the author(s) of the majority of the article are strong biblical Christian traditionalists in their thinking - while there is nothing wrong with this, someone's personal point of view should not be so thinly veiled in an encyclopediac article. To make matters worse, the article scarcely even cites biblical reference. I call for either a complete rewrite or a deletion (until such a time as a far superior article can be created). Kwub 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is quite one sided Thedudewithglasses 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well.. this article is useless and highly biased as well as extremely misleading --Mabu2 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well a little better

I added some things that the bible was wrong about in the astronomy section, a little less biased now, but i need help! Thedudewithglasses 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmoloy, age of the earth, evolution, etc.

This article seems to be missing the biggest issues regarding this subject, i.e. the huge scientific areas of cosmology, the Big Bang, age of the Earth, and Darwinian evolution. Biblical inerrancy flatly contradicts these scientific advances in understanding in the Creation of Genesis.

As the debate about whether ID and Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution and cosmology is such a hot topic, these matters should be fully explored in the this article. I'm not qualified so if anyone who is would like to contribute... --AJKGordon 09:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We have some other articles covering this, for example Creation-evolution controversy and Creation and evolution in public education, so it might be better to include summaries in this article with a link to the more in-depth article. Hut 8.5 09:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refernces to Job

I'm curious if anyone has considered adding references to Job to this article since it outlines some very clear scientific descriptions.

Example:

“Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31)

This passage describes the fact that Pleiades is an Open Cluster and that the stars are slightly bound to each other. It also mentions the fact Orion's Belt isn't made up of three stars close together, but that they are separeate star systems (A Trinary system, a Binary system and a single star system.)

Another example:

15 "Look at the behemoth,
      which I made along with you
      and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,
      what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar;
      the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
      his limbs like rods of iron.
(Job 40:15-18)

Which basically describes a dinosaur (possibly a Apatosaurus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-McKain (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

it describes a hippopotamus. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaks someone who has obviously never seen a hippopotamus or even a picture of one. How many hippos have a tail which "sways like a cedar"? 58.174.73.254 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Tail" is generally considered to be a euphemism for "penis" here. But I've also seen the animal described as a "water buffalo" (and dinosaurs didn't eat grass, which appeared later IIRC). --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A penis euphemism would be even worse (lol) than an actual tail. "Hung like a horse" is still not "sways like a cedar"; no mention of "hung like a hippo" (or water buffalo). 58.174.73.254 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] scope

this is a serious topic per se, and should not be conflated with "inerrancy" ravings. Material discussed here should have academic (philological) credibility. Dreamed-up fundamentalist claims belong moved to Bible scientific foreknowledge. Once this is done, article categorization should be adjusted correspondingly. --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

I propose we move this article to Christianity and science. Yahel Guhan 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason in particular? This article seems to be more about how the ideas of science conflict and relate to the ideas of the Bible, rather than the ideas of Christianity in general. Ark'ay the Mortals' God (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look and there doesn't seem to be any New Testament verses covered in the article. Moving it to Judaism and science would seem a little more logical than moving it to Christianity and science. That said, I believe the current title is adequate. I agree with the previous comment, the nominator should explain the rationale behind the proposal.-Andrew c [talk] 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic food

I deleted this section headed Toxic Food, as it's fringe material:

[edit] Toxic food

Main article: Kosher food

Leviticus 11:1-47 contains a list specifying what constitutes kosher food and what is forbidden. In 1953, Dr. David I. Macht, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically-Unclean animals was higher than that of the clean animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%.[citation needed] Dr. Macht used phytopharmacological methods, which involved treating lupin seedlings with food extracts and observing inhibition of root growth.[citation needed] The conclusions of the paper published in Johns Hopkins Bulletin of the History of Medicine were challenged in a paper by biologists written at the request of a Seventh-day Adventist Church publication.[1]

However, this neglects the strong Biblical prohibition against creeping things which creepeth upon the earth, as worms and ants are regarded by many cultures as extremely tasty, and are scientifically very nutritious. Australian green ants, for example, are eaten by the aboriginals, since their abdomen tastes like lemon sherbet, and the ants themselves are high in vitamin C and have antibiotic properties; squashed green ants mashed in water makes up an excellent lemon-lime flavored drink.[1][2]

Perhaps one of the most famously non-kosher foods is pork, which, when improperly cooked, is known to carry a risk of trichinosis. A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption. [3][4]. Cultural anthropologists, following Mary Douglas, have argued that the clean and unclean in dietary laws were concepts of holiness and taboos; functions within social groups to symbolise and demark social boundaries.[citation needed] Psychology professor Paul Rozin suggests food taboos and the pork taboo in particular might simply be a codification of the natural disgust reaction humans in many cultures often show to novel meats, for example US culture objects to horse meat and the meat of civet cats which other cultures find perfectly acceptable. Another reason suggested for the pork taboo is a general disgust to the extremely omnivorous nature of the pig, and its tendency to wallow in mud and eat human faeces.

David Macht, the aforementioned pharmacologist and doctor of Hebrew Literature, was a notable advocate of biblical health practices. [2] [3] In a study entitled An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV, Dr. Macht wrote:

Every word of the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge and deep significance[4]

The quoted source is not an authority on this subject. The dietary rules in the Torah are not health-related, but ritual - the foods were banned because they were ritually unclean, not because they were unhealthy. PiCo (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pi and 3

I'm removing this section (one of the worst arguments a proponent of errancy can make, IMO, because it weakens their credibility), because the source used to support this supposed point on the side of errancy reflects the opposite of what the source actually states:

"Sam Gibson", the non-expert questioner, asked one question, and when it was responded to, changed the question to represent his biblical question had been answered. "Dr Rick", however, pointed out this shifting of goalposts, stating, "The Bible does not state that pi = 3.0" and later after Gibson complained, Dr Rick repeated a similar rebuttal, "The Bible does not make this claim. If we are going to be mathematically precise, the Bible never says that there is such a thing as pi. The figure of 3.0 is not found there."

The problem actually falls with ignoring the brim is where the measurement of 10 cubits is obtained, and that it is the shape of a lily flower (v26); therefore, it is wider than the rest of the Sea, at 9.55 cubits measure around. The maths are correct; the skeptic has assumed information not present, and reduced it to a soundbite. Faith (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Faith, you've misunderstood what the paragraph is saying. It says: (a) 1 Kings implies that pi=3; (b) biblical literalists therefore say that pi must be exactly 3, and not some slightly higher number. The first reference, the one you discuss, is apparently being used to support the first statement. You point out that in fact it doesn't, and you're right, but not for the reason you give: "Sam Gibson" is asking whether pi can be rounded down to 3, which is not the point being made in that part of the paragraph. In other words, the reference is irrelevant and should never have been added. The resident mathematician replies that the bible doesn't state that pi=3, and that's true too - but our paragraph doesn't say that the bible states that pi=3, it says that i Kings implies this. But it's the second part of the paragraph that's important: it says the biblical literalists say that the bible says that pi=3, and that pi therefore does equal 3, and all mathematicians who say it equals any number with decimal points, are therefore wrong. So the real question is not whether the bible is in error on this point, but whether biblical literalists are in error. PiCo (talk)
  • (a) "In other words, the reference is irrelevant and should never have been added." IOW, it's WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. The maths professor is not a theologian, and therefore not an expert to say what the Bible does or does not imply—which it doesn't imply as I illustrated here (not that I'm saying put my statement in the article either because it's obviously OR; I was trying to show the error on this talk page only). The point is we know it is untrue, it is not implied or stated in the Bible because people who think it is true are using two numbers to make an incorrect synthesis that is refuted by the evidence in v.26, and knowing that "Even in biblical times [pi symbol] was known to be about 3" (second source quote), we should meet the responsibility of excluding non-expert (in theology) opinion implying or stating the Bible say it is true.
  • (b)"the biblical literalists say that the bible says that pi=3, and that pi therefore does equal 3" is not a quote, or even a real summary of source listed: "The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is known as pi (or [pi symbol]). Even in biblical times [pi symbol] was known to be about 3. According to the first Book of Kings, 7:23: [scripture quote]. In later times there were some who used this quote and the infallibility of the Bible to argue that [pi symbol] must be exactly 3. But, alas, neither dogma nor legislation can overcome the fact that [pi symbol] is a little less than 3 1/2. In fact, it is an irrational number, which means it's value can never be expressed as a single fraction that uses whole numbers". Notice the (bolded) source material doesn't say "biblical literalists" say the bible equals three, but rather that "some" (as in some people in general) argued [in general] that "pi must be exactly 3" using the infallibility of the Bible. So "some" [idiots who lack reading comprehension] have made an incorrect statement which they tried to support with Scripture, and WP changes "some who used this quote and the infallibility of the Bible" to "biblical literalists". It's like saying that "some people who have studied digital images" of the moon landings have theorised it was faked, and WP turning it into "digital photographers" have made the claim. It's completely erroneous. Faith (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I really can't decide where I come out on this. Kings actually makes no claim about the value of pi. It's just describing the dimensions of a certain object. But, apparently, biblical literalists have made claims about biblical science (and the value of pi) based on this. They're wrong on two counts - Kings doesn't make a claim about pi, and the value of pi is not exactly 3. I guess the paragraph could be re-written along the lines that literalists have claimed that Kings implies that pi equals 3 exactly, and that they're wrong on both counts, but is it worth doing? PiCo (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps some people somewhere have used the Bible in this manner, but attributing it to "biblical literalists", or even some biblical literalists, is not only OR but it also incorrectly implies those mistaken people determine the truth of the Scripture verses. The point is that the Bible gives two different measurements that some people used in a maths equation incorrectly, then the incorrect maths is stated as Biblical error, when the Bible doesn't imply anything of the sort. This would be like trying to calculate area by using the stated width of a vaulted ceiling ([5]) and the stated length of the floor space. The final area measurement would be incorrect because the person doing the calculations inputted the wrong figures. It should be removed, I feel, because "I can't accurately determine the answer to a problem I created" is never a proper reason for blaming the source of the information. Faith (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical flat-Earthism

This edit [6] is problematic for several reasons. From the edit summary, "especially as Bible=flat earth is an extreme fringe position": well, the notion that the Earth IS flat is definitely extreme fringe, but the notion that the Bible's authors believed the Earth to be flat is solidly mainstream (and I will add references supporting that, and maybe expand on Biblical cosmology somewhat). Meanwhile, from the article text, "This perception is oft-disputed by scientists and scholars alike"... the reference is to a pair of extremist sources that don't represent either "science" or "scholarship" (DeYoung and Sloat Morton are YEC's with no expertise in Biblical scholarship: their arguments are reproduced online at ChristianAnswers here[7]). As per WP:UNDUE, I don't think we need to include material such as this: alternatively, if we do, then for NPOV we'd have to include (or at least reference) a debunking of their interpretations of scripture. Apparently they have mistaken references to the circular disk of the (flat) Earth as references to a sphere, with no justification for doing so. We'd also have to describe them as "apologists" rather than "scientists and scholars" (though frankly I don't see why "scientists" are relevant here anyhow: this is a Biblical-interpretation issue). --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken about "no expertise in Biblical scholarship"; DeYoung's bio states he has a M.Div from Grace Seminary (which is not a diploma mill). His YEC affiliations (and whoever copied the information) have no bearing on anything regarding flat earth, and as such, might be viewed as well poisoning. I would also point to NASA, who states "Even in ancient times sailors knew that the Earth was round and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated its size", and speaks of Aristotle (384-322 BC, as in before Christ) & Eratosthenes. Just like the "Columbus thought the Earth was flat" nonsense, the "Bible teaches flat Earth" idiocy is urban legend. --Faith (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, the Bible was not written by Aristotle, or by scientists. By NT times, it was obviously common knowledge that the earth is round. But "Bible" also extends to the Pentateuch (Torah). We have an excellent article at flat Earth. It gives the relevant references to "flat Earth" in the OT, Psalm 19:5 and Genesis 1:14. Even in late estimates, Genesis was written before 500 BC. Eratosthenes and Aristotle have nothing to do with it. The statement "the authors of the Bible believed the Earth was flat" is void, since there are many authors involved, spanning a period of at least 700 years. While it is perfectly reasonable to say that nobody in Greco-Roman culture would have thought the Earth flat after 300 BC or so, this does by no means extent to the Levant in 700 BC. The authors of Psalms and Genesis were in the Levant (either Palestine or Mesopotamia), between 700 and 500 BC or so, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume they subscribed to Babylonian notions of a flat Earth. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


"perfectly reasonable to assume"?? Is this quoting scholarly references? Or wishful thinking? We should not assume and ascribe beliefs to a group simply because it might have been the prevailing beliefs of surrounding contemporary cultures. What you state is void is another way of saying what the article currently reflects ("the Hebrew Bible imagines a flat Earth"). As for earlier dates, we also look to Pythagoras, approximately 200 years before Aristotle. Flat earth is a nineteenth century construct popularised by Washington Irving's fiction as related to Columbus. Also note that Stephen J. Gould attempted to put this argument to rest years ago in [ref]Gould, Stephen J. The persistently flat earth. Natural history, v. 103, Mar. 1994: 12, 14–19.[/ref], [ref]Gould, Stephen J., "The Late Birth of a Flat Earth"[/ref] and [ref]Gould, Stephen J. "Rocks of Ages", Ballantine Books (March 9, 1999), pp. 111-117. ISBN 0345430093.[/ref]. I sincerely wish other sceptics would follow suit. --Faith (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the authors of Genesis thought the Earth was flat: this was the model they inherited from the Sumerians. We can't really tell when (or if) some of the later Biblical authors accepted Greek round-Earthism. The notion of a solid sky-dome still features in Revelation, but that book is highly symbolic anyhow: a better indication is 1 Enoch, written shortly before Christianity, and still featuring the old cosmological model in great detail (and apparently in a non-metaphorical sense, as Enoch is physically taken on a tour of the heavens). We shouldn't be too surprised if the authors of the later books simply chose to reject what was by then common scientific knowledge: after all, modern YEC's do exactly the same thing. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So back for more well poisoning by dismissively arguing for guilt by association? Nice, Robert. Again, regardless of the company DeYoung keeps, he has a theological degree; you were wrong. The problem here isn't the Bible teaches flat earth, but that flat earth is sometimes misinterpreted, both before and now. So while we might point out that the heretic Lactantius interpreted it as flat earth, or even some Hebrews interpreted as flat earth, we cannot rightly say the Bible teaches a flat earth. Psalms are obvious poetic writings and Revelation is an obvious symbolic vision. The "solid sky-dome" is an incorrect interpretation. It's as wrong as saying 'four corners of the earth' implies the Earth is a perfect square. Don't confuse idiomatic phrasing with scientific statements; it just looks silly. --Faith (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"Flat earth is a nineteenth century construct popularised by Washington Irving's fiction as related to Columbus"... no, that's the myth that people in medieval times discarded Greek knowledge of the Earth's sphericity. This says nothing about what the authors of Genesis (and other early books of the Bible) believed, before the Greeks figured it out. They thought that the Earth was flat, and covered by a solid sky-dome. This is the mainstream scholarly position (as my references indicate: you can't get much more "mainstream" than the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopaedia, and Strong's Concordance!). Indeed, it's the only scholarly position on this, as the alternative is pure apologetics: there is absolutely no evidence that any Biblical author ever believed in a spherical Earth, and even though some of the later ones may have done (because it did indeed become common knowledge in the Greco-Roman world), they never said so. I have no doubt that you can find numerous apologists prepared to claim that the early Biblical authors somehow knew that the Earth was spherical (and some of them may even have letters after their names, and some of those may even have come from accredted institutions), but it's still eisegesis: reading one's own beliefs into the text.
Against this, we have the evidence of copying from earlier religions, the consistent internal references to flat-Earth/solid-sky cosmology, and books such as 1 Enoch which set out this cosmological model in unmistakable detail. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
All I can suggest is you read/re-read Gould. --Faith (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Gould was describing medieval beliefs. The man was quote-mined mercilessly by creationists when he was still alive: can't we let the poor guy rest in peace now? --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll note I didn't quote-mine, but rather provided references so the entire context can be read. Gould talks about medieval beliefs, but there is more to his essay than that. I'm not going to quote him here. I provided a link above, as well as other references of his. --Faith (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Faith, I must ask you to at least read our Flat Earth article before you continue this. No, I will not copy-paste to this talkpage the references that are already on there in full view. Medieval belief in a flat Earth is a 19th century construct, that's true. We are not talking about the Middle Ages, we are talking about the Hebrew Bible. Hecataeus of Miletus thought the Earth was flat. As did Democritus and most pre-Socratic philosophers. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC presents the very earliest known instance of somebody assuming the Earth was spherical. It took 300 years for this to become a mainstream assumption, and unless you want to claim the Pentateuch is a Pythagorean pamphlet, this is a complete non sequitur. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, I think I am getting this now. In order to believe in Biblical literacy, you must either believe the Earth is flat, or somehow make the evidence of the Biblical presentation of a flat Earth go away, mustn't you. Anything except facing the unexciting fact of a text written by 600 BC authors for a 600 BC audience... dab (𒁳) 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not either/or, but rather accurate phrasing in the article. People interpret/misinterpret, not the Bible states. The Bible does not state the Earth is flat, even if some incorrectly interpret idiomatic indicators and draw disasterous determinations. In a case of supreme chronological snobbery, people today assume that people in ancient times were thick, and that the Bible was the cause of that ignorance for the Hebrew population. Even today, sunset does not imply belief that the sun is moving around the earth and "setting" below the horizon; Moonlight (TV series), Moonlight (Longfellow), Moonlight Sonata do not imply Warner Bros. Television/Silver Pictures, Longfellow, and Beethoven believed the moon is an independent source of light; And Dickens is never suggested to believe the firmament is a solid piece of masonry, as Strong points out. Likewise, in the Bible, "flowing with milk and honey" did not imply actual milk and honey but fertility, fruit of the mouth was not pineapple and peach but what someone said, when Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD he wasn't digging in God's corneas, when his lamp will go out he will die not blow a light bulb, etc. To refute the silly claim the Bible teaches a flat earth has nothing to do with literalism (nice attempt at a personal dig, though, *nods*), and everything to do with pointing out careless ignorance of the difference between incorrect interpretation and mistaken text. --Faith (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The Bible represents the views of the people who wrote it: and those people were flat-Earthers. That's why the Bible reflects their beliefs. The people of ancient times weren't "thick", they were ignorant (becoming generally less so over time). The Bible was not the "cause" of that ignorance, merely a reflection of it. As for your ongoing use of phrases such as "incorrectly interpret": yes, that's what apologists would prefer to believe, but that doesn't make such interpretations actually incorrect. All the evidence we have indicates that this interpretation is correct (including the extra-Biblical evidence), and that's what mainstream scholarship has decided (including Christian and Jewish mainstream scholarship). Apologists simply choose to ignore the historical and cultural context. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Misuse of extra-Biblical "evidence" is the primary fault here, where assumptions are made based on surrounding cultures, rather than directly from Scripture itself. If this is the assertion, then as talkorigins points out, "There is some suggestion that the Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical size and shape around 2550 B.C.E. (more than a thousand years before Moses)" and Evowiki:Flat_Earth points out that the Bible doesn't state flat earth. We are discussing cultures in this article, aptly covered elsewhere on wikipedia, but rather what the Bible itself teaches. Suggesting it teaches incorrect cosmology, using idioms and metaphors for support text is foolishness. Argument from stronger assertions doesn't prove anything either. Your fallacious appeals aside, you are mistaken that "mainstream scholarship" has agreed on anything of the sort. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and as such, reflects the knowledge of God, rather than the assumptions and/or cultures and beliefs of people. Again, note the common usage of the idioms I listed above, where no one intelligent misinterprets this common usage to indicate the texts imply/teach incorrect cosmology or understandings. Job 26:7 says the Earth is "hung upon nothing", where as 1 Samuel 2:8 "pillars of the earth are the LORD'S" is a idiomatic way of saying God is our foundation. Also, please stop removing the fact tag; the reference does not make the statement the tag is following, and as such it needs to be cited now that it has been challenged. --Faith (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is the article on what we can learn about Iron Age scientific thought from the Bible, and not about notions of the "inspired word of God". You may be looking for Biblical hermeneutics, and perhaps Dispensationalism. Even if the Bible is inspired, it isn't an inspired physics class, but rather inspired poetry and inspired legislation. This is as easy as WP:CITE. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible to suggest a round earth. It is easy to provide references that discuss the compatibility of Old Testament and Babylonian notions of the cosmos, including perfectly Christian sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia s.v. "Firmament"[8]. If you want to suggest anything else, the burden is on you. The talkorigins link you give illustrates the situation excellently. Claims that "The Bible says the earth is round, showing that its authors were inspired to understand science beyond their time" are made by crackpot evangelicals, not scholars, and belong on Biblical foreknowledge. The Hebrew Bible doesn't "teach incorrect cosmology", because it is a collection of Iron Age myths, poetry, historiography and law, and not a handbook on cosmology. dab (𒁳) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This article, BTW, is Science and the Bible, not Iron Age scientific thought from the Bible. --Faith (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Except the cite doesn't state the crackpot claims, it refutes them, and has been quoted accurately here. I'm sorry for the edit conflicts, but as I pointed out on your talk page, the citation to skeptical review also includes some really fringe writers neither one of us (I assume) would want to see in this or any wikipedia article, and therefore it fails WP:RS. The problem here is not just notions of inspired word of God, but that scientific literalism is being applied to poetry, idioms, visionary metaphors, and the like. It's just not on, sorry. If you want to argue such wooden literalism, you'll need to secure an outside opinion along with cited material showing that is the mainstream view. In the meantime, it doesn't belong in the article per WP:FRINGE. --Faith (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which crackpot claims you are referring to here. I thought we are linking to the talkorigins site to substantiate there even are such claims? We can happily leave them out. For the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to state that the Tanakh is consistent with the Babylonian view. Issues of "scriptural foreknowledge" and such need not be discussed here, but should go to Biblical foreknowledge (per WP:DUE). dab (𒁳) 06:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Four times you have removed a cited reference to TO regarding a statement about Egyptians before the time of Moses that is valid, on-topic, and cited. So is the "Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition" reference which points out "flat earth bible" is a fringe position in that no Church father save two (and one was a heretic) believed in a flat earth. Do I really need to get an admin to block you for 3RR to stop you removing valid, cited text? Or will you please revert yourself and save us both a hassle? I tried to rewrite it to include your text, and you even removed that in your revert war. When you are finished clicking buttons in vain, will you let me know so I can finish cleaning up this article with citations rather than original research, fringe opinions from editors? --Faith (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Edit: and BTW, the bloody article opens on BF, so what's the point in arguing it belongs elsewhere as long as that's a big part of the lead? 06:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Faith, your changes are simply unacceptable. As you've admitted yourself, they're based on your assumption that "The Bible is the inspired word of God, and as such, reflects the knowledge of God, rather than the assumptions and/or cultures and beliefs of people." Surely you don't really believe that is a scholarly argument that an encyclopaedia should be using? And scholars (genuine scholars, not apologists) use ALL the relevant evidence they can find: and that includes extra-Biblical evidence, not just from the other cultures that the Hebrews inherited material from, but also from other books written by the Hebrews themselves. How much longer will you try to pretend that 1 Enoch does not exist? And the beliefs of medieval Christians (and even earlier Christians) continue to be irrelevant when we're talking about the Old Testament authors. Similarly, the beliefs of a handful of people in other cultures (from which the Hebrews do NOT appear to have inherited mythology) continues to be irrelevant too, and is original research to boot. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My assumptions have no place in the article, any more than yours do. Stating my position on a talk page is not the same as referencing cited sources in the article from scholars, genuine scholars from this century, with whom I happen to agree. I didn't say "Faith said" in the article; I cited a respectable encyclopaedia that made a reasonable counterposition against material written in the late 19th-early 20th century, when the Myth of the Flat Earth permeated scholarly understanding in history and theology. It is NOT irrelevant, as you are selecting one small portion of history. As I point out below, all of history must be taken into consideration, and for all of history, interpretation of a flat earth is the fringe position. It's pseudo-theology rather than pseudoscience. (And claims of OR from those who have added uncited material is rich indeed. As it was sourced material I added, the most it could be is WP:SYN, and I dispute that as well, as the source tied it together so it wasn't my synthesis.) --Faith (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited material

The following were added back in with reverts/additions by DAB, replacing removed cited materials:

  • Some early Christian authors (such as Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) insisted on the flat Earth model on scriptural authority as late as the 5th to 6th century, long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knowledge in Hellenistic astronomy.
  • There is a history of Biblical apologists presenting explanations of the astronomical inaccuracies in the Babylonian view of the cosmos as reflected in the Hebrew Bible.
  • Isaiah refers both to "the circle of the earth" (40:22) and the "four quarters of the earth" (11:12).

On the third, I'd cited it with the rewrite, but DAB's fourth revert even removed the refered citation and the Scripture links. I'm calling bullshit and saying put up citation, or bring in a third outside opinion why citation (and Scripture linking) is unnecessary, and why relevant cited material is being removed. --Faith (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite attempt

Note that this includes cited text, rather than original research.

Further information: Biblical cosmology and Babylonian astronomy
A geocentric view of the universe is sometimes interpreted from the Hebrew Bible based on literalistic readings of poetry, idioms, and metaphors.[5] [6] For example, Isaiah refers both to "the circle of the earth" (40:22) and the "four quarters of the earth" (11:12).[7] This interpretation assumes similarity to Babylonian astronomy, including a flat Earth covered by a solid sky-dome (the Firmament) to which the stars were attached.[8] [9] [10] This interpretation was embraced by "only two Christian writers of the patristic period", Lactantius & Cosmas Indicopleustes.[11] Talkorigins.org points out it is possible the earth's spherical size and shape were recognized by the Egyptians around 2550 BC, predating Moses by more than a thousand years.[7]

The notion of the Bible teaching a flat earth, a solid firmament, moon giving off its own light, and a "setting" sun (beyond idiomatic use) has been addressed numerous times, including in 1907 by Augustus Hopkins Strong in Systematic Theology: The Doctrine of God. [12] Strong pointed out idiomatic usage of moonlight and sunset are still prevalent in current times as in ancient times, and that firmament has been used in literature where no one would suggest the author believed in flat earth or solid firmament theology.[12] He illustrated the point by asking if Dickens believed the firmament was "a piece of solid masonry" when "in his American Notes, 72, [Dickens] describes a prairie sunset: 'The decline of day here was very gorgeous, tinging the firmament deeply with red and gold, up to the very keystone of the arch above us'."[12]

This covers the topic well, and includes a variety of sources from all angles, but especially showing "flat earth bible" is a fringe, legalistic position that has not been, and is not still, accepted by scholars and church fathers. --Faith (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

no it doesn't. This is pure WP:SYN. You try to spin our mainstream sources into sounding like a fringy hypothesis. Your turns of phrase, like "sometimes interpreted", "This interpretation was embraced by 'only two Christian writers...'" (hah, a classic! equating the hypothesis of the Hebrew's ideas on the shape of the earth with a hypothesis as to the actual shape of the earth. It doesn't get much better than that...), "Talkorigins.org points out" (talkorigins.org as an Egyptological resource!), "The notion of the Bible teaching a flat earth ... has been addressed" are all blatant attempts at editorializing away the plain fact that the Hebrews assumed a flat earth, like anyone else in the region at the time. I have difficulties believing anyone can come up with such a contorted account of a perfectly plain topic in good faith. Please let's not waste time over this. The revision you present is completely unacceptable, and I cannot quite believe you are being serious here. Your assertion that you have shown that "'flat earth bible' is a fringe, legalistic position that has not been, and is not still, accepted by scholars and church fathers." is nonsense. Accepting a "flat Earth Tanakh" (btw, pray stop equating the Tanakh with "the Bible"!) is completely different from "accepting a flat Earth". Sheesh. The Catholic Encyclopedia hardly thinks the Earth was flat, yet they have no problem with stating matter of factly that the ancient Hebrews did think so. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And the "Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition" states otherwise, yet you removed this perfectly valid, cited reference. They even preface it with "Did the literal interpretation of certain biblical passages compel Christians to deny the earth's sphericity?", stating the evidence is thin, and that only those two embraced it in the patristic period (and also refer to lack of support in the Roman and Medieval periods). Again, if the article actually stated that the ancient Hebrews may have believed in a flat earth like their surrounding cultures, I wouldn't have such an issue with the article. But as you point out, it is completely different than saying the Hebrew Bible (the article's words, so correct the article, not me) indicates a flat earth. You have agreed with my point, then refuted yourself by reverting and keeping the opposite in the article with "The Hebrew Bible reflects" and "as reflected in the Hebrew Bible". Your equivocation is noted and rejected. --Faith (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Did the literal interpretation of certain biblical passages compel Christians to deny the earth's sphericity?" -- it didn't, mostly, you are right. But that's a question for flat Earth. We are not discussing "how did early Christians cope with the outdated concept of a flat Earth found in the Old Testament" (which is what your source is discussing), but "does the Old Testament assume a flat Earth" (it does). If you cannot appreciate the difference, I cannot help you. If you can, why do you keep selling your source on the reception of the OT by Christian authors? It is completely beside the point. Nobody claims people believed in a flat Earth in the 1st century AD (excepting some eccentrics like Lactantius, who put Biblical literalism above better knowledge, much like many US Christian zealots today). dab (𒁳) 08:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • If Lactantius is an "eccentric" who "put Biblical literalism above better knowledge", you admit Lactantius is the exception to the rule in your statement here, i.e., that his is the fringe position. Why then is "Some early Christian authors (such as Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) insisted on the flat Earth model on scriptural authority as late as the 5th to 6th century, long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knowledge in Hellenistic astronomy" being retained? It's placing a wedge between religion and science using fringe beliefs, giving WP:UNDUE by not showing Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes were the exception (in fact using "some" to allude to a heavier following). --Faith (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Faith, are you seriously trying to claim that the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopaedia, and Strong's Concordance were written by either Lactantius or Cosmas Indicopleustes? Because you're not making any sense here. How many times do we need to point out that Biblical flat-Earthism is accepted by many, many people (including many Jews and Christians) who are not themselves flat-Earthers? And how many times do we need to point out that the time period you're discussing does not represent all of history? Stop trying to misrepresent this position as "fringe"! --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you both keep saying things contrary to what you are retaining in the text of the article. You are retaining the idea that because some people may have believed flat earth, the Hebrew Bible actually teaches flat earth. However, I showed that flat earth is understood to be a fringe position that does not determine what the text actually states. If the literal interpretation did not lead the majority of all Christians throughout history to believe in a flat earth, then any minority interpretation of a flat earth is a fringe position. If all but two Church fathers believed in a spherical earth through scriptural authority, then those two fathers held a fringe position. It's not a difficult concept. You are both promoting a very minor position in history as if it were all of history determining the interpretation as textual criticism. Therefore, promoting in the article that the Hebrew Bible teaches/assumes/implies flat earth is contrary to mainstream understanding, promoting the fringe position over the common understanding throughout most of history. What you are both appear to be missing is that in all three of the supporting sources (the Jewish Encyclopedia 1901-1906, Strong's uses 19th century scholarship, and the Catholic Encyclopaedia article from 1909) were written around the time the Myth of the Flat Earth was popularly believed as factual history, thereby influencing those sources toward incorrect deductions. Augustus Hopkins Strong was one of the theologians at the end of that period attempting to correct the misconception. OTOH, the encyclopaedia I referenced is from 2000, with modern scholarship, showing it was a fringe position not accepted in the mainstream, and as such, we should neither give it undue weight nor claim that the Hebrew Bible purports that position. --Faith (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) This is special pleading of the worst sort. Examine your POV and realize that we cannot simply dismiss sources on your say-so. Read WP:V and WP:RS. It is just plain fact that the Bible contains numerous inaccuracies when interpreted literally (the Sun standing still in the sky, spontaneous combustion of waterlogged wood, water turning into wine, virgin births, people rising from the dead, etc. etc.) This article and indeed editors of this article must acknowledge this universally accepted fact if we are to move forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist, your user page states "Pseudoscience is anything that deals with observable features of the world in regards to the following subjects: Religious-based explanation of observable events". I assume, then, that you'd follow that same viewpoint here in corollary, as the observable event is a spherical earth, the church fathers to the largest majority (minus approximately two) supported a spherical earth finding no conflict in the Biblical texts, the majority of Christians (minus fringe groups) support a spherical earth finding no conflict in the Biblical texts, etc. Therefore, remaining consistant to your views on pseudoscience, can you honestly state that this isn't promoting a fringe position, a "pseudo-theology"? As you state, "when interpreted literally", confirming my opinion above that it's only the literalistic view of the Bible which states this as "science". This article is Science and the Bible, not literalistic interpretations of metaphors, idioms, visions, and poetry in the Bible, and as such, needs to reflect correctly the statements made in the Bible regarding science, not fringe interpretations. --Faith (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the mainstream scholarly position is that the Hebrew Bible was written by flat-Earthers, and actually does "teach" a flat-Earth, solid-skydome cosmology. Hardly surprising, as most of it was written centuries before round-Earthism became accepted in the region. It's in the background, yes, and generations of Christians have chosen to ignore it as unimportant, but it's there (all of the "poetic allusions" refer back to it), and this is universally accepted by all competent scholars today (only apologists disagree, for purely religious reasons). The "Myth of the Flat Earth" refers specifically to the Middle Ages, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what was believed before that period (specifically, when Genesis was being written). Indeed, the notion that Genesis and other early books were NOT written by flat-Earthers is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence (as history records that the spherical-Earth view would not become prevalent in the region until centuries later): and no such evidence exists, and all the evidence that DOES exist points in the opposite direction! We should not give undue weight to such a fringe notion, nor should we suppress the mainstream scholarly view on this. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
the Hebrew Bible doesn't "teach" a flat Earth because it doesn't "teach" cosmology at all. It alludes to a flat Earth. CathEnc takes this for granted, stating, without qualifiers, "As might have been expected, the texts of the Tanakh convey no theory of celestial appearances. The descriptive phrases used in them are conformed to the elementary ideas naturally presenting themselves to a primitive people. Thus, the earth figures as an indefinitely extended circular disk, lying between the realm of light above and the abyss of darkness beneath." I claim this, and only this. Now please stop prancing around about it. dab (𒁳) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, here [9] we have a 1991 reference from Westminster Theological Seminary on the flat-Earth, solid-sky belief of the Hebrews: and here's another [10] from 1997. Is Westminster Theological Seminary a hotbed of fringe beliefs? And was it still corrupted by 19th century thought in the 1990's? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha, great "scholarship" with Seely, with gems like "When the original readers of Genesis 1 read the word raqiac they thought of a solid sky. And so did virtually everyone else up to the time of the Renaissance!" I'm sure scholars have refuted him by now, especially the underlined part which speaks for itself. (NB Wikipedia recognises this point in Myth of the Flat Earth by quoting Gould, "Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology"). --Faith (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You are mixing up two separate concepts. The "solidness" of the sky is an interpretation of the Ptolomaic concept of "spheres". It depends on the assumption that the world itself is spherical, with further spheres around it. Greek 'knowledge of sphericity' has no bearing on the interpretation of the "firmament" as solid. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
"the Hebrew Bible doesn't "teach" a flat Earth because it doesn't "teach" cosmology at all. It alludes to a flat Earth."... indeed it does (which is why I placed "teach" in quotes). Flat-Earthism was considered so obvious that it didn't require elaboration, which is why the Bible never actually says that the Earth is flat. However, certain verses pertaining to the Firmament could probably be classed as "teaching" (it's not readily obvious that God hid an ocean up above it, and has warehouses for snow and hail up there: and its creation is considered worth mentioning in the "teaching" of the Genesis creation account), and I'd say that the astronomical section of 1 Enoch qualifies as "teaching" (this goes way beyond mere "poetic allusion" in its level of detail). Of course, apologists may attempt to claim that Enoch "isn't canonical", but it was considered canonical by many early Christians (and still is by the Ethiopians), and there's (canonical) Jude's endorsement of it. I've also seen it described as "very influential" (another possible reference to hunt down). --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It neither "teaches" nor "alludes" to a flat Earth, or to a round Earth for that matter. Again, poetry, idioms, metaphors, visions, etc. are no more scientific fact than sunset, moonlight, and solid firmament. Only the most literalistic view of these terms, which would have to be equally and consistantly applied to Dickens as well, leads to those conclusions. --Faith (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
are you aware of our WP:CITE policy? Don't take our word for it, look it up. The CathEnc positively states that the Tanakh "alludes" to a flat Earth cosmology. So will any other encyclopedia you consult. The burden of showing it is not so is entirely with you. If you have nothing to show except Baptist apologists, you should pipe down with the "fringe" accusations a little bit, and settle for a marginal mention of Baptist apologists. Sheesh, it will be as impossible to show that the authors of the Tanakh didn't "really" believe in a spherical Earth as showing that they didn't, in their heart of hearts, believe in a conical, dodecahedric or banana-shaped Earth. This sort of nonsensical debate is why we have WP:SYN -- don't build a case on cherrypicked quotes, but give honest accounts of your source's gist. Re Dickens, give it a rest FaithF. We got the point. We still say "sunset" even though we know now, unlike in Old Testament times, that the sun doesn't actually "set" anywhere. That's very well, and duly noted. You may want to make an observation of this appalling bit of scientific inaccuracy at sunset or some other article, but it really has no bearing on the Old Testament. dab (𒁳) 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you got the point, but now I'd like to see it applied here. I've been trying to illustrate how this or that minority group interpreted the text in a certain way, and since it is such a small minority, it really does represent the fringe position, placing a wedge between science and religion in this article. This article is Science and the Bible where we are supposed to be writing about, shocker, Science and The Bible. I don't have "nothing to show except Baptist apologists"; I cited a respectable encyclopaedia and you removed the cited text in favour of your preferred citation, which as a matter of fact does NOT say "the Tanakh "alludes" to a flat Earth cosmology" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06079b.htm); it says, "the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time". My encyclopaedia citation, from 2000, indicates differently. I'm sure I could find more, but there's no point wasting my time if I can't get the first one I found retained beyond your edit warring. --Faith (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
your encyclopedia citation did no such thing. You merely misrepresented what it said. It said that "only two" Christian authors are known to have assumed a flat Earth on biblical grounds. This is about early Christianity (4th century AD) and has nothing to do with a discussion of the Hebrew text (6th century BC, that's a full millennium earlier). The reason being, anyone touting a flat Earth in the 4th century AD would have made a fool of himself much like they would make fools of themselves today. Harping on Flat-earthism in the Hebrew Bible in the 4th century would have been a Bad Idea, because it would have resulted in Christianity (and Judaism) being laughed out of court as an atavistic oddity. Have you read flat Earth by now? If not, pray do everyone a favour and read it now. While you're at it, read Hellenistic Judaism as well. Judaism in the Greco-Roman world was careful to emphasize its progressive, civilized aspect while glossing over the more outlandish and "barbarian" ones. dab (𒁳) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
After seeing you completely misrepresented my views on ScienceApologist's talk page, I can see why we have a problem here. The encyclopaedia refuted the undue weight. I cannot have "misrepresented" anything because I directly quoted the text that said "only two Christian writers of the patristic period" and named the two (Lactantius & Cosmas Indicopleustes), opposed to you reverting to an uncited claim of "Some early Christian authors (such as Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) insisted on the flat Earth model on scriptural authority as late as the 5th to 6th century, long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knowledge in Hellenistic astronomy". You replaced cited material with a OR/SYN that was uncited, driving a wedge between religion and science by implying bad Christian authors vs. good science, when those two were not the mainstream belief of the time according to the citation you kept removing. --Faith (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to get this, this discussion is futile. You cited "Only two Christian writers of the patristic period [denied the Earth is a sphere]". Was Indicopleustes your addition? I think they mean John Chrysostom. Flat Earth also cites Diodore of Tarsus and Athanasius of Alexandria, with full references. Again, have you read that yet? You further quoted "Evidently, early Christians did not reject the powerful arguments of Greek cosmologists for a spherical earth in favor of a literal interpretation of biblical passages" which is exactly what I am telling you here, only that you tried to present it as an argument for your own ideas that "the Bible teaching a flat earth" is a "notion" under debate. It is not. Your discussion of the Christian period is offtopic and already fully presented much more complete than your version, at flat Earth. Have you read that article yet? Do you plan on doing so soon? The citation I removed agrees with my and everybody else's opinion that "a literal interpretation of biblical passages" gives you a flat Earth. That's it. I did nothing remotely like "implying bad Christian authors vs. good science". Firstly, Christian authors in this case were on the side of "good science" anyway, against Iron Age cosmology. Secondly, I advise you not to second-guess my motivations. I want accuracy. I have no intention to judge Iron Age authors as "inferior", I merely wish to present them for what they are, as Iron Age authors. I don't know if this is so difficult for you to understand, or if you merely switch off your brain before reading my statements, but if you had read what I am telling you, and followed my advice and read flat Earth, I would not be here telling you the obvious for the fifth time over. Now please take it or leave it. If you still pursue your approach, try WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RSN and related venues. I will not reply to a further iteration of this nonsense. dab (𒁳) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It is not, and cannot be, off-topic as long as "Some early Christian authors (such as Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) insisted on the flat Earth model on scriptural authority as late as the 5th to 6th century, long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knowledge in Hellenistic astronomy" remains in the article. It's as simple as that. Those two, one you admit eccentric, represented the extreme (very extreme) minority position of their time, and as such, inclusion of that sentence represents WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. BTW, I said nothing about your "motivations", but rather said the material you keep reverting to implies that view (note the phrase is after 'material', not after 'you'). Please re-read what I actually wrote. I'm not here to debate what other articles state, but to clean up this particular article. If flat earth states a case more clearly, then that material should be copied here, because this article gives undue weight to that position which is not the norm of that time. WP:UNDUE states, "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.", emphasis added.--Faith (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Faith: it's pretty clear that the Bible does "allude" to a flat-Earth, solid-sky cosmology, to anyone who reads the relevant verses with an open mind. And as we have Reliable Sources pointing this out (including Jewish and Christian sources), it's futile to argue against this. Those (and other) sources aren't going to just disappear. Furthermore, this article isn't "Medieval Christian views on the Shape of the Earth" anyhow. Attempting to interpret the Old Testament through the eyes of medieval Christians is about as useful as attempting to interpret the New Testament through the eyes of medieval Muslims or 19th-century Mormons: it's material written by non-Christians for non-Christians (maybe we should have more Jewish material here, but modern Judaism is also pretty far-removed from the beliefs of this period). We should be primarily reflecting what the best modern scholarship (preferably free of as much religious bias as possible) can tell us about what the people of that time believed (as it's reflected in the books they left us): not what a bunch of adherents of a different religion once believed at some point between them and us. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Furthermore, this article isn't "Medieval Christian views on the Shape of the Earth" anyhow." Then am I to understand you support my position of removing the sentence "Some early Christian authors (such as Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) insisted on the flat Earth model on scriptural authority as late as the 5th to 6th century, long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knowledge in Hellenistic astronomy"? --Faith (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, because it's pretty clear that they were basing their beliefs on what the earlier authors had actually said. But I wouldn't object to a clarification of the point that they were a small minority among medieval Christians. The problem has been your attempts to enlarge this issue into a claim that goes way beyond this. How about "...long after the spherical shape of the Earth had become common knwowledge in Hellenistic astronomy, and had become generally accepted by their fellow Christians" or something similar? Of course, we don't really know what the "ordinary" Christian masses of the time (those who didn't bother to write anything) believed, so some caution is needed. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the clarification solves the problem nicely. I would only suggest readding the citation from the encyclopaedia, showing this isn't our OR but an actual cited opinion of scholars. --Faith (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FaithF, I do seriously wonder why you feel compelled to (belligerently!) contribute to a topic of which you evidently do not have an inkling of background knowledge. Wikipedia:Anti-elitism can only be taken so far before it becomes a travesty. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cute. Does that insult come with a chocolate bickie to soften the blow? Finding the taste of grapes a bit off today, DAB? --Faith (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Cute indeed. If you had not been so smugly insistent on your own inaccurate claims, then I am sure that other editors would have been more generous to you. If you sneer from a position of confused confidence then expect other editors to snap back. Paul B (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Gee, Paul, I'm sure this solitary, yet insightful, contribution to the conversation will force me to revise my entire outlook on life. I can't tell you how much it is appreciated. --Faith (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It was not a solitary contribution. Try checking the history. And for you to refer to civility, given your history of taunting, as above, is not convincing. Paul B (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed human dung statement

"No sanitary or medical reason has yet to be suggested for the Biblical recommendation of using human dung as cooking fuel, as suggested in Ezekiel 4:12." has been removed, not only because it's OR, but also because it's wrong (v. 14 of the same chapter indicates this would obviously defile the food, and then states in v. 15 that cow dung was given instead). --Faith (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible is not epidemiology

There is no claimed "scientific" justification in the Biblical text for ritual practices such as circumcision or kosher, and we should not seek to evaluate such rituals as scientifically "correct" or "incorrect". I think much of this article is written in such a wrong-headed way.--Pharos (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's the same with separation of crops, a section I tried to reword true to the cited resources, but it's still a non-issue in this article as prohibition of intercropping was not science-based, but religious-based. This article is a mess, leaving out the major scientific issues, and expressing minor points with undue weight as if they mattered. --Faith (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. They are both gone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that'll help. --Faith (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Age

This statement is sitting there, unreferenced: "While almost all scientists consider the Bible to be inaccurate within what would be expected of a text dating to the Iron Age (notably the Genesis creation story: see Creation-evolution controversy)". Is it intended to be correct, or has someone changed "accurate" to "inaccurate" for a joke? In what respects is it considered less accurate than what would be expected of the Iron Age? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll change the wording to "While almost all scientists consider the Bible to be inaccurate in various details (notably the Genesis creation story: see Creation-evolution controversy), as would be expected of a text dating to the Iron Age...". --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why "accurate" or "inaccurate"? CathEnc has the much better phrasing "As might have been expected, the texts of the Tanakh convey no theory of celestial appearances. The descriptive phrases used in them are conformed to the elementary ideas naturally presenting themselves to a primitive people", although we would today replace primitive with "pre-modern" or "Iron Age". It's not "inaccurate" science, it isn't science at all, just naive cosmology as it presents itself prima facie to any pre-scientific society. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intercropping

I removed a section about intercropping because the Bible doesn't say that "intercropping will reduce your crop yields", it just says "don't do it". Any reason could be supposed, and a ritual/religious one would be the first choice rather than a scientific one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a point, although I'd say the religious reason over scientific reason is a very strong interpretation in that the lists of don'ts are said to keep them pure. --Faith (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
the entire point here is the nature of "ritual/religious reasons": these often encode sound principles based on experience, non-scientific, of course, because there was no "science" in the modern sense before AD 1700 or so. The entire topic of History of science in early cultures works this way, the Hebrew Bible is no exception. dab (𒁳) 10:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion?

Why does this article exist? Nothing in it touches on science.PiCo (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)