Comments on: When the Bible & Science Differ…

By: Francesco Orsenigo

Francesco Orsenigo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:05:46 +0000

Well, at least this will stop any pretenses that what they do is science.

Btw, I count and count the legs of a lot of insects, and I continue to get six rather than four…

By: trj

trj — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:42:04 +0000

Not to mention that fire seems to be cross-culturally considered an instrument of purification as well as punishment. From that POV it would make double sense to let sinners be thrown into fire.

By: vorjack

vorjack — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:07:37 +0000

My understanding is that the fiery version of hell pops up in several ancient cultures that may have influenced Judiasm. It’s not a hard concept to come up with if you’ve ever been in a volcanically active area.

For example, I think the Zoroastrians believed in a fiery, foul-smelling hell. We’d almost have to expect that some Jews would pick up on it during the Persian period.

By: Ken Kasel

Ken Kasel — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:52:47 +0000

Hi TRJ. Your right, they do speak of it. There seems to be a school of thought that considers these mentions to be Aramaic hyperbole. I’m trying to determine (in my limited ability) the validity of this point of view. Thanks for the push to look further!

By: trj

trj — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:17:22 +0000

> “It seems as though the traditional view of Hell as a place of fiery eternal punishment was first put forth by the theologian Tertuillian around 200AD.”

I don’t see that. Matthew and Mark speak of divine punishment in a “furnace of fire” or “hell of fire”, and Revelation speaks of a lake of fire.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:55:55 +0000

Much better. I will be sure to enter “3-ish” into my calculations from now on. :)

By: Ken Kasel

Ken Kasel — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:32:40 +0000

I have some doubt as to the validity of the English translations of the word Hell in the old and new testaments, especially as it relates to eternal punishment. I am most certainly not an expert and am relying on my own research, checking several sources (for what their worth).
My understanding is the words we read as Hell are improper translations.
The Old Testament word that was translated as Hell is actually the Hebrew word “Sheol” which should be translated as “grave” or “state of death”.
The Greek word Hades seems to have the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Sheol” or is the Term from Greek mythology that means “Abode of the Dead”.
The Greek word “Ghehenna” refers to the trash dump outside of Jerusalem, the Valley of Hinnom.
It seems as though the traditional view of Hell as a place of fiery eternal punishment was first put forth by the theologian Tertuillian around 200AD. It was reinforced by various doctrines and theologians through the ages, sometimes for power, sometimes for profit or perhaps sometimes by ignorance.
Of course this does nothing to either prove or disprove of a divine or supernatural power but its fun to learn. Please let me know where I may be (or probably am) wrong

By: Fentwin

Fentwin — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:56:01 +0000

Cud, by definition, is the regurgitant of a ruminant. Based on your broader use of the term my neighbor’s dog chews cud vicariously via my cat.

While I understand what you’re saying I still maintain that the idea of cud chewing rabbits indeed shows that science has obviously misinterpreted its data. :)

By: Mogg

Mogg — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:09:57 +0000

The Bible actually has this one sort-of right, although the mechanism is different in rabbits than in cows and sheep. Rabbits, like cows, have to have multiple attempts at digestion in order to get the most nutrition possible out of grass, which is energy-poor food and difficult to break down. In rabbits, the first time through partially digested food from the caecum or “second stomach” is excreted as slimy-looking pellets (caecotrophes is the correct name). The rabbit eats the pellets and has a second go at digestion. As a process it is only marginally grosser than that of cows, which kind of sick their food up to re-chew it.

By: Custador

Custador — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:02:49 +0000

Um… I’ve opnly read the bible once, so I’m gonna have to ask somebody else for a citation on that one! Genesis I think.

By: IS

IS — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:11 +0000

WIN

By: trj

trj — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:08:04 +0000

An atheist is born.

By: MarkD

MarkD — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:51:15 +0000

What happens when the Bible differs from itself?

By: Slurms

Slurms — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:53:25 +0000

it’s 3-ish

By: Leo

Leo — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:12:47 +0000

Oh yes.
Or as Bertie in Jeeves and Wooster. Which has the added bonus of the fantastic Mr Fry.