![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/10\/MoonRed.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIn this blog, I\u2019ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Such confusion would indeed be predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted (2-13-16<\/a>): \u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes if I am able, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.\u00a0It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that, rest assured that he either hasn\u2019t<\/em> replied, or didn\u2019t inform<\/em> me that he did. But don\u2019t hold your breath.\u00a0Bob virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me via email, to dialogue with him in May 2018. But by 10-3-18<\/a>, his opinion was as follows: \u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span> Be that as it may, what does one\u00a0make (whatever he thinks of me<\/em>) of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0utter \u201cdisinterest\u201d in\u00a0defending\u00a0his opinions against serious\u00a0critique?<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his article, \u201cYet More on the Bible\u2019s Confused Relationship with Science (2 of 2)\u201d<\/a> (12-2-15), Bob opined:<\/p>\n This post wraps up our look at science in the Bible. It\u2019s the conclusion of an analysis of Bible verses that contradict modern science . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s continue enumerating scientific errors in the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n Cosmology and earth science<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 7. The moon creates light rather than reflecting it<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n God made two great lights\u2014the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night (Genesis 1:16).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The sun and moon are said to be greater and lesser versions of the same thing with no acknowledgement that one\u00a0creates\u00a0<\/em>light while the other only\u00a0reflects<\/em>\u00a0it. We see the confusion more clearly in this verse:<\/span><\/p>\n The moon shall not cause her light to shine (Isaiah 13:10).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n No, the moon doesn\u2019t make its own light.<\/span><\/p>\n As a preliminary, readers unacquainted with a basic Christian understanding of the Bible\u2019s relationship to science, should first read my<\/span> earlier related installment<\/a> on the topic. In a nutshell, the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. It was written with a pre-scientific understanding of the world. People reading it had to be able to understand it. It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that it is filled with scientific inaccuracies (as it is still inspired).<\/span><\/p>\n In any event, Holy Scripture is written (when dealing with natural phenomena) in<\/span> phenomenological language<\/a>: that is, describing things as they appear<\/em> to (often uneducated) human eyes. The most common example of that, still used almost universally today \u2014 something that Bob himself no doubt does \u2013, is saying that \u201cthe sun rises\u201d (or \u201cgoes down\u201d). This doesn\u2019t imply geocentrism (the earth as the center of the universe), or any other sophisticated cosmological explanation. It\u2019s simply describing it as it looks<\/em> to us<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Bob apparently can\u2019t refrain from making stupid, clueless pseudo-\u201carguments\u201d about the Bible and science.\u00a0<\/span>Genesis 1:16 above simply doesn\u2019t make any claim<\/em> as to whether the moon reflects<\/em> sunlight or generates it\u2019s own<\/em> light (as the sun does). Bob merely superimposes what he wishes to see onto the passage: a classic, textbook example of what is known as eisegesis<\/em>, or reading \u201cinto\u201d Scripture what isn\u2019t present in a given passage. Genesis 1:16 uses phenomenological language, as just explained. All it is communicating is the notion that the sun lights up (\u201cgoverns\u201d) the day and that the moon is the most prominent natural light at night.<\/span><\/p>\n How something appears<\/em> is a different question from how something works<\/em>. So, for example, in describing my camping trip I could say:<\/span><\/p>\n I had a greater light [a campfire] to govern my late dinner and setting up my tent, and a lesser light [my battery lantern] to govern my bedtime reading in my tent.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This, too, would be a phenomenological statement that had to do with one thing providing relatively more illumination, and a second providing relatively less. It makes no statement (either in intent or in terms of language) as to how the light in each case was caused<\/em> or originated<\/em>. According to Bob\u2019s warped \u201clogic\u201d I would supposedly be commenting that my lantern (utilizing a<\/span> battery and electricity<\/a> and a light bulb) functioned<\/em> in exactly the same way as the campfire (the chemical process of<\/span> combustion and oxidation<\/a>). That is beyond silly; likewise, by analogy, so is his wishful, ludicrous interpretation of Genesis 1:16.<\/span><\/p>\n But let\u2019s play Bob\u2019s game for a moment, and pretend that the Bible (inspired by an omniscient God) always intends to make scientific<\/em> statements whenever it refers to anything physical, or the world of nature. If that were true, then would not the following passages imply that the moon reflects the light of the sun?:<\/span><\/p>\n Ezekiel 32:7<\/strong> (RSV) . . .\u00a0I will cover the sun with a cloud,\u00a0and the moon shall not give its light. (Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15)<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 13:24\u00a0<\/strong>But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, (cf. Mt 24:29; Acts 2:20; Rev 6:12)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If<\/em> we are to take Genesis 1:16 as a \u201ctextbook in astronomy\u201d (again, adopting Bob\u2019s mistaken mentality for the sake of argument), then why not these other<\/em> passages, too? And if we did that, they would plausibly imply that a darkened sun would then cause<\/em> a moon without moonlight (since the two things appear correlated in these passages, in a way that is consistent with astronomy).\u00a0<\/span>In fact, Bob\u2019s second example of Isaiah 13:10 illustrates the same principle of the moon\u2019s light being caused by the sun\u2019s. Bob conveniently omitted the first part of the passage (without telling his readers, which is a bit sneaky):<\/span><\/p>\n Isaiah 13:10<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0For the stars of the heavens and their constellations\u00a0will not give their light;\u00a0the sun will be dark at its rising\u00a0and the moon will not shed its light.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n RSV has \u201cshed\u201d which could just as easily refer to reflected light, as self-generated light. Whatever translation Bob used (he doesn\u2019t say) has the word \u201ccause.\u201d KJV also has it. Most modern English Bible translations (like RSV) use a word other than cause<\/em> for the Hebrew rib<\/em> (or, riyb<\/em>:<\/span> Strong\u2019s word #7379<\/a>) which has a variety of meanings:<\/span><\/p>\n NASB \/ Amplified \/ REB \/ NRSV \/ Goodspeed<\/strong>: shed<\/em><\/span> Of course \u2014 knowing Bob \u2014 he could simply argue that all these Bible translators were lying or being deliberately dishonest. It\u2019s an easy out for him whenever the going gets rough . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But Isaiah 13:10 could also be a sort of<\/span> anthropomorphic language<\/a>: often also used of God; that is, attributing to God (in a non-literal, poetic manner) human qualities, or to things, qualities that they do not possess. We know that this is common in Scripture. So, for example, Psalm 104:19 states that \u201cthe\u00a0<\/b>sun\u00a0knows its time for setting.\u201d This is pre-scientific, anthropomorphic language for the notion of predictable scientific laws, \u201cthe sun will go down at a certain, predetermined time\u201d (just as any weather report today will tell us). Or the Bible will use poetic language for what is clearly instinctive animal behavior (it describes in \u201cappearance\u201d language, or in terms of an animal \u201cknowing\u201d what it does by natural law or instinct):<\/span><\/p>\n Jeremiah 8:7\u00a0<\/strong>Even the stork in the\u00a0<\/b>heavens\u00a0<\/b>knows her times;\u00a0and the turtledove, swallow, and crane\u00a0keep the time of their coming; . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The stork no more \u201cknows\u201d or \u201ccauses\u201d these things than the moon \u201ccauses\u201d its own light. Both instances are non-literal, phenomenological language. Much ado about nothing. What is revealed here is not<\/span> \u201cscientific errors in the Bible\u201d but rather, Bob\u2019s profound ignorance of the literary genres of the Bible, and of the ancient Hebrew worldview. He loves to compare the Bible to other ancient sources and cultures when there is any similarity (which he inexplicably thinks is some sort of \u201cvictory\u201d for his perspective); yet he seems unable to undertake any study of Hebrew<\/em> thinking and how it manifests itself in Scripture.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 8. The stars are teeny light sources<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible dismisses the stars by imagining their creation this way:<\/span><\/p>\n [God] also made the stars (Genesis 1:16).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s it. 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars are only worth a single Hebrew word in the original (a more literal reading is \u201c(and) the stars\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n Huh<\/em>? I must confess that I don\u2019t follow Bob\u2019s thinking here. Where\u2019s the beef? When the Bible is in fact poetic and non-literal, Bob doesn\u2019t get<\/em> it. He\u2019s out to sea. But when it is literal and matter-of-fact, he demands that it be flowery and poetic and more \u201cdemonstrative.\u201d On what basis, I wonder, can he dictate to God how He ought to express Himself in Scripture? If<\/em><\/strong> there is a God, does that make any sense? Bob wants to instruct an infinitely intelligent, omniscient being how to express Himself? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n How does this passage \u201cdismiss\u201d<\/span> the stars in the first place? What did Bob expect<\/em> to see: a 50,000-page essay on the wonders of astronomy? Of course, the passage he is referring to, Genesis 1, is expressing a summary view of all<\/em> of creation. Thus, the stars are mentioned briefly, along with everything else<\/em>\u00a0(human beings get two verses: 1:26-27). It\u2019s a ludicrous observation and demand, that Bob makes. But we have come to expect such vapid thinking from him. The only common thread and only rule in his head is that the Bible always has to be wrong<\/em>, and good ol\u2019 wiseacre Bob always right<\/em>.<\/p>\n But in this commentary. Bob acts as if this is the extent<\/em> of what the Bible discusses as concerns the stars and astronomy (as if the Bible writers couldn\u2019t care less about it; had no natural curiosity about science or the night skies). In fact, there is a great deal, as we find in the lengthy section on the constellations, in the entry on \u201cAstronomy\u201d<\/a> in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedi<\/em>a. It states:<\/p>\n The principal achievement of the science of astronomy in the centuries during which the books of the Old Testament were written was the arrangement and naming of the constellations, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the same system was known to the Hebrews as that which has been handed down to us through the Greek astronomers. . . . it is probable that they [the constellations] were well known to Abraham before he left Ur of the Chaldees. It has been frequently shown (The Astronomy of the Bible<\/em><\/a>, 158 [read it online<\/a>]; Astronomy without a Telescope<\/em><\/a>, 5) that these constellations themselves supply evidence that they were designed about 2700 BC. They thus antedated the time of Abraham by some centuries, and since some of their most characteristic forms are found upon old Babylonian \u201cboundary stones,\u201d it is clear that they were known in the country from whence he came out. [cf., \u201cAstronomy in the Bible,\u201d<\/a> Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are few things more ironically hilarious (though sad, too) than a demonstrably ignorant fool (with regard to a specific topic) going around telling everyone else<\/em>\u00a0(including God Himself) how stupid they<\/em> supposedly are. Bob is an educated man, with a degree in computer science. He\u2019s surely capable of so<\/em> much more. We don\u2019t expect him as an atheist to agree with the Bible or to praise its wisdom. But we do<\/em> expect him (as a self-appointed critic of \u201cChristian thinking\u201d) to at least intelligently interpret<\/em>\u00a0the Bible, with a bare minimum of required study: to present it as it is<\/em>: not what he forces it to supposedly \u201cbe.\u201d<\/p>\n They\u2019re dismissed as tiny when they\u2019re imagined to fall to earth:<\/span><\/p>\n The stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind (Revelation 6:13).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t see anything about \u201ctiny\u201d<\/span> in the passage. This is highly symbolic, apocalyptic, catastrophic language (as even Bob<\/em> ought to know, since it is the book of Revelation), with the typical Hebraic agricultural analogy but Bob (as seemingly always) takes it literally, as if it were intended that way. I guess he thinks that St. John in the first century literally thought that distant stars would be as big as figs when they fell to the earth. My patience with this folly is almost to the breaking point.<\/p>\n 9. The earth was flooded<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible tells us that the entire earth was flooded, but the fossil evidence disagrees (long-extinct dinosaurs and modern animals living in the same habitats aren\u2019t fossilized in the same strata).<\/span><\/p>\n The geological evidence disagrees (the impact of the ocean is present in many stone layers, but a global flood isn\u2019t).<\/span><\/p>\n The DNA evidence disagrees (clues to a DNA choke point about 4000 years ago should be obvious in all living land animals from their having descended from very few individuals).<\/span><\/p>\n And in fact<\/em> (not according to Bob\u2019s mythology) the Bible agrees with science here, since it doesn\u2019t teach a global flood in the first place, as I have elaborated upon<\/a>\u00a0elsewhere, and as The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (from way back in 1913) also explains<\/a>.<\/p>\n 10. Germs? What germs?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible isn\u2019t a reliable source of health information. . . . physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?<\/span><\/p>\n Once again, five minutes searching on Google would have prevented Bob from spewing more ignorance about the Bible. The Bible Ask<\/em> site has an article, \u201cDid the Bible teach the germs theory?\u201d<\/a> (5-30-16):<\/p>\n The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .<\/p>\n Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 \u20131865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . [He] proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever<\/em>. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis\u2019s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.<\/p>\n Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .<\/p>\n Had the medical community paid attention to God\u2019s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12<\/a>). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46<\/a>).<\/p>\n Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History<\/em><\/a>: \u201cThe idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease\u201d (1985, pp. 77-78).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:<\/p>\n 1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes\u00a0in running water<\/em>\u00a0if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else\u2019s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22;<\/a>\u00a0Lev. 11:1-47<\/a>;\u00a015:1-33;<\/a>\u00a0Deut 23:12<\/a>).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Leviticus 13\u00a0and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0It was not until 1873<\/a> that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary.\u00a0Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that\u00a0<\/span>(Lev 13, 14,\u00a022;\u00a0Num 19:20<\/a>). It contains instructions\u00a0<\/span>about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to\u00a0thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly.\u00a0The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0Hippocrates, the \u201cfather of medicine\u201d (born 460 BC), thought \u201cbad air\u201d from swampy areas was the cause of disease.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also: \u201cOld Testament Laws About Infectious Diseases.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n The entry on \u201cHealth\u201d<\/a> in Baker\u2019s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology<\/em> reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn\u2019t solely<\/em> a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper: \u201cAccording to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.\u201d<\/span>). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:<\/p>\n Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm (\u00a0Gen 37:25<\/a>\u00a0) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient (\u00a0Isa 1:6<\/a>\u00a0), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine (\u00a0Luke 10:34<\/a>\u00a0). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil (\u00a038:21<\/a>\u00a0); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual (\u00a0Mark 8:23<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0John 5<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a09:6-7<\/a>\u00a0). Medicine is mentioned (\u00a0Prov 17:22<\/a>\u00a0) and defended as \u201csensible\u201d ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative (\u00a0Mark 15:23<\/a>\u00a0); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion (\u00a0Matt 23:23<\/a>\u00a0); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . .<\/p>\n Luke\u2019s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy\u2019s weak stomach, eye-salve for the Thyatiran church\u2019s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Doctors today often note how the patient\u2019s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).<\/p>\n Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea\u00a0from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn\u2019t know it, neither does religion.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not true. As shown, Hippocrates, the pagan Greek \u201cfather of medicine\u201d didn\u2019t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.<\/p>\n St. Augustine<\/a> in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas<\/a> in the 13th, both rejected astrology long before modern science, while even the most prominent modern scientists in the 16th-17th centuries, such as Galileo<\/a>, Tycho Brahe<\/a>, and Kepler<\/a> firmly believed in it.<\/p>\n I could go on and on, but just a few examples suffice to decisively refute a foolishly ignorant universal negative claim.<\/p>\n And of course, modern science (virtually the atheist\u2019s religion: \u201cscientism\u201d), for all its admirable qualities and glories (I love<\/em> science!) is not without much embarrassing error and foolishness, and skeletons in its\u00a0own closet: like belief in the 41-year successful hoax of \u201cPiltdown Man\u201d<\/a>. This is true even up to very recent times, as I have detailed<\/a> for atheists\u2019 convenience.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0ulrikebohr570<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cblood moon\u201d)<\/span> [public domain \/
\n NIV \/ Good News<\/strong>: give<\/em><\/span>
\n CEV<\/strong>: lose its glow<\/em><\/span>
\n NEB<\/strong>: refuse to shine<\/em><\/span>
\n Moffatt<\/strong>: never be bright<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n