Ray Comfort Hates Science and the Bible Equally

Ray Comfort Hates Science and the Bible Equally July 26, 2014

I am pretty certain at this stage that Ray Comfort is someone who is intentionally trying to make Christianity look bad. Just look at this Facebook post of his, which P. Z. Myers shared on his blog:


Ancient people often thought that the dry earth is situated above the chaotic waters from which they were caused to emerge in creation. That is what ancient readers understood Job 26:7 to mean. But Comfort is not happy to merely twist the meaning of the Bible to one thoroughly removed from its original contextually-considered sense. He also makes a false statement about gravity which even a well-educated child would know is wrong.

I don’t think he is someone who knows little about the Bible and science and altogether lacks the wisdom to not comment on things he has never learned even the basics about. I think his aim is much more diabolical: to try to make Christianity itself seem idiotic, by associating it with his own pronouncements.


"Above you said"What was scandalous was the idea that he raised -Jesus- specifically from the ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"The irony may be that Data always wanted to be human, but in his being-toward-death ..."

Gods of Star Trek: Picard
"Well ... what do you think? I have always loved Colossians 1:15-20 and I have ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"I am responding to the story as you have written it, implying archaeology has unearthed ..."

Elephantine, Leontopolis, and Gnosticism

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • David Layzell

    Ray Comfort is a Kiwi who is unknown here. He is overwhelmed by being taken seriously in the USA and has an exaggerated sense of his own importance.

  • TomS

    When he says 3000 years ago, isn’t he thinking of the idea that the Book of Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible? When more conventional dating would put it close to the Greek idea of a central sphere? Not that I am suggesting any influence, just that that it makes it not so special, compared to contemporaries.

    To quote it a little more fully:
    He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

    That looks like a parallelism (north:empty place::earth:nothing).

  • David Evans

    He has admitted on his Facebook page that he was wrong about gravity, having been informed so by scientists at Yale and some atheists. He made the common mistake of thinking that when astronauts say they are “weightless” or in “zero gravity” they mean just that, when in fact they mean that they are in free fall.

    Another example of a too-literal reading causing problems.

    • Mariaeire

      His non-apology was more grievously offensive than the original mistake. It was utterly insincere.

    • Ian

      I don’t suppose he identified which Yale scientists told him there is no gravity in space, did he?

      • David Evans

        That was my bad wording. The Yale scientists and the atheists (all unidentified) told him he was wrong about there being no gravity.

        • Ian

          Thanks David. Re-reading your comment, it was clear, I think I just misread. Or maybe I just want to think the worst of him!