4 ms·

How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?

by acchow 5y ago

stickyricky 5y ago
My recommendation to you would be to not read ancient sources. Secular sources are not any more rigorous.
swayvil 5y ago
Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. Metaphors taken literally. Literality taken metaphorically. Esoterica interpreted conventionally. Guiding the hand of the translator. Mistranslation compounding over the iterations. Any useful knowledge must get lost like dust in the wind.
- okl 5y ago
  > Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. If it is up to the reader to decide which is and which isn't a metaphor that should not be taken literally, than the text is no better than the reader's capability to distinguish metaphors from facts to be taken literally, is it?
  - swayvil 5y ago
    Well, yes. It's a failure of the medium. It requires an expert to interpret properly. And most of us aren't that. And some of those in charge of translation and interpretation aren't that either.
    - oblak 5y ago
      Hah. I wonder what of experts you have in mind
- acchow 5y ago
  > Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. right, so if a biblical number is wrong we find some reason to excuse it.
  - swayvil 5y ago
    If it's a metaphor then it might not be wrong.
- czbond 5y ago
  You hit on the 'specifics' of religion that I've always found funny in humantiy. Why does it matter to most people if it is 6 days or 15 billion years? How does that change anything in actuality? Most religious texts can just be accepted as "good human practices summed up in 4 pages".... but instead they have to be made into movements, and groups who believe 'my team is right and yours is wrong'. My view is that - just as there are many tongues, religion of the same Creator is presented differently to resonate with those localities. Why isn't civilization really moving past the stories to simply focus on the main points that are being relayed? I believe dogmatic believers miss the forest for the trees; the non-believers use the trees to disregard the forest.
  - swayvil 5y ago
    I think that reality is largely a story-based thing for many of us. There are as many stories as there are authorities. Science offers a story. So do the various religions. So do various other cultures. Some stories can be called prettier, more compelling, more useful than others... Most are consumed unconsciously. In childhood. And form the foundation of reality. So to mess with it can be ... disturbing.
bsedlm 5y ago
why assume that they meant earth days? if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) also, what if a day is a rotation around a body's axis, then what about a solar day (the sun spins around itself once)? what about a galactic day?
- krapp 5y ago
  >if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) Because this is a myth from thousands of years ago, and "scientific" accuracy wasn't relevant, much less possible. Read any ancient creation myth, or most ancient myth at all, it's closer to dream logic than anything remotely realistic. They meant earth days because those were the only kind of days they were aware of, and because there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that.
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    logically plausible and "scientific" and/or "realistic" are different things. Things can be complete fantasy yet logically consistent. > there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that. you seem to be working under the assumption that because they lived long ago it must follow that they are simpler or in some sense "dumber". (i.e. I claim you believe that "in the past every man was a simpleton compared to a modern man") alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? or do they need to have a modern scientific outlook in order to even be able to consider days of different durations?
    - krapp 5y ago
      I'm not claiming that ancient people were dumber, I'm claiming the cultural and spiritual purpose of a creation myth isn't served by realism or logical consistency. God creating day and night before creating the sun and moon is par for the course for these stories. The Babylonian myth some people believe Genesis is based on - the Enuma Elish, says the god Marduk killed his nemesis Tiamat, cut him in half and made the sky out of one half and the Earth out of the other. >alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? I don't know why you're being so defensive, or why it's so important to you that Genesis be justified rationally. If you want to believe the ancient Hebrews based the days of creation on galactic rotations, go right ahead. It would just be odd, given that no one back then knew what stars, planets and galaxies even were. The timeline still wouldn't make any sense And sure, they could probably dream of other varieties of days, whatever that means, but again - why have a narrative about six days refer to that rather than just six days? And why did they never write this dream down, or mention it? Surely they would have considered that a divine revelation from God. The story says days, it means days. Regular human Earth days. There's no reason to believe otherwise.
vorejdajo 5y ago
Current scientific models lack a robust cause of origin of life. We don't know the beginning. If we do know the origin, how likely would it change our estimations of age of things? You have to realize that these numbers are linear extrapolations(educated guesses) and more importantly, they are not tested like vaccines or medicines(neither can be tested).
- krapp 5y ago
  current scientific models are far more robust than "In the beginning, God made the Heavens and the Earth."
dTal 5y ago
My favorite is of Pi being 3.0: 1 Kings 7:23 And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. Although in fairness, 1) if you round both the diameter and the circumference to the nearest cubit, it can just about work (the numbers are rather narrowly constrained to 9.66 and 30.34 cubits), 2) the nearest multiple of 5 or 10 cubits might have been considered sufficiently precise for a rough description, and 3) the bowl was "a handbreadth" thick, and if we assume that they measured "brim-to-brim" on the inside and "compass it round about" on the outside, and that a cubit is 18 inches and a handbreadth 4, Pi comes out almost exactly right.
tzs 5y ago
Asimov had a possible explanation for 6 days: http://www.sumware.com/creation.html http://www.sumware.com/creation.html
- czbond 5y ago
  Good read - thanks for sharing

How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?

by acchow 5y ago

How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?

stickyricky 5y ago

My recommendation to you would be to not read ancient sources. Secular sources are not any more rigorous.

swayvil 5y ago

Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. Metaphors taken literally. Literality taken metaphorically. Esoterica interpreted conventionally. Guiding the hand of the translator. Mistranslation compounding over the iterations. Any useful knowledge must get lost like dust in the wind.

okl 5y ago
> Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. If it is up to the reader to decide which is and which isn't a metaphor that should not be taken literally, than the text is no better than the reader's capability to distinguish metaphors from facts to be taken literally, is it?
- swayvil 5y ago
  Well, yes. It's a failure of the medium. It requires an expert to interpret properly. And most of us aren't that. And some of those in charge of translation and interpretation aren't that either.
  - oblak 5y ago
    Hah. I wonder what of experts you have in mind
acchow 5y ago
> Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. right, so if a biblical number is wrong we find some reason to excuse it.
- swayvil 5y ago
  If it's a metaphor then it might not be wrong.
czbond 5y ago
You hit on the 'specifics' of religion that I've always found funny in humantiy. Why does it matter to most people if it is 6 days or 15 billion years? How does that change anything in actuality? Most religious texts can just be accepted as "good human practices summed up in 4 pages".... but instead they have to be made into movements, and groups who believe 'my team is right and yours is wrong'. My view is that - just as there are many tongues, religion of the same Creator is presented differently to resonate with those localities. Why isn't civilization really moving past the stories to simply focus on the main points that are being relayed? I believe dogmatic believers miss the forest for the trees; the non-believers use the trees to disregard the forest.
- swayvil 5y ago
  I think that reality is largely a story-based thing for many of us. There are as many stories as there are authorities. Science offers a story. So do the various religions. So do various other cultures. Some stories can be called prettier, more compelling, more useful than others... Most are consumed unconsciously. In childhood. And form the foundation of reality. So to mess with it can be ... disturbing.

bsedlm 5y ago

why assume that they meant earth days? if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) also, what if a day is a rotation around a body's axis, then what about a solar day (the sun spins around itself once)? what about a galactic day?

krapp 5y ago
>if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) Because this is a myth from thousands of years ago, and "scientific" accuracy wasn't relevant, much less possible. Read any ancient creation myth, or most ancient myth at all, it's closer to dream logic than anything remotely realistic. They meant earth days because those were the only kind of days they were aware of, and because there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  logically plausible and "scientific" and/or "realistic" are different things. Things can be complete fantasy yet logically consistent. > there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that. you seem to be working under the assumption that because they lived long ago it must follow that they are simpler or in some sense "dumber". (i.e. I claim you believe that "in the past every man was a simpleton compared to a modern man") alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? or do they need to have a modern scientific outlook in order to even be able to consider days of different durations?
  - krapp 5y ago
    I'm not claiming that ancient people were dumber, I'm claiming the cultural and spiritual purpose of a creation myth isn't served by realism or logical consistency. God creating day and night before creating the sun and moon is par for the course for these stories. The Babylonian myth some people believe Genesis is based on - the Enuma Elish, says the god Marduk killed his nemesis Tiamat, cut him in half and made the sky out of one half and the Earth out of the other. >alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? I don't know why you're being so defensive, or why it's so important to you that Genesis be justified rationally. If you want to believe the ancient Hebrews based the days of creation on galactic rotations, go right ahead. It would just be odd, given that no one back then knew what stars, planets and galaxies even were. The timeline still wouldn't make any sense And sure, they could probably dream of other varieties of days, whatever that means, but again - why have a narrative about six days refer to that rather than just six days? And why did they never write this dream down, or mention it? Surely they would have considered that a divine revelation from God. The story says days, it means days. Regular human Earth days. There's no reason to believe otherwise.

vorejdajo 5y ago

Current scientific models lack a robust cause of origin of life. We don't know the beginning. If we do know the origin, how likely would it change our estimations of age of things? You have to realize that these numbers are linear extrapolations(educated guesses) and more importantly, they are not tested like vaccines or medicines(neither can be tested).

krapp 5y ago
current scientific models are far more robust than "In the beginning, God made the Heavens and the Earth."

dTal 5y ago

My favorite is of Pi being 3.0: 1 Kings 7:23 And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. Although in fairness, 1) if you round both the diameter and the circumference to the nearest cubit, it can just about work (the numbers are rather narrowly constrained to 9.66 and 30.34 cubits), 2) the nearest multiple of 5 or 10 cubits might have been considered sufficiently precise for a rough description, and 3) the bowl was "a handbreadth" thick, and if we assume that they measured "brim-to-brim" on the inside and "compass it round about" on the outside, and that a cubit is 18 inches and a handbreadth 4, Pi comes out almost exactly right.

tzs 5y ago

Asimov had a possible explanation for 6 days: http://www.sumware.com/creation.html http://www.sumware.com/creation.html

czbond 5y ago
Good read - thanks for sharing