Why does 'inspiration' lack knowledge?

Where the Bible does prove scientifically accurate - and this is not all the time (see Waters above the skies?), what value does it have in demonstrating the Bible's inspiration?.

Ex-Christian minister John W Loftus suggests in his book, Why I Rejected Christianity: a former apologist explains, that the Bible holds no scientifically proven information that could not already have been believed by people who lived in the days when the biblical books were written.

In other words, scientifically, the Bible holds nothing that natural, non-divine humanity could not have believed without it - plus some things that science has since proven wrong.

John W Loftus's question, then, is why God, if he exists, chose not to make a single statement that would prove the Bible's inspiration by showing he knew something that only humanity's later advancement in science could prove?

One plausible answer is that the Bible is not divinely inspired but a human document.

However, if you can answer that question or think of any claims the Bible makes about the natural world that ancient people could not know but which science can now prove, feel free to comment here.

Waters above the skies?

R Hoeppner's article, "The Gap Theory of Creation", states that "The Bible is not a science book but... where it touches on proven science it is accurate and reliable".

(The article can be found here.

I feel that to say both of these things togther is a double standard that gives Bible defenders an easy way out.

This is because wherever the Bible gets science wrong it could be argued that the writer of the particular biblical book is not writing scientifically.

The problem is that this could be said of most or all of the Bible, and if this is the case, it is not fair on skeptics to use any of its purported scientific accuracy as anything other than cases in which people's belief, based on ordinary observation, happened to concur with what science later confirmed through testing.

Indeed, many things concluded through ordinary observation could be proven true through scientific testing - if science bothered to test them. Science tends to focus its efforts on things that are not yet obvious. We know the earth is a sphere because so many people claim to have seen it as a sphere or travelled around it, which is why this is not the focus of science today. But before that was known, someone had to travel around it or use some other means to find out.

There are, in fact, statements in the Bible that are proven to contradict science. Just one example is that Psalm 148:4 refers to "waters above the skies" (or even "the heavens" in some versions, which is even more problematic). There are waters in the skies - clouds and moisture - but there are no waters above the skies. However, ancient mythological views of the universe, including non-Judao-Christian ones that held vastly different beliefs about God, also held that there was water above the sky, and even that the sky held it up. So which is more plausible: that a biblical book that held a view similar to that of many other ancient ones is also based on mythology, or that a body of water that Jews believed to exist above the skies in Old Testament days - when no-one could go there to check - disappeared before our day, when we can verify that there is no water there?

It appears the scepter did depart

Lee Strobel, who wrote The Case for Christ, has this year published a new book called The Case for the Real Jesus, which investigates "current attacks on the identity of Christ".

"Challenge #5" against Christianity is that "Jesus Was an Imposter Who Failed to Filfill the Messianic Prophecies".

Strobel's interviewee for this section, Michael Brown, begins his biblical evidence in favour of Jesus as the Messiah by quoting Genesis 49:10 - "The scepter will not depart from Judah".

The full verse is: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his."

"Until he comes to whom it belongs" is an interpretation of the word shiloh, understood by Jews and Christians to refer to the Messiah.

However, it appears that the scepter departed from Judah before Jesus walked the earth - about 607 years before, when Jerusalem was besieged (Daniel 1:1-2). 2 Kings 24:1-4 shows that the overthrow of Judah was God's intention.

How could Jesus be the Messiah if the scepter departed before he arrived?

One possible explanation is that Gen 49:10 is not Messianic after all, but that would mean one less scripture available to support the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Then the question would be: "Do the other purportedly Messianic prophecies hold up?" Another is that the verse is Messianic but someone else is - or was - the Messiah. Indeed, some Jews claim David was the Messiah and that "David" will be the name of the Messiah on his return.

Where do Christians address this question?

I would appreciate advice of anywhere that I can find a Christian web site or book that addresses the question I raise in my post, Was baby Jesus in two places at once?

Welcome to Personal Paths

Personal Paths encourages reflection on personal discoveries, experiences and decisions.

Some of the posts address worldviews, science, religious texts and history, the conflicts between them and their personal impact on people's lives.

As the publisher, I choose to retain a private identity because it gives me more freedom to publish potentially controversial viewpoints.

I encourage discussion but use comment moderation. Comments will appear following their approval, which usually will only be denied on the basis of inappropriate language or excessive length.

Enjoy reading, and I look forward to considering your point of view.

The dubious origins of holy books

"Adherents of scriptural authority show distressingly little curiosity about the (normally highly dubious) historical origins of their holy books." -- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, page 233.

Do you agree?

Without the fall, why do we need a saviour?

If the story of original sin and the fall of man comes from the demonstrably unreliable book of Genesis, why should we believe that sin brought death, as biblical theology claims?

If we have no reason to trust the Genesis account of the fall, why should we believe Christian theology that sin entered the world through the one man, Adam, and through him, all sinned and died (Rom 5:12)?

Likewise, why should we then believe that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was necessary to justify believers and restore life (Rom 5:17-19)?

If Genesis is false, what about the fall of man?

Since contradictions show that the Genesis account of creation is untrue, why should we believe Genesis concerning the fall of man?

How can Genesis be untrue but still inspired?

If contradictions in the Genesis account of creation show that it is untrue, how can this book of the Bible be inspired by God?

If arguing that the account is mythological or symbolic and therefore does not need to be literally true but can still be an inspired writing, how can that be? In what way is it useful to us?

Days created on the fourth day?

If the sun was created on the fourth day, as Genesis claims, how could it be the fourth day?

A day, by definition, is one revolution of the earth.

But a day's status as a day is meaningful only because of the alternation of light and darkness, as Genesis 1:5 acknowledges.

Further, if light did exist from day one, prior to the creation of the sun, moon and stars on day four, what was its source? And how did its light create the alternation of light and darkness to distinguish the days from nights? Did it switch off for a period every 24 hours?

If God was the source of this light, why did he bother? Why not just create the sun before the days?

Surely this contradiction shows that the Genesis creation account is non-literal mythology written by people whose understandable ignorance of science has resulted in an untrue account. Do you agree?