Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

I don't think the Bible says what you think it says....

Woohoo, my first post on Raytractors, here goes...

Vera posted this miraculous piece of scripture-twisting over in Raytown (Ignorant Knuckle-draggers post):

"For example, there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)"

And, of course, when you check it out, Genesis 10:25 says:

Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. - New American Standard Bible

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. - King James Bible

I clearly don't have Vera's knack for 'discernment' or, as I like to call it, 'making shit up as you go along'. Can someone please explain to me how the human mind can convince itself of this tripe?

I so nearly posted a reply, but I stood strong despite the temptation (if only some diety would commit suicide so I wouldn't have to worry about temptation anymore, eh?)

Viva la Rayvolution


  1. As apologists go, Vera is in a class by herself and likely to stay that way.

    Good first post, congratulations!

  2. Raping a woman makes her yours!

    Ex 22:16
    If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

  3. Yes, those are the kinds of comments that make it very difficult to refrain from post over there.I'd love to have Vera explain that one. Vera, if you're there, please explain how Genesis 10:25 has anything to do with land bridges. Thanks.

  4. Yea Matt posted !!

    I can not begin to tell you the inner workings of the mind of Vera. It's whole other world in there, I tell ya.

    However, there is a poster over at Ray's by the name of Lauren who once gave me this really silly cut n pate from some bible site and said that it contained all of these supposedly fulfilled bible prophecies. So I went to check it out and one of the verses was something about a stone of a building being placed...or falling...onto the ground. And this was her PROOF that in the 'end days' there will be earthquakes.

    Ok, so I pointed out to her that the verse she gave me had nothing, nada, ziltch to do with earthquakes and she just went yammering on about something and pretty much ignored it.

    I don't understand how people can take a verse that says NOTHING about what they are talking about and claim that it justifies their argument. But that's apologetics for ya.

    And they say WE take things out of context????

  5. It's hysterical when Christians talk reading the Bible in context. Creationists and IDiots live to take things out of context. I haven't read Ray's Evolution: The Fairy Tale for Grown Ups (the title itself is taken from an instance of quote mining), but I'd wager 90% of it is quote mining.

    Dust, there's a spider on your arm.

  6. The Bible also predicted with stunning accuracy the Clinton administration followed by the current Bush administration.

  7. Oops, I forgot to post my scriptural reference!

    As I was saying, the Bible also predicted with stunning accuracy the Clinton administration followed by the current Bush administration (Proverbs 12:1).

  8. Where in Genesis does it say that Noah preached for 100 years and that God would have allowed the newly repentant on the ark? Did I miss that verse?

  9. It's not hard for me to see how Christians come up with that stuff.

    I started life as that kind of person. Even before I had a relationship with Christ, I was that kind of person.

    The thing is, that world view assumes two things;

    1) The Bible makes no mistakes about anything ever. I will agree with that about 99.999%.

    B) My interpretation of the Bible makes no mistakes about anything ever. I agree with that about 0.0000%.
    Now, before we all start laughing, we have to consider that this is mostly the result of cultural conditioning. People with this view have been told that "God speaks to you through the Bible," and it was left at that. I was raised like that by my family. While I do agree that God speaks to us through the Bible, it's easy for us imperfect humans to misunderstand. Vera probably hasn't been told that, or was told some time after she had already locked her mind firmly into her world view.

    So, when you have those two assumptions, there's nothing left to learn from new information. It's not acquired; it's assimilated. It's like a kid who has sent his entire life around a puppy. Fuzzy + ears + tail + four legs = puppy, and that's all there is to it. So, when they meet a kitten for the first time, what do they call it?

  10. rob,
    good to have you here. I think it's important to have someone posting from your world view on this site. You're open to finding useful messages in the Bible. You say, it's God telling us something, and I would say it's a message ancient people have attributed to a higher entity that really comes from their own conscience. Either way, as long as one's using his brain and 'moral compass' to find a guideline that's not going to divide people more by using a simplistic view of social order, it should work out. 'God says this!'*pointing to printed words* is the wrong approach.

  11. @ felix:

    Either way, as long as one's using his brain and 'moral compass' to find a guideline that's not going to divide people more by using a simplistic view of social order, it should work out. 'God says this!'*pointing to printed words* is the wrong approach.

    Well, I gotta disagree with ya there, Felix. I mean, I see what you're getting at, and being divisive can be bad at times, but every Christian comes to a point where they have to choose between being faithful to God and avoiding divisiveness. There's no way around it. Part of that is because there's a lot of butt holes in the world, but part of that (maybe the bigger part, but who knows?) is also that the content of the Bible is just that way.

    I don't believe the Bible because I believe it's good, though that is true. I believe the Bible because I really do believe that it's God's words to us, and it's the standard that God gave us to measure our selves and every other teaching by.

  12. rob,
    I think some degree of divisiveness is a productive force, not universally but depending on the subject and time frame. The truth, or the 'best', isn't in the middle most of the time. That's the main reason I have a problem with cultural relativism for example. It makes no sense to say that all values and traditions anybody brings to the table are equally worthy of respect or even tolerance, and I presume you'd agree. We differ on where to draw the line precisely, but the parts we both reject are mostly in the same direction on the 'vector'. As you say, we use a different yardstick. I trust in a human consensus of ethics based on critical evaluation by reason and evidence, and you seek many messages in the Bible. But you don't pretend that no part of your evaluation comes from yourself (created intuition if you will, or subconscious inspiration), as that would make you a drone. We both use observations to inform our worldview, and I wouldn't reject written philosophy just because it happens to be old; the Bible is to me a distillation of the moral zeitgeist of an era from one region. You believe the source is an entity with a plan, and I think it's a completely natural development, what a philosopher friend of mine calls spatio-temporal naturalism. For me, your faith is also a result of that development. I wouldn't be able to disprove your view of course, but my reason just tells me it's an unnecessary additional assumption that doesn't answer a question I wouldn't find necessary to ask.

  13. Very thoughtful and well worded comment, Felix.

    Speaking of words, what does your friend mean by "spatio-temporal naturalism?" That one threw me for a loop.


  14. rob,
    thanks. It means that the best explanatory value of existence (existing things) is currently reached and expected to be within a framework of time and space, whereas causality doesn't make sense outside of that framework, coming to the closure "anything that is not random has a cause, anything that has a cause has a cause in spacetime."
    I hope I summarized his concept accurately.
    His blog is here:
    It's not a large blog, but he has some very good articles worth reading.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.