# Authority of the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252 "2004-04-04T23:35:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/41 "2004-04-08T01:09:08Z")
> [@badchad](#): > > Cite? Is it customary to require cites for personal opinions? I thought they were just for factual claims, which this topic really doesn’t support. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/42 "2004-04-08T02:34:15Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > Is it customary to require cites for personal opinions? I thought they were just for factual claims, which this topic really doesn’t support. Lib started his paragraph spouting wise about how he believed he was both Christian and Muslim, atheist and theist and then about his experiences. However from the part of the paragraph that I quoted he started asserting himself in quite the “factual” manner. If Lib wants to clarify that what I quoted was meant to be only his opinion then I will accept that. If not then let me reiterate: CITE? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/43 "2004-04-08T02:57:38Z")
> [@kung fu lola](#): > > I have seen Muslims use the same argument for the divinity of the Koran: supposedly, it provides insight into biology that was impossible to determine scientifically at the time it was written (and therefore must have been divinely inspired, or so the argument goes). Yes. For instance, I’ve been told several times (I’m not sure why this particular example is so often used) that the Koran stated that there was non-salted water in the seas, though this could only be proven true by men recently (refering to undersea springs of soft water, which indeed exist). By the way, would someone know where one could find such a reference in the Koran? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/44 "2004-04-08T06:40:02Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Yes. For instance, I’ve been told several times (I’m not sure why this particular example is so often used) that the Koran stated that there was non-salted water in the seas, though this could only be proven true by men recently (refering to undersea springs of soft water, which indeed exist). That these springs have only recently been shown to exist would be disputed by a friend of mine. He went to Arabia in the mid 1950’s as a heavy equipment operator in the oil industry. He described one village along the coast in which their only source of fresh water was undersea springs in the adjacent bay. They went out in boats, dived down and filled bags with the water. The village was not of recent origin but was quite ancient. Of course I suppose that it could be argued that they could only have found out about the springs with divine assistance. It does seem to me, though, that only a malicious God who, having all power, would put the only source of fresh water out in the sea. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/45 "2004-04-08T11:00:28Z")
> [@badchad](#): > > Cite? You want what, exactly, my diary? ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/46 "2004-04-08T15:01:52Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > You want what, exactly, my diary? I just wanted it shown for the record that your assertions had nothing more backing them up than a _because I said so_ statement. Looks like I got that. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/47 "2004-04-08T16:03:03Z")
If this were the GQ forum than a cite request for a religious opinion would be warranted, but since is GD, and since GD is the designated forum for witnessing, then I think it’s rather churlish to demand a cite. I didn’t take **Libs’** post as purporting to be anything more than a subjective, personal religious opinion. He has described his conversionary experience a number of times on this board and has explained that his views are largely based on subjective, personal, theophanic experiences which do not lend themselves to empirical analysis by others. When he writes the kind of post like the above, I’m pretty sure that most everyone on the board understands that he is presenting a subjective, personal view and is not attempting to mislead anyone into thinking that he’s giving an objective factual answer to anything. The nature of religion threads is that people will post a variety of subjective takes on certain question and that they won’t neccessarily clutter up their posts with a bunch of superfluous “IMO” qualifications. I mean, really, are we going to yell “Cite” at anyone who says that “God is good,” or “Jesus saves?” I suppose we could do it but it wouldn’t make for a very open or engaging forum. It’s a given that religious opinions don’t necessarily have cites. Now, if someone wants to make a claim about something that _is_ subject to observation or testing (i.e. YEC) then it _is_ fair to ask for a cite but I hope that most of us can tell the difference between a falsifiable claim and a pure philosophical opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/48 "2004-04-08T17:15:30Z")
> [@Badchad](#): > > I just wanted it shown for the record that your assertions had nothing more backing them up than a _because I said so_ statement. Looks like I got that. Thanks. You mean, like the statement you just made, for example. If I were to demand a cite for the assertion that you just wanted it shown for the record blah blah blah, you would offer what exactly? Nothing more than a _because I said so_ statement? See, I’m not as nice as Polycarp. If you’ve decided to reverse your position that I’m too crazy to debate with, then you’d best brace yourself. I’ll blow your position to pieces. Poly probably cared about your feelings, and I couldn’t care less. Bring it on. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/49 "2004-04-08T17:48:29Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Much" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Here is a list of demonstrable falsifications for Biblical assertions: > … > Hopefully, you’re not going to quibble about the historicity of the Genesis stuff but you probably will take issue with the stuff about the Exodus and David. I refer you to the work of [Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman](http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm) who have presented some extremely convincing evidence for their claims. You give the impression that the issue has been decisively settled. From reading [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history) Wikipedia article, and the articles it links to (some of which address Finkelstein), I get the idea that many of the assertions you listed are still very much open questions, with arguments on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/50 "2004-04-08T18:06:45Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > I’m re-reading the Old Testament. Rather than a source of moral authority, it looks more like a history of what’s regarded as moral, and what a changing barometer this is. > > In Genesis, the things that displease God (and the people he favors) include eating an apple, wanting greater knowledge, seeing your father naked. Things that don’t displease him include polygamy, incest, holding slaves, bonding your son into slavery, screwing your brother out of his birthright. God’s likes and dislikes waver between “arbitrary” and “whimsical.” > > With Exodus, we get the Ten Commandments and a much clearer codification of what God (or society) wants and expects from us. And from each book onward, the people God favors are people with more and more traits that modern people can recognize as virtuous. > > So my take is that the Bible documents the history and refinement of society’s notions of right and wrong over the passage of time, and from this, a sense of moral authority can be gleaned. I don’t take issue with your major point here, but I do with some of your examples. I think sometimes people read Biblical accounts of what happened and jump to unwarranted conclusions about the writer’s and/or God’s approval of what happened. Take your example of “seeing your father naked.” I assume you’re referring to the account in Genesis 9:18-27 in which Ham, one of Noah’s sons, sees his father passed out drunk and naked in his tent and goes to tell his brothers about it. Now, I’ve always been somewhat puzzled over what exactly Ham’s offense was, but I’m sure there was more to it than just seeing Dad without his clothes on! But more to my point, while the writer makes it pretty clear that what Ham did displeased _Noah_, he doesn’t actually say that it displeased _God_. And I can’t tell for sure that the biblical storyteller thinks Ham did something wrong and expects his readers to think so (though that is one reasonable interpretation). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/51 "2004-04-08T18:17:15Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > You give the impression that the issue has been decisively settled. From reading [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history) Wikipedia article, and the articles it links to (some of which address Finkelstein), I get the idea that many of the assertions you listed are still very much open questions, with arguments on both sides. There are people with religious agendas who are resistant to certain findings. That doesn’t mean that the questions are really “open.” There are people who still try to argue for a global flood but grom a purely scientific standpoint there is no debate. If you really read the archaeological material you’ll see that almost no one takes the Bible as being an accurate reflection of history, they just argue about whether certain stories have authentic historical kernels. The argument over David’s kingdom, for instance, centers on whether David was a local chieftain or whether he is a purley legendary character like King Arthur. The archaeology is indisutable that Jerusalem was a small, undeveloped mountain settlement at the alleged time of David, while the cities to the north were highly developed, fortified and were _not_ Israelite in population or culture. The Exodus story simply cannot be supported by archaeology or extra-Biblical documentation. Some minimalist theories exist about nomadic immigrants from Sinai bringing their own tribal traditions into Canaan (possibly traditions involving a Volcano god) but there was no enslavement in Egypt and no mass Exodus. Nor was there a time when the Israelite people were absent from Palestine. The archaeology shows a continuous, unbroken occupation. There was no large influx or migration from the desert and there was no Israelite conquest of Canaanite cities. These are facts which can’t really be argued with. The archaeology is what it is, religious objections notwithsatnding. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/52 "2004-04-08T18:35:23Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > I think you’re using a different definition of the word “faith” than many of us are. I’d say that having faith in someone or something means trusting them, considering them to be reliable; and this does not preclude having reasons for doing so, reasons which may fall short of absolute proof. > > Blind faith and proven truth are not the only two alternatives; they are two ends to a continuum. This is a good thing to keep in mind in any great debate. Sometimes you can’t have certainty, but you can have reasons for believing something to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe so, **Boink** , maybe so. But I’m using the very meaning of the word as espoused by those christians (and others) who use it to “answer” the harder questions. We’re talking about _religious_ faith, right. Not about trusting your friend to give you a ride to work in the morning as promised, but divine trust in what someone tells you that god wants. God only accepts blind faith, not those weak, watered-down varieties. Proof is for science. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/53 "2004-04-08T21:49:25Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > But more to my point, while the writer makes it pretty clear that what Ham did displeased _Noah_, he doesn’t actually say that it displeased _God_. And I can’t tell for sure that the biblical storyteller thinks Ham did something wrong and expects his readers to think so (though that is one reasonable interpretation). When God makes a point of drowning everyone in the world but you, I take it as a given that God endorses you and the things you stand for. My big problem with Genesis is that God favors people who do terrible things, and the stories about them have no clear moral message beyond “God favors some people over others, who knows why.” In later books, it comes into focus a bit better. I take this as a gradual evolution of the idea that moral behavior has some kind of godly imprimatur, a notion pretty absent from much pagan theology. ---
**Author:** ![Thingol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Thingol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thingol)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/54 "2004-04-08T23:35:34Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > I believe also that I am an atheist and a theist. These are all matters of mere intellect and therefore trivial. This is pure BS. If you’re an atheist, you believe God does not exist. If you’re a theist, you believe God exists. To assert otherwise is to play fast and loose with the terms. It would be like saying “I believe that Chicago exists and I also believe Chicago doesn’t exist, because to me, Chicago is a state of mind, some people have it, some people don’t, it’s all personal”. In fact, theism and atheism are mutually exclusive positions… because the question is **not** a matter of “mere intellect”. The existence of god is a question concerning the actual world, not one’s mind. L defines God as love, but then, God becomes a synonym for love, so we might as well dispense with talking about God and just talk about love. But we’re not talking about love, are we? The OP certainly isn’t. Besides, the Bible, which is the topic here, never asserts God=love. Write down the properties of the Christian God (or El or YHWH) and the properties of love and you’ll see, they ain’t equivalent terms. Love did not deliver the Promised Land into the hand of the Israelites. Jesus will not sit at the right hand of an emotion and Judge the quick and the dead. I’ve said before, the answer to the OP (both in its original and subsequent phrasings) is simply “no”. Gauntlet down: If the answer to the OP is “yes”, someone say so and say why. Otherwise, why isn’t this matter closed? PS: I’m slowly getting accustomed to this board. I’m used to less polite environments where deviation from the topic is severely punished. Spank me if I’m out of line. (After all, I enjoy it so.) ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/55 "2004-04-09T04:12:23Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by Badchad I just wanted it shown for the record that your assertions had nothing more backing them up than a _because I said so_ statement. Looks like I got that. Thanks. > [@](#): > > You mean, like the statement you just made, for example. If I were to demand a cite for the assertion that you just wanted it shown for the record blah blah blah, you would offer what exactly? Nothing more than a _because I said so_ statement? Nope, nothing more than that. See my statement is not what most would call an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to back it up. If I read you correctly then you are saying that your earlier statements, regardless of how sure they sounded, were nothing more than your opinions, and thus I am happy with that clarification. If however you were stating them as facts regarding the nature of god or Jesus then, like I said before: Cite? > [@](#): > > See, I’m not as nice as Polycarp. No your not. Polycarp, as much as I used to disagree with him he at least made an effort (for the most part) to be nice, which was consistent with how he thought his god wanted him to be. You however.😉 Off topic, I have noticed Polycarp’s posts of recent have been considerably more reasonable than before and I even recall him mention that he was considering giving up on calling himself a Christian, though he still thought it a good thing to live as Jesus did. Not sure how serious he was but I always thought he’d make a good secular humanist. > [@](#): > > If you’ve decided to reverse your position that I’m too crazy to debate with, then you’d best brace yourself. I’ll blow your position to pieces. No, I have not changed my view that you’re nuts. And while I think your chances of blowing my position to pieces are between slim and none, I don’t intend to spend hundreds of posts over several threads describing why your ontological argument sucks, since others have been there and done that ad nauseam and you demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that you were/are to dense to get it. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/56 "2004-04-09T04:18:35Z")
Originally Posted by Libertarian > [@](#): > > I believe also that I am an atheist and a theist. These are all matters of mere intellect and therefore trivial. > [@Thingol](#): > > This is pure BS. If you’re an atheist, you believe God does not exist. If you’re a theist, you believe God exists. To assert otherwise is to play fast and loose with the terms. > > It would be like saying “I believe that Chicago exists and I also believe Chicago doesn’t exist, because to me, Chicago is a state of mind, some people have it, some people don’t, it’s all personal”. > > In fact, theism and atheism are mutually exclusive positions… because the question is **not** a matter of “mere intellect”. The existence of god is a question concerning the actual world, not one’s mind. No no, Thingol. It makes perfect sense. If your nuts.😉 ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/57 "2004-04-09T19:59:56Z")
The majority of Christians I’ve talked to don’t know a lot about the Bible. They know the stuff that is quoted at them by the religious “leader” they listen to. I’ve talked to a few of these religious leaders. YAWN! Investigate THE BIBLE CODE, there are plenty of websites debating this pro and con. I have used the program. I like the idea of a sneaky God slipping one past the RELIGIOUS LEADERS talking bullshit. Does Chernobyl meaning Wormwood signify anything in Revelations? Does the statue in Nebachadnezar’s dream refer to the Roman empire splitting in two at the legs. Dal Timgar > [@Star Was](#): > > What are some theological argument for the authority of the Bible that go beyond, “the bible is the divine word of God”? What are some theological arguments that go beyond the idea that we must have faith that the Bible is divine? Are there arguments that argue why we are to believe that Bible is divine that do not involve blind faith? ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/58 "2004-04-09T20:35:44Z")
> [@dal\_timgar](#): > > Investigate THE BIBLE CODE, there are plenty of websites debating this pro and con. I have used the program. I like the idea of a sneaky God slipping one past the RELIGIOUS LEADERS talking bullshit. You think the Bible Code is amazing? What about the [Moby Dick Code](http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html)?? I find it even more amazing that He slipped information into a book that nobody every claimed was divinely inspired! Praise Herman! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/59 "2004-04-09T20:59:24Z")
> [@dal\_timgar](#): > > The majority of Christians I’ve talked to don’t know a lot about the Bible. They know the stuff that is quoted at them by the religious “leader” they listen to. I’ve talked to a few of these religious leaders. YAWN! > > Investigate THE BIBLE CODE, there are plenty of websites debating this pro and con. I have used the program. I like the idea of a sneaky God slipping one past the RELIGIOUS LEADERS talking bullshit. > > Does Chernobyl meaning Wormwood signify anything in Revelations? > > Does the statue in Nebachadnezar’s dream refer to the Roman empire splitting in two at the legs. > > Dal Timgar Are you kidding or are you serious. The Bible Code has been debunked more than once on this board and so has the [Chernobyl=wormwood assertion.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=37091&highlight=chernobyl+wormwood) Chernobyl does _not_ mean “wormwood”. It means “black” in Ukranian. The Greek word sometimes translated as “wormwood” in English is _absinthos_ or absinthe. “Chernobyl” has no relationship either to absinthe or to wormwood. This whole Chernobyl/wormwood thing is just fundie mythology with no basis in fact. All you have to do is ask someone who speaks Ukrainian, but the fact that this canard is still prevalent on the internet shows that some people are not concerned with getting the facts about anything. The divided statue in Daniel symbolized the divided and weakening Ptolemy/Seleucid empires. Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid king, Antiochus. The story was set during the Babylonian captivity and the dreams were representations of things that had happened previous to the Seleucid occupation. The events of the dream were “predictions” relative to the characters and setting of the story but were past and present events relative to when it was _written_. Rome does not figure into Daniel in any way, nor does any event subsequent to the second century BCE. ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252/60 "2004-04-10T17:24:18Z")
You will have to excuse me if I don’t regard THIS BOARD as an AUTHORITY. In fact I don’t regard any AUTHORITY as an AUTHORITY. Someone pointed to the Moby Dick business to refute my mentioning THE BIBLE CODE before. I did a search on MOBY DICK and THE BIBLE CODE and easily found a site refuting that MOBY DICK site. There are BELIEVERS and ANTIBELIEVERS. Antibelievers often have this delusion that they are LOGICAL. There is only one way to think. That is to think FOR YOURSELF. I have used the Bible Code program myself. I taped a show about it and watched it 3 times and decided to order the program and experiment with it myself. Have any of you actually used it? If anyone is interested they should do their own research and think for themselves. A lot of people seem to get upset if other people think differently from them. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ME THEN YOU MUST BE STUPID. I consider that to be a ridiculous attitude. I don’t BELIEVE anything, but too many things about the Bible seem too improbable for there not to be a cause for the improbability. I am not a statistician if you want to play credentials games but I have always been good at math. The Moby Dick site doesn’t hold water for me. I have personally found too many things in THE BIBLE CODE and I looked for stuff not mentioned anywhere else. Dal Timgar > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Are you kidding or are you serious. The Bible Code has been debunked more than once on this board and so has the [Chernobyl=wormwood assertion.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=37091&highlight=chernobyl+wormwood) > > Chernobyl does _not_ mean “wormwood”. It means “black” in Ukranian. The Greek word sometimes translated as “wormwood” in English is _absinthos_ or absinthe. “Chernobyl” has no relationship either to absinthe or to wormwood. This whole Chernobyl/wormwood thing is just fundie mythology with no basis in fact. All you have to do is ask someone who speaks Ukrainian, but the fact that this canard is still prevalent on the internet shows that some people are not concerned with getting the facts about anything. > > The divided statue in Daniel symbolized the divided and weakening Ptolemy/Seleucid empires. Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid king, Antiochus. The story was set during the Babylonian captivity and the dreams were representations of things that had happened previous to the Seleucid occupation. The events of the dream were “predictions” relative to the characters and setting of the story but were past and present events relative to when it was _written_. Rome does not figure into Daniel in any way, nor does any event subsequent to the second century BCE. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/authority-of-the-bible/238252.md?page=4)