bizzwire
Woh!
If we can accept the idea that God was telling ancient Hebrews rules about llamas even though none of them were going to encounter one for centuries, maybe we can theorize that some other inexplicable biblical passages refer to objects and events that we haven’t encountered yet. Maybe in another five hundred years, it’ll be obvious to everyone what behemoths and nivim are.
We already know what the behemoth is. Ever see a Ford Excursion?
See Genesis 30:25-43 (note the wording of Genesis 30:35 in the King James Version).
There are also the dueling genealogies of Joseph, the husband of Mary in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. As discussed above, determined believers will come up with explanations for this, but they aren’t supported by the text and are somewhat less convincing than die-hard Star Wars fans trying to explain away the infamous “parsecs” line.
The whole Noak’s Ark think seems like a piece of fiction to me.
On the lion carcass thing; the lion is killed by Samson while he is on the way to find a wife from among the Philistines and he finds bees nesting in it when he returns ‘some time later’, intending to marry her - notwithstanding the veracity of the story as a whole, this is an unspecificed duration - quite possibly long enough for the lion’s carcass to decay to the point of being a defleshed ribcage covered with dried-out skin.
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. One can get a good apple off a bad tree, a good tree can have a bad apple. Many sparrows die,and are not looked after. Animals suffer the ssame deceases as man but have not sinned, and have died all through the history of earth. Jesus came to save all men, but spoke in parables so some would not believe,and be saved.
With time to think I could mention many other errors.
Monavis
Bah, light and Sun can be exclusive of each other. God would have had to create light first for the sun to work 
How does the phrase “And God said, let there be light” create a problem?
Light abounds throughout the heavens and is not exclusively an Earth-Sun property.
The greater light (the Sun) he called day. No problem there.
The lessor light (the moon), etc. No problem either.
Regarding that lion’s carcass thing – I thought somebody might turn it up if I l;eft it alone awhile (like the ringstraked thing), but no one has.
Yes, I find it pretty unlikely that bees would build a hive in a lion carcass (unless there was nothing else around). Some Biblical scholars have noted that there are some flies that resemble the local honeybees, and suspect that the tellers/authors of the story of Samson (and the later riddle in, I think, the book of Daniel) mistook the flies laying their eggs in the dead beast for bees. In that case the misidentification qualifies as a falsity, as requested by the OP.
What a strange way to try to rationalise the story (as opposed to just brushing it off) - sure, some flies look like bees, but the story also says Samson scooped out some of their honey, ate some and gave some to his parents.
NB: I’m not insisting that this makes the story true, it just makes nonsense of an explanation that identifies the bees as carrion flies.
what about the universe being around 6000 years old?
Not strange at all – unless you insist that the entire story stands or fal;ls as one. But if the “bee in a lion carcass” thing is just one bit of folk belief or folklore, it can fit very neatly into a pre-existing story.
Well, there’s the rub; proven false according to whom? - YECreationists would have you believe that everything in the Bible is absolutely true and in the cases where science utterly disagrees, that they have at least as strong an argument on their side.
And then, what do we mean by ‘false’? - the events detailed in the gospels surrounding the account of the resurrection of Jesus are all a little inconsistent with each other (in terms of the number of and identity of humans and angels present, and the exact order of events), but it will be (perhaps quite reasonably) argued that a few inconsistencies in the witness accounts doesn’t mean the even never occurred.
I don’t think that was the Bible itself–that was a medieval Biblical scholar calculating the age of the universe by using the ages of all the generations or something. Here’s a good Wikipedia article on him. So, you won’t find the 6,000 years figure in the Bible, but you can supposedly use it to get there. Of course, you can use it for a lot of things.
I think I see what you mean; that the writers of the Samson tale saw flies in a carcass, mistook them for bees and wove a tale that included bees and honey etc…
Good point, but in any case, it’s only a plausible explanation of how the story might have come about - again, not that my purpose is to assert its veracity, but we don’t have a solid case of something proven false here.
Ha ha. Evolution doesn’t work that quickly.
The Rabbi Slifkin that Captain Amazing references, wrote a book called The Camel, The Hare & The Hyrax**. This book focuses on the four animals (the above mentioned three and the pig) that the Torah lists as having only one of the two kosher signs.
Everyone agrees that the gamal is a camel. And there is no question that it, in fact, is a ruminant and does not have split hooves.
Likewise, everyone agrees that the chazir is a pig, and that the pig is not a ruminant but does have fully split hooves.
Rabbi Slifkin goes on to prove from various sources that the shafan is the hyrax and that the arneves is the hare. He goes on to explore the possibilities that the shafan and arneves are possibly other creatures (such as a rabbit and a hare, for example), or are possibly unknown and/or extinct creatures, but rejects those ideas based on several sources.
Of course, that does lead to the difficulty that neither the hyrax nor the hare are true ruminants as we know them. However, he considers the fact that these creatures were common to the people of the area and time that the Torah was given and they would not have been included in the Torah’s list if they didn’t fit the general rule.
Of course, part of the answer deals with how ma’ale geirah (bringing up the cud) is defined. One must keep in mind that Biblical definitions do not necessarily match those of our current scientific understanding. For example, the Torah lists 24 birds that are non-kosher. One of those listed, as is well known, is the bat. The bat, as we all know, is not a bird, but a mammal. The answer is that when the Torah uses the word ofe, it does not necessarily have the same meaning as that of a zoologist using the word “bird.” More likely, it means “flying thing.” To back up this idea, a flying insect is called a sheretz ha-ofe (sheretz meaning “crawling thing” such as an insect or small rodent).
So, too, when the Torah uses the term ma’ale geirah it does not necessarily have the same precise meaning that “ruminant” does in English – even though “ruminant” may be the closest available English translation.
Rabbi Slifkin goes on to explain that the hare engages in a practice called cecotrophy (whereby the animal reingest food in another manner) which may qualify it as a ma’ale geirah. In addition, the hyrax may qualify based either on the fact that it’s stomach is complex as a ruminants or that there are some studies that show that the hyrax engages in a practice called merycism, which is a very simple form of regurgitation and rechewing (although it is not 100% clear that the hyrax actually does this).
Zev Steinhardt
When discussing the Bible, one must:
-
Account for translation
-
Account for allegory
Just thought I’d bring that up.
Nothing in this English translation of a Hebrew text (by way of countless other translations) is clear-cut.
Reading the Bible is fun and informative because, first of all, it’s a great story, and second of all, there is more wisdom and knowledge in it than many realize. Let’s not forget how old this text is, and how many influences of even older cultures have gone into the final product. It’s a true testament (har!) to human creativity and inspiration…and even if you don’t believe it’s the divine and inspired word of God, it’s still a damn creative explanation for the mysteries of life. And it’s got some cool characters too.
The Bible class I took in college really showed me how, even if you’re not religious, the Bible is a great book.
Another explanation I heard was that one measurement was the external & the other was the internal, with the difference being in the actual width of the bowl’s lip.