Responses to common Christian apologetic claims

1/29/2008 | 2:47 PM | Evolved Rationalist

The Bible says the Earth is unsupported. (Job 26:7)
This is perhaps one of the best pick-and-choose Christian arguments, in which they single out a few Biblical verses that seemingly support modern science. Christians who make this claim seem to have forgotten to include these verses (Job 38:4-6) which clearly state that the earth has foundations. This is in exact contradiction to the fact that the earth is unsupported. It even directly contradicts the earlier verse that Christians use to claim that the Earth is unsupported. Anyone seeking to reconcile the Biblical view to the modern scientific view certainly has more than enough passages to select from and interpret; while ignoring others that make the Bible sound like nothing more than a fool's attempt at science.

The Bible describes the water cycle in astounding detail. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Astounding detail? This is what the verse says:
"All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again."

What is so astounding about that? The verse merely says that water returns to the source of the streams. It doesn't mention anything about condensation or evaporation. This is merely wishful thinking on the part of Christians who deceive themselves into thinking that some sort of divine revelation was needed here.

The Bible says the earth is round. (Isaiah 40:22)
The verse reads "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". A circle is flat and without any volume (in contrast to a sphere). Anyone who cannot tell the difference between a circle and a sphere is clearly too stupid to have any level-headed intellectual discussions. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the 'four corners of the earth'. Why isn't the kook taking that as the indicator of the earth's shape? It seems that the so-called god of the Bible cannot make up his mind on what exactly to teach Christians. Is god suffering from short-term memory loss or is he just another schzoid?

The Bible has always proven to be factually correct.
Are these verses factually correct in light of modern science?

Leviticus 11:6- Rabbits chew their cud and have hooves.
Leviticus 11:20-23- Insects are four-legged, e.g. grasshoppers.

The Bible is historically correct and consistent.
Really? Well, that must be news because as far as I know, Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 cannot even agree regarding Jesus' lineage. There are historical records found in China that show life going on normally during the exact time the global flood was alleged to have taken place.

The worst part of this is that the above examples only represent the tip of the iceberg.

The Bible is reasonable.
Reasonable? Let's take a look at Genesis 30:37-39. Did anyone tell you that shoving striped rods in front of animals causes them to have striped offspring? God really needs to learn a thing or two about basic genetics. Uh, wait.....Christians claim that he's the creator of the universe, right?

God, please enroll in a remedial genetics class at once!

In Numbers 22:2-29, Balaam doesn't seem the least bit surprised to discover that his donkey could suddenly speak. I suppose this must be because stuff like that used to happen every day although the so-called god seems deaf and mute now.

The conclusion of all this is that although Christians may claim that the Bible is divinely inspired, there is nothing in the Bible that could not have been written by people in that particular period.