# Talk:Counterexamples to the Bible

## A mathematical counterexample to the Bible

In 1 Kings 7:23

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

"Round all about" shows us that the molten sea was a circle. The circumference of a circle is: Circumference = pi x diameter. And rearranging to get pi: pi = circumference/diameter

In this passage, the circumference is 30 cubits and the diameter is 10 cubits. Therefore pi = 30/10 = 3.0

Mathematics has shown us that pi = 3.14 to three significant figures, NOT 3.0. Therefore, this is a mistake in the Bible. A concession to the times, where little was known about mathematics. --Samsonnn 09:34, 13 November 2011 (EST)

This proposed counterexample is disproved in Biblical_Scientific_Foreknowledge#Incorrect_value_of_Pi.--Andy Schlafly 10:14, 13 November 2011 (EST)

## No counterexamples to the Bible?

Doesn't this become tautological if you are unwilling to consider counterexamples? TylerGD 10:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

The "counterexamples" you posted were repeatedly brought up over the years by atheists, agnostics, and the generally dimwitted over the course of thousands of years; and these "counterexamples" were repeatedly proven wrong. That's "Proven" with a capitol "P". Karajou 10:27, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, I must have missed something. Which counterexamples did TylerGD post? If they have all been Proven wrong with a capital P, shouldn't this article address them and state why they are wrong, as with every other counterexample here, instead of just not considering them? --MarcoT2 11:48, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
The page history contains the edits here. I found the alleged "counterexamples" to be remarkably trivial and non-substantive. Our entries here are substantive, and will remain so.--Andy Schlafly 11:59, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
Ok, I understand this necessity. I agree that only the MAJOR counterexamples should be addressed! Thank you, anyway, for posting the link to the edits. --MarcoT2 12:01, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
What should happen is a separate article titled Alleged Biblical contradictions, detailing the passages, what liberals have against them, and why the contradictions don't exist in the first place. Karajou 12:05, 11 August 2010 (EDT

How about the First Law of Thermodynamics? This states that energy may not be created or destroyed, which contradicts Genesis. Also, the creation story says that light was created first. Light is not possible without a spacetime manifold, which was not created at that time. The population of the earth is much too large too soon after the flood. Assuming 8 humans survived the flood, every woman over 15 years old would have to have 50 children to produce a large enough population by the time of the Exodus from Egypt. (Assuming: the flood was in the year 3000 BC, and the Exodus was in 2500 BC). And, even assuming this is possible, it does nothing to address the sudden rise of different races.

I have an open mind about it. Let's take a look at your arguments:
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy may be transformed from one type to another, and it is all the time. That's what creation presumably was.
See Counterexamples to Relativity, which is a far longer list than Counterexamples to the Bible. Perhaps the goofy "spacetime manifold" never really existed. Are you open-minded about that?
I'm surprised by your population argument, because I've seen analysis that says the population levels today are just what one would expect from having just a few people in 3000 BC.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
Now I'm confused. Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It contradicts Genesis. Okay...got that. Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis. But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen? You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said. But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy created and destroyed of which he says can't be created or destroyed. And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's denying Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution. In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.
Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it? Karajou 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
I'm not claiming that "something came from nothing" in the Big Bang. The sum of the energy contained in the mass of the universe equals the sum of gravitational potential energy in the universe. This is quite an easily calculable conclusion which suggests that the net energy in the universe is zero. So, while I agree with the "came from nothing" statement, I disagree with the "something". If you are going to throw out unscientific phrases, you should say "A net nothing came from nothing". The zero-energy universe is becoming more and more studied, and may well be a plausible explanation for cosmogenesis.
This explanation is in contradiction to the Creation story, in which light was created with no negative energy counterpart.
A caveat; the zero-energy universe is still in the preliminary phases of study, and may turn out to be false. However, in 20 years, I can guarantee scientists will have a clearer understanding of the beginning of the universe, while theists will respond with "*shrug* God did it".
In response to the statement about how "goofy spacetime manifold never existed", are you saying that there is no spacetime currently?
Also, I fully support the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no contradiction with regards to evolution; the entropy of the sun is increasing more than entropy due to life on earth is decreasing.
I apologize for not being clear on my population calculations. Please allow me to restate:
Let's assume the following:
Eight people survived the flood (the year 3000 BC).
1,000,000 people lived around the time of the Exodus (a highly conservative number) in the year 2500 BC
To achieve this population, the population needs to increase by 2.5% each year. (4 woman * 1.025^500 ~= 1,000,0000)
Assume the average person lives to 1000, and there are no deaths (which seems like a BIG assumption)
In 900 years, this comes to an average of 50 children (1000 * .025 = 25. Multiply by two, since only woman reproduce and increase population, in practice, to get 50).
That strains credulity a bit.
You're right, it does. And the mistake is your time estimate for Exodus. As taught in my class, it is widely accepted that Exodus occurred either in the 1200s or 1400s B.C. See World_History_Lecture_One#Egypt. A doubling in population every 30 years for a 1000 years would be roughly 2^30, or a billion, far more than is needed.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
Point taken, Andy, you are indeed correct. The population at the time of the Exodus was within the limits of possibilities assuming a flood. I withdraw my point.

Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV) "How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" While not a counterexample in the normal sense of the word, the Bible itself does attempt to warn against its own future inaccuracies at the hand of man being involved in its transcribing and interpretation. This is particularly of note as it is a self-contained disclaimer that must be held true if the rest is to be. Lopsidedidol 10:37, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

Analysis of Bible prophecy from Christian scholars/apologists

Rebuttal to atheist Steven Carr concerning Bible prophecy:

Give me a few hours to take in those links, my response will follow. Lopsidedidol 11:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
It's been more than a few hours. Should I assume you have repented and become a Christian? conservative 21:00, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

## Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain

Sorry to ask this, but the "population" argument brought to mind an old thought which I am sure has been answered many times. I am not saying that it is a "counterexample" to the Bible, mind you, I am just curious as to what the official refutation of this argument is... sorry to bother with such a silly question :) Now, God created Adam and Eve, and then Adam and Eve generated Abel and Cain, two males. So, where did the rest of the human population come from? Thanks for clearing this up for me :) --MarcoT2 21:35, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

I'm an atheist, but this argument is not very solid. While it is never addressed in the Bible, its possible Adam and Eve had more children. Why this is not addressed, since the Bible loves listing lineages, is anyone's guess...
I've never heard anyone claim that the Bible identifies everyone who ever existed. As the unsigned comment above states, perhaps there were other children, or other miracles.--Andy Schlafly 21:41, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
The "Adam and Eve had other children" option would imply that people from the same bloodline, actually brothers and sisters, generated children, which I am sure is not an acceptable option. Perhaps other people were directly created by God to populate the Earth? --MarcoT2 21:44, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
It has been addressed in the Bible:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Genesis 5:1-5) Karajou 21:45, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
That option, however, raises other questions, as I said. There must be something we are missing perhaps. --MarcoT2 21:50, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

## Opinion from talk page

• that there are extreme inconsistencies in the lineage of Jesus, as given by the Apostles Matthew and Luke in their respective gospels. Also, the prophecy that Jesus would be descended from David was unfulfilled because of his so-called virgin birth. Lineages could only be traced through male parents in ancient Judea and Jesus did not have one.
Reply: your conclusion is unjustified and your statement about the lineages unspecific and inconsequential. Jesus was significant because of his divine nature.--Andy Schlafly 16:08, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
Allow me to jump in on this one:
Luke 3:23 (tracing the lineage of Jesus)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph
AND
Matthew 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
So, we can all agree that the lineage of Jesus, as listed by Matt and Luke, are inconsistant. Is that specific enough? We can now say that the Bible contains contradictions, and is therefore not entirely inerrant, correct? Please note, the lineages diverege further, I just chose not to list them completely. Paul 15:51, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Pete, you're the only one here who claims contradictions in the Bible where there are none, and it is clear that you're here to push that side of the fence once again. We're not going to agree with you at all; we will never agree with anything that's false. Karajou 18:00, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
So...no contradiction in Matthew saying Jacob is the father of Joseph and Luke saying that Heli is the father of Joseph? Those can both be true? Paul 18:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Are you insisting that one man cannot possibly have two different names? Karajou 19:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
• that we have a non-existant prophecy in verse 23 (as seen above). Of course, Isaiah was speaking of events of his time, not of the future, as evidenced in Isaiah 9:6 with the use of, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given…” Not withstanding, the verse presented is transcribed incorrectly anayway. It was translated from the Greek text, and there the word “parthenos” is used, which does mean a virgin. However, the word in the original Hebrew, from which the Greek was taken, did not mean “virgin.” The word there is “almah,” which means simply a young woman. In the later Greek translation, the error was corrected, the proper Greek equivalent “neanis” being substituted. But it suited the purpose of the Church to leave in its “virgin” Greek, and so it has come down to us.
This has been long debated but not resolved on one side as you suggest. Feel free to discuss further here.--Andy Schlafly 16:08, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

## A suggestion

As you know, there are already 3 articles for countering atheist stupidity: Counterexamples to Evolution, counterexamples to Relativity, and counterexamples to an Old Earth. I suggest the creation of 2 more counterexample articles called counterexamples to the big bang and counterexamples to atheism. That would be great in my opinion. Willminator 17:51, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Willminator, you're free to start any entries if and when you have good material (comporting with Conservapedia:Commandments) to include in them!--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 19 September 2010 (EDT)