Testable bible verses

[canadarocks]

I was skimming through the annotated skeptics bible and I found a scientifically testable theory about curing leprosy. It is found in Leviticus 14 (whole chapter).

God's treatment for leprosy:
Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it.

I found this interesting as well as testable. I was wondering if there may be other testable hypothesis in the bible? What are the potential rationalizations that people give to reconcile these testable bits?

Thanks
Canadarocks

 

[Ryokan]

There's that thing about the followers of Christ being able to drink poison

 

[Nex]

There's that thing about the followers of Christ being able to drink poison

...and survive venomous snakebite.

 

[canadarocks]

Can you give me Ch and Vrs? Curious minds need to know!

 

[ceo_esq]

I was skimming through the annotated skeptics bible and I found a scientifically testable theory about curing leprosy. It is found in Leviticus 14 (whole chapter).

...

I found this interesting as well as testable. I was wondering if there may be other testable hypothesis in the bible? What are the potential rationalizations that people give to reconcile these testable bits?http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com[/URL

I got very interested when I read your post, but I must say (not without disappointment) after reading Leviticus 14, it's pretty clear that the chapter doesn't purport to prescribe a cure for leprosy.

Rather, it sets forth the regulations for the removal of the state of ritual uncleanliness from a person who previously suffered from symptoms of leprosy. Notice how verse 13 indicates that the ritual should be carried out on someone only after the priest has examined him and concluded that the "plague of leprosy is healed". Notice also the distinction established between the use of the words "healed" and "cleansed" in Leviticus 14.

For anyone who might have missed it, the chapter's purpose is reiterated in the final verse: "To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy." Not to teach when (or how) it is healed and when it is not healed, or any such nonsense.

Certain Mosiac cleansing rituals probably had some actual salutary effect in terms of hygiene, but the leprosy provisions in Leviticus are described as a law, not a medical prescription. Laws affect a person's legal status (in this case, the ceremonial religious law of the ancient Hebrews). They do not affect the physical world (e.g., bodily health) except indirectly. Hebrews living thousands of years ago apparently understood this elementary notion better than the authors of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Which brings me reluctantly to a further point. This is another example of how shockingly badly written and reasoned parts of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible are. It's embarrassing, frankly. One almost wishes words like skeptic and its cognates could be trademarked or otherwise subjected to some kind of use regulation, so that some degree of quality control could be maintained and the movement would not be brought into occasional disrepute.

 

[canadarocks]

Thanks for the reply and the review of the chapter. I agree with your assessment and, unfortunately, this is no longer a testable claim (I wonder whether there are others like the poison the other posters indicated).

Given your (correct) interpretation, I wonder whether this ritual (or any of the sacrificial rituals in Leviticus) are followed by any Christian/Jewish sects?

 

[Ossai]

canadarocks

Can you give me Ch and Vrs? Curious minds need to know!

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name [Jesus] shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord [Jesus, the Christ] had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord [Jesus, the Christ] working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

But those clever Christians (some protestant sects at least) already claim that part isn’t inerrant, but that doesn’t invalidate the inerrancy of the bible as a whole.

Actually there is already a discussion about those parts going on in the One of my complaints about religion thread.

Ossai

 

[triadboy]

Taken from SAB:

Verses 9-20 were are not found in the earlier manuscripts and are therefore considered later additions. So the gospel of Mark ended without a resurrection or the cool stuff about snake handling, drinking poison, or damned non-believers.

There are one-eyebrowed yokels in the mountains of Tennessee who believe this crap - even though it was - in my opinion - inserted by Eusubius - Constantine's bishop.

 

[Ossai]

triadboy

There are one-eyebrowed yokels in the mountains of Tennessee who believe this crap - even though it was - in my opinion - inserted by Eusubius - Constantine's bishop.

Hey I’ve personally visited some of the Appalachian churches, one even when the snake handling was going on. Gives a whole different perspective to biblical inerrancy and those that believe it. And clearly highlights the dangers therein.

Ossai

 

[Diamond]

Re: Re: Testable bible verses

Certain Mosiac cleansing rituals probably had some actual salutary effect in terms of hygiene, but the leprosy provisions in Leviticus are described as a law, not a medical prescription. Laws affect a person's legal status (in this case, the ceremonial religious law of the ancient Hebrews). They do not affect the physical world (e.g., bodily health) except indirectly. Hebrews living thousands of years ago apparently understood this elementary notion better than the authors of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Except that the Hebraic viewpoint of people was as a unified whole. They had no notion of the ancient Greek concept of of man being a trinity of body, soul and spirit. It's unlikely that the writers of Mosaic law had any notion of a disease (especially a skin disease) being caused by anything other than personal sin or lack of sufficient piety or not supporting the priesthood or if all else failed, the inscrutible permissive will of God (as in the book of Job).

 

[Starrman]

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

But there is always an out - which makes the whole book untestable. If you get bit, you just didn't have enough faith in Jebus!

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: Testable bible verses

Except that the Hebraic viewpoint of people was as a unified whole. They had no notion of the ancient Greek concept of of man being a trinity of body, soul and spirit. It's unlikely that the writers of Mosaic law had any notion of a disease (especially a skin disease) being caused by anything other than personal sin or lack of sufficient piety or not supporting the priesthood or if all else failed, the inscrutible permissive will of God (as in the book of Job).

All this, though, is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that Leviticus 14 clearly refers to rituals done after the leper was confirmed to have been healed.

 

[Ladewig]

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.


We can easily test to see if anyone has the faith of a mustard seed by asking everyone to say to a mountain: "remove hence to yonder place."

 

[Kopji]

What are the potential rationalizations that people give to reconcile these testable bits?

My experience with even the most literal of people is that they don't take everything literally.
Generally, they use the following principles:
(bases covered)

1: Does the passage make sense literally? If so that is the best choice.

2: What is the context?

3: Is there a higher principle being shown?

4: Just but because we don't understand it does not make it false. (It could be a mystery)

Examples:

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Isaiah 40:31

This sounds real testable, but has elements of all four principles. Mostly, meant to show a higher principle, and is also poetic. If we were to suggest testing it to see if they sprouted wings, that would be silly.

He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
Psalm 91:4

Despite the two passages showing affinity to feathers and birds above, nobody preaches that God is a giant bird.

It is almost certainly considered a heresy, but I find it useful to think of these things abstractly, like what goes into a painting. A painting involves craftsmanship, and following some rules, but there is still a lot of room for everyone seeing something a little different.

There are limits though - a portrait is not easily promoted as a landscape, and some ideas find more support in scripture than others.

 

[Beerina]

But there is always an out - which makes the whole book untestable. If you get bit, you just didn't have enough faith in Jebus!

They don't even have to go that far. Recall when, in the desert for 40 days, Satan says to Jesus, "Throw yourself down on these rocks; for it says the angels shall support his feet."

And what does Jesus say? Huh? He says "Thou shall not put the Lord to the test." Thus if you try to test this stuff, you might very well fail just because God does not want to be proven.

In this way, the Bible hides under the rock with Sylvia and many others. Bible writers were using the anti-Randi arguments 2000 years ago.

Although religion is silent on my next question: What's the spiritual imperative value in believing in something with no proof? Why would anyone, especially a god who can read minds, find that valuable? Oh, sure, we know why mortal thugs value this, but God is supposed to be better than that.

 

[Beerina]

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.


We can easily test to see if anyone has the faith of a mustard seed by asking everyone to say to a mountain: "remove hence to yonder place."

I...wouldn't do that if I were you. All it'll do is prove every single person who ever lived (or at least, alive right now) is going straight to ach ee double toothpicks. Sad, but a valid escape clause.

 

[jjramsey]

Although religion is silent on my next question: What's the spiritual imperative value in believing in something with no proof?

To some extent, this is a relatively modern question. The idea of treating "faith" as choosing to believe without proof seems to have come about after what has traditionally been considered to be as evidence for religion, such as the Bible or various philosophical arguments for God, have been found to fall short. Making belief without proof a virtue is a fallback position.

 

[ceo_esq]

Although religion is silent on my next question: What's the spiritual imperative value in believing in something with no proof?

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything especially meritorious about believing in something on the basis of abundant proof. That can be expected of almost anyone.

 

[pgwenthold]

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything especially meritorious about believing in something on the basis of abundant proof. That can be expected of almost anyone.

Well God gave me the ability to think rationally and logically, and to use reason. It seems odd that he would not expect me to use those gifts. Personally, I think not using those gifts God gave me would be an afront to him. Thus, it seems to me that resorting to FAITH would be a sin.

IOW, if God exists, it would be a sin for me to believe in him.

 

[ceo_esq]

Well God gave me the ability to think rationally and logically, and to use reason. It seems odd that he would not expect me to use those gifts. Personally, I think not using those gifts God gave me would be an afront to him. Thus, it seems to me that resorting to FAITH would be a sin.

IOW, if God exists, it would be a sin for me to believe in him.

That sort of argumentation could work both ways. God (I'm speaking very hypothetically here) also gave you trust and intuition, and the ability to have faith in people and things. Perhaps he also intended those as gifts.

And frankly, neither unbelief nor (under ordinary circumstances) belief is ever going to be subject to proof. So it is very likely that some degree of faith is going to be operating either way.