Isaiah xl.22: This passage does not describe the earth as a sphere. It's a reference to the canopy of heaven, a dome-shaped structure in the dwelling of Yahweh on which he walks (see Job xxii.14), and an example of erroneous Hebrew cosmology (more on this follows below). The word for 'circle' wouldn't even be most appropriate word for 'sphere' anyway, which would have been duwr. In fact, the word for 'sphere' in modern Hebrew is a derivative of duwr. Alternatively, it could be describing the earth as a circular disk, not a sphere. This example fails.
Jeremiah xxxiii.22: Contrary to what the chart states, this passage does not say 'the number of stars exceeds a billion'. If you take this as prescience of the number of stars in the universe, I'm afraid you're caught in a dilemma, one in which the bible looks ridiculous either way it goes. Noting this same simile in Deuteronomy i.10, the children of Israel in the wilderness could hardly have totaled in countless trillions. Your other option, as consistency would require, is to believe the Hebrews calculated the number stars at probably something under 2 million (see Exodus xii.37; 600,000 men + women/children). On the other hand, the correct understanding of what the bible is saying when it says the stars are inestimable is to take it as hyperbole for 'many'. Of course, you still have other cosmological problems. Genesis i.17 and Psalm cxxxvi.9 say that God created the stars to give light o the earth, which the stars hardly serve to do, and even if fraction of the stars in our view somehow did, there are, as you so finely pointed out according to modern science, billions upon billions of them billions upon billions of light years distant from us in the universe. I do wonder where the figure 1,100 comes from in 'science then'. At any rate, this example fails.
1Corinthians xv.41: It's really not necessary to point out how ludicrous this is as a 'scientific proof' of the bible, but I'll do it anyway. This passage is found in Paul's discourse on the resurrection body, and is simply a typical example of Jewish apocalyptic astral imagery in relation to the resurrection. Paul is discussing what kind of material the resurrection body will be, which is often compared with stars (e.g., Daniel xii.3, 2ApocBar. li.10). If we go by what the chart suggests, then it proves the bible wrong again anyhow. Since Paul is discussing various kinds of substances (see verses 39-40), this would imply the stars are not all homogeneous substances, hence their differing in 'glory'. The implications of this are obvious, and again I wonder what's the basis of the 'science then' row of the chart. This example fails.
Job xxxviii.19-20: I truly do fail to see how a passage talking about the 'dwelling' of light and darkness (and as if 'darkness' is its own separate entity) could in any way be scientific confirmation of the bible. This example fails.
Job xxviii.25: This is an obscure reference, possibly to the clouds. This example fails.
Ecclesiastes i.6: Hardly an example of scientific accuracy, this passage simply notes that the wind blows in all directions, which anyone standing outside would be able to experience for themselves, ancient or modern. This example fails.
Leviticus xvii.11: This is all tied up in sacrificial cult and symbolism and deserves no serious response. This example fails.
Finis,
Eric
Jeremiah xxxiii.22: Contrary to what the chart states, this passage does not say 'the number of stars exceeds a billion'. If you take this as prescience of the number of stars in the universe, I'm afraid you're caught in a dilemma, one in which the bible looks ridiculous either way it goes. Noting this same simile in Deuteronomy i.10, the children of Israel in the wilderness could hardly have totaled in countless trillions. Your other option, as consistency would require, is to believe the Hebrews calculated the number stars at probably something under 2 million (see Exodus xii.37; 600,000 men + women/children). On the other hand, the correct understanding of what the bible is saying when it says the stars are inestimable is to take it as hyperbole for 'many'. Of course, you still have other cosmological problems. Genesis i.17 and Psalm cxxxvi.9 say that God created the stars to give light o the earth, which the stars hardly serve to do, and even if fraction of the stars in our view somehow did, there are, as you so finely pointed out according to modern science, billions upon billions of them billions upon billions of light years distant from us in the universe. I do wonder where the figure 1,100 comes from in 'science then'. At any rate, this example fails.
1Corinthians xv.41: It's really not necessary to point out how ludicrous this is as a 'scientific proof' of the bible, but I'll do it anyway. This passage is found in Paul's discourse on the resurrection body, and is simply a typical example of Jewish apocalyptic astral imagery in relation to the resurrection. Paul is discussing what kind of material the resurrection body will be, which is often compared with stars (e.g., Daniel xii.3, 2ApocBar. li.10). If we go by what the chart suggests, then it proves the bible wrong again anyhow. Since Paul is discussing various kinds of substances (see verses 39-40), this would imply the stars are not all homogeneous substances, hence their differing in 'glory'. The implications of this are obvious, and again I wonder what's the basis of the 'science then' row of the chart. This example fails.
Job xxxviii.19-20: I truly do fail to see how a passage talking about the 'dwelling' of light and darkness (and as if 'darkness' is its own separate entity) could in any way be scientific confirmation of the bible. This example fails.
Job xxviii.25: This is an obscure reference, possibly to the clouds. This example fails.
Ecclesiastes i.6: Hardly an example of scientific accuracy, this passage simply notes that the wind blows in all directions, which anyone standing outside would be able to experience for themselves, ancient or modern. This example fails.
Leviticus xvii.11: This is all tied up in sacrificial cult and symbolism and deserves no serious response. This example fails.
Finis,
Eric
