Bible's historical record

[majordinkydau]

I've heard many people scoff at the idea the Bible has any historical accuracy. It has proven to be the most accurate book in the world for middle east archeology. Even the discovery of oil in the middle east was prompted by biblical references to "pitch". The walls of Jerico really did fall down. Many of these so called myths have withstood scientific scrutiny. I have yet to hear anyone disprove a single sentance from the bible. Many arguments I hear tend towords railings which sound similar to what the church said when science claimed the earth was round. Many people think science and faith are not compatable. Science scoffed at the verse which said "the elements will melt with a fervent heat" until 1945. I don't require a complete understanding of something before I rely on it. I don't dismantle a bridge and reassemble it before I cross over it. I have discovered the bible has withstood every test I've placed on it. I do not claim to understand it and I will not force my interpretation of its meaning down your throat but I will say most of the rantings against that book are from people who never read it but heard someone else's argument. Don't let other people tell you what to believe. No one will see heaven on another's revelation. God gave us minds for a reason, most of us would just as soon join the crowd and let others tell us how to live.

[skuinders]

I have yet to hear anyone disprove a single sentance from the bible.

What about the geocentric solar system notion? Or that the Earth is unchanging in general?

[niviene]

I do not think it's logical to believe everything the bible says. It is not written by god, it is written by men, who by the christian definition, are inevitably error prone and sinful. Human error = mistakes. The bible may or may not be true - but don't forget to keep in mind who wrote it and that humans are impressionable and opinions, as can be seen in this forum alone, depend on perception.

[Skippy]

I do not think it's logical to believe everything the bible says. It is not written by god, it is written by men, who by the christian definition, are inevitably error prone and sinful. Human error = mistakes. The bible may or may not be true - but don't forget to keep in mind who wrote it and that humans are impressionable and opinions, as can be seen in this forum alone, depend on perception.

I guess everything Stephen Hawking "wrote" is rubbish then? Would you have the same outlook for an autobiography penned by another (such as Pete Rose's Autobio)? For that matter, evrything we read has been edited by someone, right? Maybe even your posts are edited... I can't see you typing them :hihi: .

 

However,

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17

[niviene]

I guess everything Stephen Hawking "wrote" is rubbish then? Would you have the same outlook for an autobiography penned by another (such as Pete Rose's Autobio)? For that matter, evrything we read has been edited by someone, right? Maybe even your posts are edited... I can't see you typing them :hihi: .

 

However,

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17

 

Yes, quoting scripture (that was written by man) really proves the point.... :xx:

 

You are finally catching on. Anything written by a person is prone to error. Just because Stephen Hawking wrote it, doesn't mean it is the truth - it is his theories and conclusions. We get to read his logic and see how much sense it makes. He has changed his mind over the years, too, as he has seen error in his own logic. I don't see any biblical texts changing.

 

We don't have any real proof that our parents are really our parents, either.

 

You finally get my point.

[Skippy]

Yes, quoting scripture (that was written by man) really proves the point.... :xx:

You are finally catching on. Anything written by a person is prone to error. Just because Stephen Hawking wrote it, doesn't mean it is the truth - it is his theories and conclusions. We get to read his logic and see how much sense it makes. He has changed his mind over the years, too, as he has seen error in his own logic. I don't see any biblical texts changing.

We don't have any real proof that our parents are really our parents, either.

You finally get my point.

While you are refilling your pipe let me explain what I wrote. I just wrote what any first semester philosophy student (grad level philosophy student for that matter) would have written. They write it because it sounds intellectual but it doesn't answer anything. Like a big ol carp :hihi: , other pseudo-intellectuals take the bait and run as well.

[niviene]

Oh, I forgot. In order to be a true intellectual, all here are supposed to bow down to your posts and not question your faulty logic. To quote UncleAl, "Illucid."

[Boerseun]

Here we go again...

[niviene]

Sorry, B.... I get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. I think I'm done here. :xx:

[Boerseun]

Yeah - there's really no point to it. It's strange - if you look at the most recent updates in the portal, 90% of them are God/evolution vs. creation/Bible threads that gets updated. And to think this is a science forum...

 

Maybe what we should do is to get all the best pro/con posts on all the metaphysical threads in one big large FAQ and everybody planning on posting a related issue should read that first before being allowed to continue.

[Biochemist]

...Maybe what we should do is to get all the best pro/con posts on all the metaphysical threads in one big large FAQ and everybody planning on posting a related issue should read that first before being allowed to continue.

I do think that we (as moderators) do a poor job of steering discussions based on previous well-discussed threads. We should refer to other (previous) threads more often to avoid repetitive debate.

[majordinkydau]

A Lobotomy for anyone who disagrees with me, why if I were king.

 

The Blue Pencil (to the tune America The Beautiful)

 

Oh juvenile indecent lines and phrases that dismay

provoking images in prose unsuited for the day

Animadvert animadvert those things we loath to view

All that offends we shall amend we bowdlerizing few

 

Douglas W. Coulter

3/20/03

 

Nothing's more dangerous than ideas, but do you live on other people ideas, or your own.

Jim Jones took a load of people to Geana for kool aid in the 70s, He said the bible was full of crap and a bunch of people believed him. How many people out there have read the book? Most people judge it on hearsay and many people claiming to wittnes about God are sharing hearsay. Any other book can change your opinions or point of view but I've learned from experience that the Bible can change my heart. Religion can't change the human heart because its based on man's reasoning which is flawed and limited. God is not limited and used several very flawed people to write a book over many centurys that no one has ever been able been able to refute. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand much of the Bible but I'm learning what's meant by "unless you become as a little child". I've spent 52 years molesting my inner child.

[ughaibu]

According to the Bible, the value of pi is three, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%207:23;&version=31;

that's something that plenty of people were "able to refute".

[Biochemist]

According to the Bible, the value of pi is three...

I really hope you are kidding. Are you suggesting that normal usage of Hebrew does not allow for rounding? Are you actually suggesting that the author was stating that is was exactly three?

 

Any disussion of Biblical hermeneutics allows for hyperbole, idiom, phenomenal language, metaphor, poetic language and sarcasm (plus other devices). THe hard part is figuring out when they are used.

 

This one is not difficult. You were kidding weren't you?

[ughaibu]

The passage is rather clear. I really hope you're kidding if you're claiming it doesn't add up to pi equals three.

[Boerseun]

The passage is rather clear. I really hope you're kidding if you're claiming it doesn't add up to pi equals three.

If you have any hardship in picturing pi in your mind, do the following:

 

Take a piece of string. Wrap it around a cylinder. The top of your coffee mug will do fine. Cut off the string so that it fits exactly around your mug.

 

Now, take the piece of string and cut it into three equal pieces. Now, take any of those three pieces and see if it'll fit the diameter of your mug. They will all be slightly too short. And only because pi isn't three. Regardless of what any crackpot website will tell you.

[Biochemist]

The passage is rather clear. I really hope you're kidding if you're claiming it doesn't add up to pi equals three.

Goodness, you are serious. Is English your native language?

 

If I said that I thought your comment was the silliest thing I ever heard, am I lying because I might have actually heard something sillier previously?

 

Or when Solomon asks rhetorically "All rivers flow to the sea, yet the sea is not full..." Eccl 1:7?", do you suppose that he was unaware of the most famous river in the world that does not: the Jordan (less than 30 miles from his location)? More likely, he was making a rhetorical point, not a science statement.

 

Similarly, it is ludicrous to suggest that a people that had built carriages did not know that Pi was not exactly three. If he had suggested the ratio was 3 1/7, would you have still suggested is was inaccurate because Pi is irrational? Do you think the Bible has intrinsic rules for significant digits???