Bible is not prone to scientific inaccuracies

[GUNWOUNDS]

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

A set of documents having their origin in the All-knowing God of the universe would not be prone to scientific inaccuracies. If we are to believe that the Bible came from the same source that created the world, then is logical to assume it would not mis-represent the mechanics of the world. Only the Bible contains none of the scientific absurdities that are found in all other ancient religious writings.

In the Hindu Scriptures it is taught that the earth is set atop the backs of four elephants, who in turn stood on a giant sea-turtle that was swimming through a milky sea.

However, Job states, "He stretches out the North over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing.(26:7)"

Also, Isaiah mentions that God sits "above the circle of the earth.(40:22)" The New Testament also records a snatching away of believers. In Luke 17 Jesus talks of a singular event stating that "two men in one bed; and one will be taken, and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding in the same place; one will be taken, and the other will be left." These are events that happen at different times of the day, yet Jesus speaks of them as a single instance. Only someone who understands the revolution of a round earth could understand how day and night are relative and one act may affect people in both time frames.

When Genesis was written, The Greeks were beginning to tell of Apollos' flight across the sky in a flaming chariot. The Egyptians were worshipping the sun as Ra, deifying it. The Mesopotamians referred to the sun as "Shamosh" and called it the god of justice.

Genesis, however, calls the sun "a light in the expanse of the heavens" and views it as a thing, one created by God. That the Bible does not follow the naivet

[Khan]

Why do you keep pasting articles from other websites?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why do you keep pasting articles from other websites?

provoke discussion .. to share knowledge on topics i find interesting.... to answers people's numerous questions.

[Khan]

Why post it though? Why not just link us too the original page, at the moment it would look, to some people, like you are trying to pass other peoples work off as your own.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why post it though? Why not just link us too the original page, at the moment it would look, to some people, like you are trying to pass other peoples work off as your own.

That is completely ridiculous....

in most of my other posts i have clearly shown that it was Minister Lenny Eposito's work.... you OBVIOUSLY havent read any of the other threads i can tell or you wouldnt be making such a silly accusation..

why are you trying to hijack all my threads?... you got a problem with me?

[Khan]

No but you are only adding links in after I confront you about not citing sources, as your edit times show.

[GUNWOUNDS]

No but you are only adding links in after I confront you about not citing sources, as your edit times show.

Only on these recent ones i have forgotten .

Also on my other threads i show the letter that was written to Lenny Eposito.. and then i Show his letter and his response.

Obviously i am Not Lenny Eposito.  You are just trying to flame. Its quite obvious.

[Acriku]

It's only polite to add a link from where you got your information, so people interested can visit the site and find other things they like. Especially now when hits equal money.

Anyway, I can sum up this article in a few words. You take a verse, and you can exaggerate it to anything. You can also make it seem like the knowledge of God was working behind it, but it's still using your imagination and making up what they mean in the words. It's also interesting how when Christians are questioned in the bible, they switch to other word meanings that can give a different view, thus ducking the entire argument, but when they want to present an idea they do not try and figure out another meaning for key words.

[Wolf]

I think its time to take away Gunwounds' Internet  ;)

[Egeides]

Even something written by divine inspiration can/coult get the errors of those writing it, and often some inaccuracies can come simply from the scientific ideas of the time that are used to compare or anything else.

Example: "The sun turned around the Earth in one day."

It does not mean that the sun turned around the Earth but that the guy says he saw the sun passing over his head. With his scientific knowledge, he concluded that it was the sun that moved; his goal wasn't to write a scientific treatise, damnit! ;D

[GUNWOUNDS]

Even something written by divine inspiration can/coult get the errors of those writing it, and often some inaccuracies can come simply from the scientific ideas of the time that are used to compare or anything else.

Example: "The sun turned around the Earth in one day."

It does not mean that the sun turned around the Earth but that the guy says he saw the sun passing over his head. With his scientific knowledge, he concluded that it was the sun that moved; his goal wasn't to write a scientific treatise, damnit! ;D

yes but Hindu saying the earth was supported by elephants and Job from the Bible saying the Earth was hung out in nothingness

[GUNWOUNDS]

It's also interesting how when Christians are questioned in the bible, they switch to other word meanings that can give a different view, thus ducking the entire argument, but when they want to present an idea they do not try and figure out another meaning for key words.

No the key words are already found out by Christians.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think its time to take away Gunwounds' Internet

[Wolf]

I think I'm responding more to the huge deluge of threads that have come as a result of your exploration of the Internet. I log on. Wow. Bam. 10 New Threads. It's daunting.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think I'm responding more to the huge deluge of threads that have come as a result of your exploration of the Internet. I log on. Wow. Bam. 10 New Threads. It's daunting.

ya i understand i am pretty much done for the most part... just engaging in discussion now.

one thing i like is that Nobody is flaming !!!

I mean wow ... i am so use to threads catching on fire and going down in flames that i am marvelling at how everyone is being so civil in all of the different threads.

Perhaps it is why i am enjoying the discussions and wanting to post more.

[Dante]

'Circle of the earth' and 'hanging in nothingness' do not say that the earth was spherical. In fact 'circle' is a 2d shape anyway. Neither of those disagrees with a flat earth theory.

[GUNWOUNDS]

'Circle of the earth' and 'hanging in nothingness' do not say that the earth was spherical. In fact 'circle' is a 2d shape anyway. Neither of those disagrees with a flat earth theory.

well Job also says the North was "stretched out" along with "circle of earth"  that sounds like the 3-D north pole to me...

but inference of the earth being round comes from the text above where Jesus is quoted.

The reason Job is quoted above is not so much for claiming the earth was round but rather that the Earth was hung in outer space (hanging in nothingness) and  not "supported on backs of elephants" or "on the shoulders of Atlas"

[Khan]

http://www.theoi.com/Ouranos/Atlas.html

Atlas didn't carry the Earth, just the sky.

[Egeides]

yes but Hindu saying the earth was supported by elephants and Job from the Bible saying the Earth was hung out in nothingness

[TMA_1]

Well the bible is not a science book, but it isnt flawed in my beliefs either.

It teaches truth, and truths that are based on faith. You cannot disprove it or even try to prove it rationally because it wasent meant to be treated rationally but through faith. It is like putting a square peg in a round hole.

[GUNWOUNDS]

In my opinion, you may do an error that was done countless times before. It is possible that the greatest difference of understanding is between what you understand of Christianity and what you understand of Hinduism (since you probably don't have access to many hinduist theologians or philosophers: it's just the basics without the strong stuff}. Just like people from outside that would say that Christians drink blood and eat a corpse. Go read the Bhagavad-Gita and you in fact get a whole CONCEPTION of the world. I personally do not know enough other religions to go to such a comparative analysis, but I wonder if you didn't make this error...

i understand where you are coming from.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well the bible is not a science book, but it isnt flawed in my beliefs either.

It teaches truth, and truths that are based on faith. You cannot disprove it or even try to prove it rationally because it wasent meant to be treated rationally but through faith. It is like putting a square peg in a round hole.

yes i know i am not claiming the Bible to be a science textbook... i am just saying how interesting it is that when God was revealing his Word to the different people who composed Bible he also gave them tidbits of knowledge impossible for them to know otherwise back then.

[TMA_1]

its odd, but actually I totally agree with you on that man. :)

[Acriku]

No the key words are already found out by Christians.  Its the critics who come up with the false meaning for the key words and the christians have to correct them.

Here is a simple example...

Critic  says.....  "Hey look the Bible says Peter is Blue... hahaha he must have blue skin ... man the bible cant be true."

Christian says..... " Uh no the Hebrew word for that is "xxxxx" and it means "sad"  please check the correct meaning before making false claims."

Critic .. "oh i see"

See the problem is that English words can have 30 different meanings.... while the Hebrew is much less flexible.  So chances are if you go and find out what the exact Hebrew word was you will find out exactly what the meaning was.

That's a horrible example meant to belittle any critic of the bible, in other words a strawman, and I think that you know that. My observation holds true however.

[DukeLeto]

A set of documents having their origin in the All-knowing God of the universe would not be prone to scientific inaccuracies. If we are to believe that the Bible came from the same source that created the world, then is logical to assume it would not mis-represent the mechanics of the world

...

It does not focus on scientific facts about the creation, but where it mentions those things, it is accurate in its representation. This is exactly what we'd expect if the Bible had its origin in the One who created the universe and its scientific laws.

Therein lies the problem: Your entire argument is based around this one impossible-to-prove statement.

And the biblical texts do contain some major scientific fallacies:  If I am not mistaken, one person was said to live for 600 (or something) years; and frankly, large seas do not just part for the hell of it.