The Bible

[Nort Eurasia]

I like the KJV. It serves as an excellent book stopper for my biology and physics books.

[Gagatron]

It sounds like a metaphor.

The creator of the universe gave birth to the heavens, and then entered the heavens to create the planetary powers.

That's what that sounds like to me.

Now you're catching on. A metaphor. Exactly.

You know I've been trying to tell you that the creation story could be true if you looked at it like an allegory.

[Farnhamia]

Now you're catching on. A metaphor. Exactly.

You know I've been trying to tell you that the creation story could be true if you looked at it like an allegory.

No, you've been trying to tell me that it is, in actual fact, true. That's certainly what you've been saying about the Flood. You even went so far as to say that all of humanity was living in Mesopotamia, so it was easy for a localized flood to kill everyone.

I can deal with the stories in Genesis - you know that there are two creation stories, right? - as allegory. The trouble is, people, like the fellow on the previous page, keep insisting that the Bible is a history book and a science book.

[Gagatron]

I can deal with the stories in Genesis - you know that there are two creation stories, right? - as allegory. The trouble is, people, like the fellow on the previous page, keep insisting that the Bible is a history book and a science book.

Of course it's not a science book. It does state some scientific facts, though I can't remember where they are at the moment. But it IS most definitely a history book. It has to be. We have to know the history of our faith, to help us achieve validity.

Your right, some of the supernatural events are hard to believe. But they are very important to our faith, and may very well be true. Miracles happen every day.

[Farnhamia]

I can deal with the stories in Genesis - you know that there are two creation stories, right? - as allegory. The trouble is, people, like the fellow on the previous page, keep insisting that the Bible is a history book and a science book.

Of course it's not a science book. It does state some scientific facts, though I can't remember where they are at the moment. But it IS most definitely a history book. It has to be. We have to know the history of our faith, to help us achieve validity.

Your right, some of the supernatural events are hard to believe. But they are very important to our faith, and may very well be true. Mracles happen every day.

I've already said that the OT contains some history, and the NT does, too. The Gospels certainly refer to real events and real people, Herod, Augustus, Tiberius, Herod Antipas, Pilate.

As for science, I'm interested in what you think are the scientific facts in the Bible, beyond the existence of pople and animals and matter.

[Gagatron]

Of course it's not a science book. It does state some scientific facts, though I can't remember where they are at the moment. But it IS most definitely a history book. It has to be. We have to know the history of our faith, to help us achieve validity.

Your right, some of the supernatural events are hard to believe. But they are very important to our faith, and may very well be true. Mracles happen every day.

I've already said that the OT contains some history, and the NT does, too. The Gospels certainly refer to real events and real people, Herod, Augustus, Tiberius, Herod Antipas, Pilate.

As for science, I'm interested in what you think are the scientific facts in the Bible, beyond the existence of pople and animals and matter.

A quick google search found this.

It'd be interesting to hear a response to this.

[Bergnovinaia]

Personally, I don't like the King James Version very much... it's full or words nobody uses anymore, like ye, cometh, etc. Why write a book in a dead language... it'd be like writing a novel in Latin.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Personally, I don't like the King James Version very much... it's full or words nobody uses anymore, like ye, cometh, etc. Why write a book in a dead language... it'd be like writing a novel in Latin.

It wasn't a dead language at the time!
And besides, it's just English, and it was still evolving to where it is today (and continues to evolve).

[Gagatron]

I've already said that the OT contains some history, and the NT does, too. The Gospels certainly refer to real events and real people, Herod, Augustus, Tiberius, Herod Antipas, Pilate.

As for science, I'm interested in what you think are the scientific facts in the Bible, beyond the existence of pople and animals and matter.

A quick google search found this.

It'd be interesting to hear a response to this.

So, I'm waiting.

[Bergnovinaia]

Personally, I don't like the King James Version very much... it's full or words nobody uses anymore, like ye, cometh, etc. Why write a book in a dead language... it'd be like writing a novel in Latin.

It wasn't a dead language at the time!
And besides, it's just English, and it was still evolving to where it is today (and continues to evolve).

I suppose...

They way I figure it, if you want to read the Bible, read it in a language you can understand and for many people, that language is not old English.

*A side note--most churches that use the KJV are manipulative and put bondage on the atendees of the church. I much prefer the NIV.

[Farnhamia]

A quick google search found this.

It'd be interesting to hear a response to this.

So, I'm waiting.

And wait you shall, child, while I go Christmas shopping and live some of my life. I will refer you, on the atomic theory, to Democritus of Abdera. And something along the lines of "the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is ..." and then some nice number out to a couple of dozen decimal places, or a statement that there are X number of planets in the solar system, rather than poetic metaphors for the rising and setting of the sun or the fact that there are an amazing number of stars in the night sky. But I'll deal with a few later. And, since the next several days are likely to be busy, I'll wish you a very Merry Christmas now.

[Eireann Fae]

So, I'm waiting.

What a petulant child you are.

Hebrews 11:3 - Doesn't say shit about atoms. The author is grasping at straws, and he's already halfway down the cliff.
Colossians 1:16-17 - Just because science doesn't necessarily understand how protons are held together doesn't mean some invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being is holding all matter together.
Isaiah 40:22 - The Earth being roughly spherical is a fact known to civilizations for thousands of years. That such is referenced in the Bible is nothing remarkable.
Job 26:10 - This entire chapter is rather fascinating, but nothing special. Of course there is a horizon - only about half the planet can directly receive light from the Sun. Doesn't mean God personally brought down a brush of darkness and painted the night sky over half the Earth.

I'm not going to go down the page, but it's all a bunch of crap.

[Gagatron]

So, I'm waiting.

What a petulant child you are.

Hebrews 11:3 - Doesn't say shit about atoms. The author is grasping at straws, and he's already halfway down the cliff.
Colossians 1:16-17 - Just because science doesn't necessarily understand how protons are held together doesn't mean some invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being is holding all matter together.
Isaiah 40:22 - The Earth being roughly spherical is a fact known to civilizations for thousands of years. That such is referenced in the Bible is nothing remarkable.
Job 26:10 - This entire chapter is rather fascinating, but nothing special. Of course there is a horizon - only about half the planet can directly receive light from the Sun. Doesn't mean God personally brought down a brush of darkness and painted the night sky over half the Earth.

I'm not going to go down the page, but it's all a bunch of crap.

You're a pagan aren't you? I wonder what leaps of faith it took to believe in the Gods and Goddesses. I smell hypocrisy when you won't accept reasonably good evidence of scientific knowledge from the Bible.

[Eireann Fae]

You're a pagan aren't you? I wonder what leaps of faith it took to believe in the Gods and Goddesses. I smell hypocrisy when you won't accept reasonably good evidence of scientific knowledge from the Bible.

I believe in no god, pagan or otherwise. That odour must emanate from your upper lip, for I haven't said anything at all hypocritical. The Bible makes some true statements - the Earth is round, there is wind, the globe revolves, etc. Nobody has disputed that there are some facts listed in the Bible. What is up for dispute is whether the biblical interpretation of these events (there's an invisible being that shaped the earth and started spinning it around a star) is accurate.

[Gagatron]

You're a pagan aren't you? I wonder what leaps of faith it took to believe in the Gods and Goddesses. I smell hypocrisy when you won't accept reasonably good evidence of scientific knowledge from the Bible.

I believe in no god, pagan or otherwise. That odour must emanate from your upper lip, for I haven't said anything at all hypocritical. The Bible makes some true statements - the Earth is round, there is wind, the globe revolves, etc. Nobody has disputed that there are some facts listed in the Bible. What is up for dispute is whether the biblical interpretation of these events (there's an invisible being that shaped the earth and started spinning it around a star) is accurate.

So, there's a lot more. Read the medical evidence. That'll be interesting.

[Galiria]

What a petulant child you are.

Hebrews 11:3 - Doesn't say shit about atoms. The author is grasping at straws, and he's already halfway down the cliff.
Colossians 1:16-17 - Just because science doesn't necessarily understand how protons are held together doesn't mean some invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being is holding all matter together.
Isaiah 40:22 - The Earth being roughly spherical is a fact known to civilizations for thousands of years. That such is referenced in the Bible is nothing remarkable.
Job 26:10 - This entire chapter is rather fascinating, but nothing special. Of course there is a horizon - only about half the planet can directly receive light from the Sun. Doesn't mean God personally brought down a brush of darkness and painted the night sky over half the Earth.

I'm not going to go down the page, but it's all a bunch of crap.

You're a pagan aren't you? I wonder what leaps of faith it took to believe in the Gods and Goddesses. I smell hypocrisy when you won't accept reasonably good evidence of scientific knowledge from the Bible.

Ye gods, seriously, things aren't one thing or another. It's not a case of either all of the Bible is scientifically true or none of it is true.

If I wrote a story about an ant that spontaneously turned into a huge tree with arms for branches which then proceeded to make a cat talk and ordered that cat to free its fellow felines from human slavery, but at the same time also happen to explain that the tree uses photosynthesis to get energy, that doesn't mean the entire story is true and scientific, it just means the bit about the photosynthesis is true and scientific.

[Gagatron]

You're a pagan aren't you? I wonder what leaps of faith it took to believe in the Gods and Goddesses. I smell hypocrisy when you won't accept reasonably good evidence of scientific knowledge from the Bible.

Ye gods, seriously, things aren't one thing or another. It's not a case of either all of the Bible is scientifically true or none of it is true.

If I wrote a story about an ant that spontaneously turned into a huge tree with arms for branches which then proceeded to make a cat talk and ordered that cat to free its fellow felines from human slavery, but at the same time also happen to explain that the tree uses photosynthesis to get energy, that doesn't mean the entire story is true and scientific, it just means the bit about the photosynthesis is true and scientific.

Why would the Bible be a mix? It's either true or it isn't, there's no middle ground. If there's a single truth in the Bible, then it's alikely that the rest of it must be true. If there's a single lie, then the whol Bible becomes false. There's no middle ground.

[Galiria]

Ye gods, seriously, things aren't one thing or another. It's not a case of either all of the Bible is scientifically true or none of it is true.

If I wrote a story about an ant that spontaneously turned into a huge tree with arms for branches which then proceeded to make a cat talk and ordered that cat to free its fellow felines from human slavery, but at the same time also happen to explain that the tree uses photosynthesis to get energy, that doesn't mean the entire story is true and scientific, it just means the bit about the photosynthesis is true and scientific.

Why would the Bible be a mix? It's either true or it isn't, there's no middle ground. If there's a single truth in the Bible, then it's alikely that the rest of it must be true. If there's a single lie, then the whol Bible becomes false. There's no middle ground.

Why? Why must there be no middle ground? Your argument is - from what I can tell - that since there's scientific fact in the Bible, all of it must be true, I point to my example as to why that's a very black and white (and silly) view of things.

[Avenio]

A quick google search found this.

It'd be interesting to hear a response to this.

So, I'm waiting.

Have you heard of something called confirmation bias? It's essentially the phenomena one of selectively interpreting or recalling information for the express purpose of furthering one's own hypothesis. An example of this is occurs in psychic 'cold readings', whereby the psychic uses ambiguous enough terms that the participant 'creates' data to support it, making it seem as though the psychic was able to predict very precise details about the subject's life.

This website is a very good example of this; the authors, in an attempt to prove their evidently literalist views about the Bible, went back through the texts and found passages that, when construed in a certain way (Which the article provides for us), provide enough vague evidence to allow us to fill in the blanks on what the authors truly meant. For example, look at the bit on Pangaea;

Pangaea and Peleg:

The Pangaea theory is the hypothesis that the continents once formed a single landmass (called Pangaea which means 'all lands' in Greek) before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations. Although the idea caused sharp disagreement among geologists, evidence in favour of continental drift is now extensive. Geological similarities on matching continental edges suggest that they were once joined. Also, the continents resemble pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle that fit together perfectly. For example the coastline of the West Coast of Africa fits perfectly with the coastline of East Coast of South America

And what does the Bible say..

Genesis 10:25 speaks of a man, whose name Peleg means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided.

However in the interest of fairness, it has to be mentioned that there are those that believe that a far more likely explanation for Genesis 10:25 is that it refers to the division of humans into many diverse communities which started with the linguistic division at Babel. However, this is hard to believe since only eight verses later the Bible states, 'Now the whole earth had one language and one speech' (Genesis 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, 'the LORD confused the language of all the earth' (Genesis 11:9). .

The author introduces the reader to the concept of Pangaea, which is, for the purposes of introducing laypeople, correct enough. However, the author pulls together two completely unrelated portions of the text, one referring to the lineage of the tribes of Israel (The first) and the second is a part of the story of the Tower of Babel, taken out of the context of the actual story itself.

The author then goes on to create a link, based solely upon his/her intepretation of these events, describing the division of the areas the Israelites were aware of, as they were apparently split between several lineages of the children of Noah, (This, in fact, is the traditional interpretation of the text, dating back to the days of Flavius Josephus) and the aftermath of the fall of the Tower of Babel and the creation of the different languages of the Earth. Interestingly, though the article refers to the two passages as relatively close together, ("only eight verses later"), the two events happened, even in the Bible's own internal timeline, thousands of years apart, whereas the article makes the division of the continents seem as if they were almost simultaneous. Finally, according to most Biblical literalists, even, the division of the continents would have most likely occurred during the Noachian Flood, not centuries after Noah's death, and least of not while Babylon (Dated back to approximately 2000 B.C.) was still inhabited.

So no, this isn't proof, by any means. And to add to this point, something has always confused me; if God intended the Bible to be a book of science, why did he cause the writers to describe the actual science in such vague, easily misinterpreted and oft-metaphorical terms? Surely some diagrams of the atom, maybe a clearly-written and concise description of the germ theory of disease, a description of the planet Neptune, perhaps, would have gone a long way to convince us of its veracity. And please, the idea that the writers wouldn't understand it shouldn't be an issue, since God himself, if he inspired such a book of knowledge, should have been able to find a way to make it clear to both the writers and the scientists today.

[Ashmoria]

A quick google search found this.

It'd be interesting to hear a response to this.

So, I'm waiting.

gee if you look at it and squint really hard it doesnt always totally defy scientific reality.

i wasnt impressed.

[Rokartian States]

Personally, I don't like the King James Version very much... it's full or words nobody uses anymore, like ye, cometh, etc. Why write a book in a dead language... it'd be like writing a novel in Latin.

So, teh winrar?

[Gagatron]

So no, this isn't proof, by any means. And to add to this point, something has always confused me; if God intended the Bible to be a book of science, why did he cause the writers to describe the actual science in such vague, easily misinterpreted and oft-metaphorical terms? Surely some diagrams of the atom, maybe a clearly-written and concise description of the germ theory of disease, a description of the planet Neptune, perhaps, would have gone a long way to convince us of its veracity. And please, the idea that the writers wouldn't understand it shouldn't be an issue, since God himself, if he inspired such a book of knowledge, should have been able to find a way to make it clear to both the writers and the scientists today.

I think God's preferred method of communicating with humans was through visions. I believe when Moses wrote the creation story he wrote what he was seeing, which could have been the big bang, or any sort of occurence. I think a description of something scientific, would not have helped as you said. Back in those days, people would not have been able to prove the germ theory, or Neptune's existence, so the text would be discarded quickly and forgotton. Other things that the Bible says, were already proven or at least acceptable to some extent to the Hebrew people. Everybody had heard of the flood. And everybody had heard stories of the gods creating the Earth. The Bible was written, however, to be accessible to people in every time period. It uses metaphors, but not lies, to tell certain stories. That said, a modern reader should unlock the metaphors and poems to see that the Bible really does describe things perfectly. Comparing the creation story to the Big Bang is eye-opening. But the reason the Bible is not clear, is because wisdom is to be gained through experience, not through learning. You cannot be taught about God's power in the universe, you must experience it. The Bible sets forth the necessary guidelines for experience life with God, and then leaves the rest of the journey to the believer.

[Lauchlin]

Comparing the creation story to the Big Bang is eye-opening.

I'd be very interested to see how you reconcile both accounts of the Creation in Genesis with the scientifically accepted sequence of events.

[Gagatron]

Comparing the creation story to the Big Bang is eye-opening.

I'd be very interested to see how you reconcile both accounts of the Creation in Genesis with the scientifically accepted sequence of events.

I've done it before...

[Lauchlin]

I'd be very interested to see how you reconcile both accounts of the Creation in Genesis with the scientifically accepted sequence of events.

I've done it before...

If you did it here, I'd appreciate a link. To me, they are wildly contradictory, and I've never heard anyone claim that the Genesis creations had a one to one allegorical correspondence to reality.