Scientific ACCURACIES in the Bible

[Epimethean]

Christian: Because I have personally tested the promises found in the bible and know them to be true. In Short God has reveiled what He has promised if one follows the path subscribed by scripture.

Now, let's translate that with the use of the concordances of Bierce and Twain:

Christian: Because I know that what I feel is truth and when I read the bible, I felt that truth. In short, I have gotten from god what I told him I needed him to promise so that I could feel true in following the word of books he never wrote but which I need to ascribe to him so that I don't look any more idiotic for being a gullible pratt.

[Drich]

Spelling/grammar matters to those who need it to matter. I found on this website that it seems to matter the most to those who have no other way of responding to whatever topic being discussed. This is a good thing. Why? Because if I, or others like me do not have any decernable faults to exploit (to the point where the antagionist can feel superior in someway) the conversation ends, and all future conversations will be limited if not ignored completely. My personal pride is a small price to pay to continue speaking with you all and to have a continued on going oppertunity to bring clarity and understanding to those who truly seek it.

I ask God more than three times to remove this thorn from my flesh, and you know what he said? My grace is sufficient, and My power is made perfect in your weakness. you know what else I have come to understand? That God always leaves doubt. a way for the unbeliever to have an out. God (pre 2nd comming) will always allow you to have a choice, for that is what 'free will' is all about.

[Epimethean]

Aw, he's a right proper sweetie, your papa-doc deity, ain't he? I love how he takes time out from his busy schedule of being the most heinous, unbelievable twat of a supernatural entity just to console you in regard to your inadequacies.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Somebody who picks at your spelling is just covering up the fact that they can't find another argumend. It's just wasting time.

Bullshit. I and others here have shredded his assertons point by point and on every level, on TOP of pointing out his abject lack of education.

He is going on and on about lexicography and epistemology of words in Greek, Hebrew and English, and can't even spell basic vocabulary? It's. asinine.

---

Spelling/grammar matters to those who need it to matter. I found on this website that it seems to matter the most to those who have no other way of responding to whatever topic being discussed.

Right-- that is pure wishful thinking on your part.

This is a good thing. Why? Because if I, or others like me do not have any decernable faults to exploit (to the point where the antagionist can feel superior in someway) the conversation ends, and all future conversations will be limited if not ignored completely.

There is no conversation. There is only you blathering nonsense, and shooting holes in it.

My personal pride is a small price to pay to continue speaking with you all and to have a continued on going oppertunity to bring clarity and understanding to those who truly seek it.

Like anyone asked for your "wisdom " (cough, cough].

I ask God more than three times to remove this thorn from my flesh, and you know what he said? My grace is sufficient, and My power is made perfect in your weakness.

Oh, he spoke to you personally, you say. Do tell us all about your visit. And why didn't you suggest to him that he could make believers of us all with a few short visits?

I love debating with pathological liars..

you know what else I have come to understand?

Meaning that you just made it up, pulled it right out of your ass...

That God always leaves doubt. a way for the unbeliever to have an out. God (pre 2nd comming) will always allow you to have a choice, for that is what 'free will' is all about.

Well, doesn't that make things just too easy?

Nice to be able to just make up as you go along ....

[hoppimike]

I guess this thread is tricky in that there are potentially lots of scientific accuracies in there but it depends how you read it. If you go through and ignore aaaaaaaall of the erroneous bits (it's a long book!) and pick only the accurate bits, then yes it seems to be accurate, even if the bits you've chosen are very vague.

I think we can safely say that unless something absolutely staggering comes up, it's simply the law of averages that if you make enough (often vague or ambiguous) claims, every so often you'll get one right. The same is true of the Qur'an, as far as I know.

But who knows, maybe we will find something amazing in future o.O

I have yet to read the book cover to cover (I intend to read both the Bible and Qur'an through and maybe some other texts), so my understanding and input is based only on excerpts and a surrounding awareness, not the actual book itself

[Cyberman]

I think there's an important distinction we need to make between scientific references in the bible (or the kerrang or whatever) that were included because they were known at the time, and anything that we might interpret as scientific with the benefit of discoveries made centuries later in the real world. Things like the shape of the Earth, movements of the planets, oceanic currents etc were all well known to the ancients so it would be surprising if those things were not included. Other things, such as how television works (think I'm joking?) are pure wishful thinking and desperate at that.

[hoppimike]

I think there's an important distinction we need to make between scientific references in the bible (or the kerrang or whatever) that were included because they were known at the time, and anything that we might interpret as scientific with the benefit of discoveries made centuries later in the real world. Things like the shape of the Earth, movements of the planets, oceanic currents etc were all well known to the ancients so it would be surprising if those things were not included. Other things, such as how television works (think I'm joking?) are pure wishful thinking and desperate at that.

hm, fair points! Who was it who knew the shape of the Earth and all that though? I'm confused >.<

I also found this:





It does seem like there is a reasonable amount of evidence to back up Jesus. I guess that's not a scientific accuracy though. Most research is needed methinks o.O

[Minimalist]

The Greeks, of course.

Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.

[Cato]

I think there's an important distinction we need to make between scientific references in the bible (or the kerrang or whatever) that were included because they were known at the time, and anything that we might interpret as scientific with the benefit of discoveries made centuries later in the real world. Things like the shape of the Earth, movements of the planets, oceanic currents etc were all well known to the ancients so it would be surprising if those things were not included. Other things, such as how television works (think I'm joking?) are pure wishful thinking and desperate at that.

hm, fair points! Who was it who knew the shape of the Earth and all that though? I'm confused >.<

I also found this:





It does seem like there is a reasonable amount of evidence to back up Jesus. I guess that's not a scientific accuracy though. Most research is needed methinks o.O

What fucking evidence for jesus? The video? For fuck's sake you don't admit this video as evidence or in your faux atheism expect atheists to treat this as proof, do you?

If so, fuck off.

[Angrboda]

You know, I've got this recipe, and if I follow it, I end up with a sweet, good-to-eat treat. I guess that's proof that Betty Crocker is a goddess because cake is divine. Mere mortals couldn't invent this stuff.

If you start out with the premise that man can't do anything without God's help, you're going to find out that you're right. Not because you are in fact right, but because the human mind's natural inclinations make it a lousy reasoner. The mind isn't a piece of godly fire, it's an evolved tool that is less interested in what's right than in what works; and it's terrible at double-checking its own results. (A recent text labeled it a "makes-sense" reasoner. When we have an idea about the way something happens, we examine possible answers until we find one that "makes sense," and then we stop thinking. We know from logic, science and psychology that this is not an effective method for finding answers. But the brain is built, half to find practical fixes, and half to shield us from the errors in our reasoning.)