Just want to weight in here on a fr0d0 statement:
HOWEVER, when it was written, the Bible was written as factual. These people were writing how they thought it might of happened (in other words, they were writing a hypothesis). Many of the stories were based on legends passed down over the ages, accepted as truth.
In this way, the Bible was written as a scientific book. It told stories as literal events. Just because modern science has disproved its claims, doesn't mean it wasn't written originally as claims about reality.
(May 4, 2009 at 4:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The Bible touches on NO scientific principles.I actually agree with you, but not in the sense that you might agree with (if that makes sense). I agree that the Bible doesn't contain any scientific principles, because modern science has disproven the "literal events" that the Bible claims (i.e. 6 day creation, Noah's ark, etc). In this way the Bible is not scientific.
HOWEVER, when it was written, the Bible was written as factual. These people were writing how they thought it might of happened (in other words, they were writing a hypothesis). Many of the stories were based on legends passed down over the ages, accepted as truth.
In this way, the Bible was written as a scientific book. It told stories as literal events. Just because modern science has disproved its claims, doesn't mean it wasn't written originally as claims about reality.
