(September 25, 2011 at 5:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: But the Bible makes claims that are directly at odds with what we are able to scientifically demonstrate.I don't agree. A correct exegesis of the text reveals no scientific claim. God revealed nothing beyond the understanding of the physical world at the time.
(September 25, 2011 at 5:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: Salty believes things that are completely unscientific AS A DIRECT RESULT of what is written in that book, and her refusal to acknowledge that it could be wrong.Agreed.
(September 25, 2011 at 5:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: If you don't get your science from scripture, I applaud you. But a lot of people do, which is what we are challenging. How else could we do that without showing how scientifically inaccurate it is?No problem at all with that, and I would support you.
(September 25, 2011 at 5:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: So is your bible an accurate and/or reliable source of information or not? In other words, is there anything in it which is meant to be taken literally?It is an accurate source of information about God. Take it all literally on those grounds by all means.
(September 25, 2011 at 5:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: Please don't misrepresent my position: I see almost as much science in religious texts as I do in Jack and the Beanstalk.I would agree.
(September 25, 2011 at 5:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: Salty expressed his her acceptance of the shape of the world, a physical fact which is at odds with the picture presented in the bible that Salty holds to be "historical and divine". Clearly it is neither, at least on this point.Historically debateable I'd agree.
