Science confirms the Bible?

[NoraBrimstone]

You can't ever let yourself be surprised by their stupidity. Next time some asshole talks about those 500 witnesses say: "Name one."

Maybe they're on about all the people who supposedly rose from
the grave when Jesus died. You'd think someone else would have written about that, but there you go.

[Foxaèr]

Reading and sensible discernment are two totally different things.

I have to agree that those who read the bible and believe it as non-fiction are rather insensible.

[Doubting Thomas]

Then why did the ancient authors of the bible think the world looked like this:



I even have a study bible which has a picture like this and explains that this is how the authors of the bible thought the world was.

Also: http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Universe-2-web.gif

---

The scriptures tell us the process of rain, not to any detail, but before science even considered it.

The bible authors thought that rain came when floodgates in the firmament were opened. When the Noah flood story talks about God opening the floodgates of heaven to make rain, they weren't being metaphorical.

[Godscreated]

The scriptures tell us the process of rain, not to any detail, but before science even considered it.

The bible authors thought that rain came when floodgates in the firmament were opened. When the Noah flood story talks about God opening the floodgates of heaven to make rain, they weren't being metaphorical.

The scriptures tell us that it had never rained before the flood, so how is what you have post any argument to what I said. By the way what I said did not come from Genesis.

[Esquilax]

The bible authors thought that rain came when floodgates in the firmament were opened. When the Noah flood story talks about God opening the floodgates of heaven to make rain, they weren't being metaphorical.

The scriptures tell us that it had never rained before the flood, so how is what you have post any argument to what I said. By the way what I said did not come from Genesis.

How is what you just posted an argument at all, GC? the flood being the first time it rained is not at all incompatible with the inaccurate method the biblical authors ascribed the process to. Try paying attention, huh?

[littleendian]

The scriptures tell us that it had never rained before the flood

What does your own thinking tell you, does that sound very likely?

[Doubting Thomas]

You're assuming that he's even thinking.

Where does it state that rain never occurred before the global flood story?

And anyone putting any stock in the impossible global flood myth is definitely not using their brain.

[DeistPaladin]

...Continued...

"The Bible tells us light moves, something the ancient people didn't know" Job 38:19-20

FAIL!

Job 38:19-20 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

Light doesn't "dwell" anywhere. Neither does "darkness". Darkness isn't even a thing. It's the absence of light. And the ancient people didn't know light moved? Really? They could see the light from a fireplace dancing on the walls of an otherwise unlit room?

Btw, a few verses later, we have one of my favorite "scientific" verses from Job:

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

Do I even need to comment here? Storehouse of snow? Treasures of Hail? Tucked away in storage to be used in a future battle? This is a book you really want to be parading around as a source of divinely inspired scientific knowledge?

"The Bible says air has weight" Job 28:25

FAIL!

Job 28:25 To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

Winds, not air. And the context seems to imply that "weight for the winds" refers to the force of the wind blowing. The NIV agrees with my interpretation.

"The Bible says winds blow in cyclones, not straight lines as the ancients thought" Eccl 1:6

DUBIOUS

Eccl 1:5-6 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

I included the verse previously that refers to the sun's movements across the sky and how it runs under the earth to return to its circuit, underscoring just how badly cherry-picked this list is, even before we examine the claims.

The ancient people had no idea the winds blew in cyclones? Really? The sea-faring people had never seen a storm at sea?

"Blood is the source of life and health, something the ancient people didn't know." Lev 17:11

DUBIOUS

Lev 17:11-12 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Really? The ancient people had no idea that people could die by bleeding to death? They had no idea that blood had some kind of vital contribution to life (acts of medical bleeding to get out the "bad blood" notwithstanding, I think they knew that bleeding someone dry would kill them).

Interestingly enough, the next verse forbids the drinking of blood, in contradiction to Jesus command that we drink of his blood and eat of his body to attain salvation.

...To be continued...

[DeistPaladin]

Reading and sensible discernment are two totally different things.

Apologists don't practice "sensible discernment". They practice "confirmation bias" to fit the beliefs they already have. The same post hoc reading of verses comes into play with so-called "prophecies" but I'll get to that pile next...

[Brian37]

I saw this same image on my facebook news feed posted by someone that I hardly talk to now.

this just seems too backwards for words.

anyone have any comments on this?

Yes, if these morons would not say "Oh this Muslim claims the Koran matches science, so Allah must be the one true god". They are idiots to think the bible is a science textbook.

They think other religions don't try the same bullshit?

Gravity is not Hindu based. Etropy is not Wicca based. And Thor does not make lightening either. Otherwise if Posiden makes hurricanes because we can prove the sky and ocean are real.

Elaborate tripe still has the stench of ignorance no matter how much you try to retrofit science to it.

It doesn't work when any religion does it.

---

Reading and sensible discernment are two totally different things.

Apologists don't practice "sensible discernment". They practice "confirmation bias" to fit the beliefs they already have. The same post hoc reading of verses comes into play with so-called "prophecies" but I'll get to that pile next...

They don't research, like method demands, they "research" like a fiction writer, they look for things to not only confirm their fantasy and twist it to falsely make it fit, they also use it as a marketing tool.

Planes fly regardless of the religions of the passengers or pilot. Computers work regardless of the religion of the users. Science is only dependent on questioning and testing and good quality control.

"Apologist" is simply an ancient word for marketing. Science has never been based on marketing, gravity is true regardless of who jumps off that building.

Humans merely do not want to face the fact that god/s are merely the product of our species wishful thinking and selfish narcissism.