Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it is with you, weary as I may be of fighting. Scientists don't understand the full scientific nature in the Bible...and those 30% don't understand history.
There is no scientific nature of the Bible, full or incomplete. It makes no statements conceivably "scientific" in nature, even in passing, that can pass a simple four part test first developed to assess the validity of "scientific miracles of the Qur'an." Since I developed and wrote that original test almost ten years ago, here it is updated for application to the Bible instead
Quote:
For a “scientific statement” in the Miracle to be considered miraculous, it must be capable of passing a four-part test that removes the possibility of a non-miraculous origin of the information:
1. It must be an unambiguous statement of scientific fact requiring no elaborate interpretation to discern its factual meaning.
This point cannot be stressed too intensely. For the scientific information in question must actually be in the Bible itself, and not something added later as part of a commentary. If the critical information that distinguishes a “scientific miracle” from a casual statement of obvious fact is not explicitly in the clear words and meaning of the Bible, we cannot trust it as even being there.
If the verse has to be “interpreted” to extract hidden meaning that is not obviously there, the claim of a miracle has been “corrupted” by the commentary, and cannot be considered valid.
2. The fact must have been previously unknown to every other non-Jewish civilization that had contact with the Levant.
Key to the claim of “scientific miracles” in the Bible is the contention that the information included was unknown until recently, or at least until many years after the writing of the Bible. So, of course, if it can be shown that the information was already available to other peoples or cultures with whom the Jews were in contact, this claim is shown to be simply false.
It does not matter the source of that other culture’s information. It may have been a lucky guess, it may have been the result of precocious scientific achievement… in fact it may even potentially have been a miracle the other culture had experienced years before.
But if that information was available before the Bible was written down, there can be no credit to the claim of a “Biblical miracle.”
3. It must not be obvious to any casual observer.
This may sound like an obvious point, but given the nature of many of the stock “miracles” claimed by Christian apologists, it still must be discussed explicitly. For often, what is claimed to be a miracle of the Bible n is something of which any individual with his or her eyes open would have been aware.
If the information in question is available to anyone who simply looks at the phenomenon, requiring no sophisticated instruments, tools or interpretation, then it cannot be considered miraculous.
4. It must be true.
As with the previous point, this one sounds intuitively obvious. But it too requires explicit mention as occasionally the claims of Biblical “miracles” depend on misunderstandings or misstatements about reality and science. If the information in question is not actually true, then certainly it cannot be a miraculous revelation from God, as God should be expected to know what is or is not true.
Not a single "scientific' fact in the bible can pass this four part test. There is no "genuine scientific nature" of the Bible, any more than there is a genuine scientific nature to any competent work of fiction.
The operative term that SityData should have used was "virtually". To say that it is word-for-word is ALMOST true, but "virtually the same" or "almost entirely the same" work better.
And that is the difference between a perfect God and a mediocre one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter
Still, it is amazing that nearly all of it was the same after a thousand years.
There is nothing amazing about people deliberately setting out to copy a document and getting most of it right.
There is no scientific nature of the Bible, full or incomplete. It makes no statements conceivably "scientific" in nature, even in passing, that can pass a simple four part test first developed to assess the validity of "scientific miracles of the Qur'an." Since I developed and wrote that original test almost ten years ago, here it is updated for application to the Bible instead
Not a single "scientific' fact in the bible can pass this four part test. There is no "genuine scientific nature" of the Bible, any more than there is a genuine scientific nature to any competent work of fiction.
Okay, I like it so far, but keep in mind that, in the Bible, scientific "facts" (your kind) aren't limited to miracles. How about when Jesus was crucified and the Romans used a lancia to pierce his side. Water came out; watery, deluded blood. That is a fact. No other civilization knew that (probably because crucifixion was a Roman thing).
Also, I don't see how a fiction book of any kind couldn't have some science in it. Science is all around us and everything from gravity to water's behavior is dictated by science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
And that is the difference between a perfect God and a mediocre one.
There is nothing amazing about people deliberately setting out to copy a document and getting most of it right.
No, it is the difference between super-human writers and average writers. I love the fact that you misplace the blame, though.
And they did set out to copy it word for word, but they had only a few manuscripts and oral tradition...and managed to turn out something nearly the same over a millennium...that's the amazing part you seem to miss. But, hey, dismiss it, right?
Hurrah! Another post deflected by the so-called "HistorianDude"!
If you think that was a deflection, you are deeply confused. It was a redirection to the actual thread topic in the face of your effort to quibble out from underneath your rhetorical failure.
No, it is with you, weary as I may be of fighting. Scientists don't understand the full scientific nature in the Bible...and those 30% don't understand history.
The Bible is a book of faith, not a book of science.
And YOU have repeatedly been the one who displays a misunderstanding of what science is.
Science is a discipline. There are RULES to science. Scientific theories have to follow those rules.
Biblical "theories" (a contradiction, because the Bible espouses no theories of any kind) don't follow the rules of science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
