It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2012, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2012 08:56 PM by Thomas.)
It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
With respect to any holy book claiming divine wisdom, the true test of authenticity would be any provable knowledge not possible to be known by the original authors being provided by a supernatural being.

For example; if the Bible demonstrated knowledge of DNA, or atomic particles, or other universes, or the true age of the universe, this would lend credibility to the argument that a supernatural being gave this knowledge to humans who could not have known this on their own.

Does any such evidence exist in any holy book?

I believe the overwhelming evidence is that our holy books contain the opposite of correct factual knowledge and instead are shown to clearly have gotten it mostly wrong. The universe was not created in 6 days. Humans were not created as described. The entire physical history as portrayed has mostly been proven false. The evidence is clear that there was no world-wide flood, or exodus from Egypt, or a Sodom, or a Gomorra, nor is the earth flat, and the list goes on.

If the Bible is not true, then the God described in the Bible is not true. This argument goes for any and all holy books claiming divine inspiration. With respect to Christianity, we have to consider the story of Jesus and the resurrection as much of a fairy tale as Paul Bunion, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thomas's post
30-05-2012, 08:56 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2012 09:01 PM by San Onofre Surfer.)
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
Amazing how many fundamentalists on this board. I really liked Star Wars.

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 09:04 PM
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
It doesn't. The only people that I can think of that actively promote that their holy texts contain such knowledge are Muslims. For instance, it has been claimed in the past that the Koran has arcane knowledge of embryology. However, this has been shot down by pointing out that any scientific information that it contains was ripped off from the ancient Greeks, and even their knowledge wasn't 100% correct.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
30-05-2012, 10:19 PM
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
I think that if the bible authors knew more about science, the bible would be much different... such as displayed in this video that re-does the creation story with scientific accuracy and told as through the eyes of a person that might have written Genesis.




My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
31-05-2012, 05:59 AM
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
(30-05-2012 09:04 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  It doesn't. The only people that I can think of that actively promote that their holy texts contain such knowledge are Muslims. For instance, it has been claimed in the past that the Koran has arcane knowledge of embryology. However, this has been shot down by pointing out that any scientific information that it contains was ripped off from the ancient Greeks, and even their knowledge wasn't 100% correct.



Is this the same Koran that states that saltwater and freshwater don’t mix?

The bible may have contend all sorts of things, but as a large chunk was scrapped by some self appointed “holly editor” (catholic church?) we may never know.

But I have my doubts that it would be anymore enlightening that the usual “And lo, someone did something and god was/was not pleased and he smote him/his enemies and all was as it pretty much was before but with less people”

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Karl's post
31-05-2012, 08:39 AM
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
(30-05-2012 08:07 PM)Thomas Wrote:  With respect to any holy book claiming divine wisdom, the true test of authenticity would be any provable knowledge not possible to be known by the original authors being provided by a supernatural being.


I found the description of “true test of authenticity” interesting.
…although the examples you gave just explains that something is a historical fact or not.

Sticking to your description: what comes to mind is “Predictive power”.
…. obviously it is difficult to predict the future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
I think you and me have discussed this before ( I could be wrong).

The lack of advanced science and scientifically incorrect data in the Bible have no effect on proving/disproving falsehood.

The Bible isn't a science book. It never claimed to be. That's not its goal. It's the stories and instructions that are important. Remember, there is a huge difference between inspired and literally inerrant.

The scientific information or lack there of was because it was written by/to a culture that was scientifically ignorant and/or had a wrong understanding of science because of their primitive understandings.

God used communication styles and languages via authors, so that the people of the time could understand what He wanted. This is the inspired nature of the Bible.

Yes, talking about DNA would give more credibility to the Bible, but that wasn't the purpose or the concern of God. He was giving instructions to His people and His elect.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
31-05-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
The video was a great example of what could've been done. The fiery chariot in the sky, the descriptions of angels, many things in the bible while put in the words of the time are not things people had experienced. The argument is that the same types of stories could've been produced with accuracies. If you're going to make a childrens story you don't have to think up one off the top of your head. Many children's stories have to do with actual events which are explained in ways kids can understand. The bible is considered t be the truth handed down, so it should have more truth than blatant fiction.

I don't seriouly care either way since I generally don't have any interest on the subject. If the same stories in the present bible were written more historically accurate it would probably still be as offensive to me. Plenty of the things within just have no reason to be chronicled. Most of the men most holy were horrible people, and plenty of things that should never be considered just appeared. The commandments of the bible are the types of commandments that suggest destruction not creation. Humans are given liscense to wreak havok on the world which will eventually be destroyed anyway.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
31-05-2012, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 02:37 PM by Thomas.)
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
(31-05-2012 09:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The lack of advanced science and scientifically incorrect data in the Bible have no effect on proving/disproving falsehood

You are correct. No matter how erroneous the Bible is it does not disprove the existence of a god, just the described Christian god. A god may yet still exist. What I argue is that the document itself is highly suspect as declared divine truth.

(31-05-2012 09:14 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  God used communication styles and languages via authors, so that the people of the time could understand what He wanted. This is the inspired nature of the Bible.


Not intending to quote you out of context, but this is the classic defense complete. I cannot prove your statement in not true. What I can infer is that the idea of giving people wrong information because they are scientifically ignorant is not rational when similar information could have easily sufficed. Also, the obvious misunderstandings of the world smells too much like human superstition. As there is amply reason to believe it human guesswork, and no reason to believe it divine knowledge, we must accept human guesswork as the most rational position. Of course we could just believe that an all-knowing god gave incorrect information to humans for no apparent reason and our reasoning ability does not grasp the big picture. This would be irrational to believe true, even if it is true.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2012 02:53 PM by Thomas.)
RE: It’s what the Bible doesn’t say
(31-05-2012 08:39 AM)ahoy Wrote:  
(30-05-2012 08:07 PM)Thomas Wrote:  With respect to any holy book claiming divine wisdom, the true test of authenticity would be any provable knowledge not possible to be known by the original authors being provided by a supernatural being.


I found the description of “true test of authenticity” interesting.
…although the examples you gave just explains that something is a historical fact or not.

Sticking to your description: what comes to mind is “Predictive power”.
…. obviously it is difficult to predict the future.

Point taken. Alloy me to revise. I would not call for the bible to have predictions that come true later, such as the discovery of DNA. DNA existed, the discover came later. Just the current state of nature from a perspective that a human of those times could not know. Information that would need to have been given to them by a higher aurthority. DNA may be a poor example, but the earth being round would not be. A 360 world view would not change their meanings of scripture in any way that I can see. God creating the universe first and calling other stars "distant suns" would have been useful for our discussion today. We would ask, "How could they possibly have know that back then?" That's the "Wow" statement I'm looking for.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: