The Bible is Scientifically Accurate....Huh?

[Spartan]

I got emailed the link to this website by a fellow non-believer this morining. It purports that not only is the bible scientifically accurate; but that it contained many truths about the physical universe that we all just failed to see.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html


Here's a snippet it should be good for a laugh at least:

Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

* Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
* Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
* Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
* Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
* Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
* Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
* Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
* Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
* Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
* and many others.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.



Wow, can't argue with that logic.

[Darth Wong]

You know, I can cherry-pick things out of Lord of the Rings which are scientifically accurate too.

Sword through face is lethal (Mines of Moria, battle of Helms Deep, etc)
Law of gravity (Mines of Moria)
Leverage principle (trebuchets used in defense of Minas Tirith)
etc.

I guess that means Lord of the Rings is scientifically accurate

[EmperorSolo51]

I think this would be a great oppurtunity to post this little gem I found while rummaging through Talk.Origins. It is in my opinion, the absolute explanation as to what is fundamentally wrong with fundamentalism who back themselves into a corner by advocating "Sola Scriptura" without actually realizing how small thier corner really is.

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible,
being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and
interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal
interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation,
one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the
Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It
is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method,
as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the
interpretation of Scripture.


The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the
Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal
meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged
in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.


The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American
Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting,
conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of
fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of
Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the
bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the
fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the
world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation,
equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the
20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning
more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among
Catholics.


Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the
Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths
included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting
these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever
the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable
adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only
source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the
Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.


The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is
that, refusing to take into account the historical character of
biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full
truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God,
fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the
human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been
expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed,
under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited
capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the
biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.
It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in
language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no
attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be
found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process
extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very
diverse historical situations.


Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain
details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical
events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material
which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers
historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the
past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of
symbolic or figurative meaning.


Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems
presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek
form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old
or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of
the "rereadings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within
the Bible itself.


In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account
the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final
stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the
initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time
fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first
Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by
Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we
find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its
direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by
the Gospel itself.


Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It
accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply
because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue
with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and
faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the
Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are
marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite contrary to the
Christian Gospel.


Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone,"
fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the
tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in
union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails
to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church
and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of
which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this,
fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance
the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become
part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the
church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation
which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and
draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.


The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to
people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life.
It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are
pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not
necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.
Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually
invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life
a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of
the biblical message with what are in fact its human.

[General Zod]

Standard apologistic tripe. If it really was scientifically accurate, they would have gotten Pi right when writing the damn thing.

[Magnetic]

Standard apologistic tripe. If it really was scientifically accurate, they would have gotten Pi right when writing the damn thing.

Hey, General Zod, where the verse you are refering to. I've heard this a few times (read it, rather) and would like to look it up myself as well.

Thanks!

[General Zod]

Standard apologistic tripe. If it really was scientifically accurate, they would have gotten Pi right when writing the damn thing.

Hey, General Zod, where the verse you are refering to. I've heard this a few times (read it, rather) and would like to look it up myself as well.

Thanks!

2 Chronicles 4:2

4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Skeptics Annotated

[url=

[Magnetic]

Standard apologistic tripe. If it really was scientifically accurate, they would have gotten Pi right when writing the damn thing.

Hey, General Zod, where the verse you are refering to. I've heard this a few times (read it, rather) and would like to look it up myself as well.

Thanks!

2 Chronicles 4:2

4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Thanks, General Zod.

Okay, I'm not a math major. Pi is 3.14 ~ What is this verse saying it is?

Skeptics Annotated

[url=

[Magnetic]

Oops! I ended up in your quote.

[General Zod]

Someone more skilled in mathematics than me can explain it better, but basically it's saying that Pi is 3.0, not 3.14.

[nickolay1]

The verse simply states that the diameter of a circle was 10 cubits while the circumference was 30. To have been an actual circle, the circumference should have been 10pi (31.4159...).

[Lord Zentei]

While PI is an irrational number and so cannot be written down completely (except as a symbol representing it or as a formula), one would think that they would manage more than zero decimal places. You know, just saying "over thirty cubits" would have been a huge improvement.

Seriously, though, the business about PI is pretty minor compared with the idiocies in the Book of Job and in Genesis, just to name two of the more egrarious examples: these errors cannot be explained away as approximations.

[bekeleven]

this has the long list. It has pi is 3, the earth is flat... actually, I compiled a list of goelogical phenomena in the bible. Keep in mind that it's in no way complete...

Geological pheonomena in the bible

[DPDarkPrimus]

It's all post-hoc rationalization and nit-picked apologetics. The scientific inaccuracies prevelent in the Bible are so simple that to claim that such advanced concepts were known is absurd.

[Darth Servo]

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

(all verese quoted from the KJV)

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

A verse that talks about God sitting on the Earth and ourerspace as a curtain or tent is scientifically accurate?

The verse immediately before is another one that talks about the Earth having FOUNDATIONS indicating its flat.

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The fundie idiot things this says anything about infinities? He's pulling things out of his ass again. And in outerspace, there is no "higher".

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

I see nothing saying matter and energy can't be destroyed. And there are plenty of other verses that say heaven and earth will end.

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

These idiots think ancient men couldn't figure out that rivers run to the sea? And the verse doesn't exactly say what that place the waters return to, does it. So what IS the Bible's answer for where the waters come from and supposedly return to? Storehouses for hail and snow (Job 38:22) that ice comes from a womb (Job 38:29) and that rain has a 'Father' (Job 38:28) and comes from jars in the sky (Job 38:37).

The Bible's description of the hydrologic cycle is a bad joke.

And Job 38:10 explicitly states that the size of the ocean is determined by doors set in it. lol

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

All it says is that such things cannot be measured which is false. We have a very good idea of how much mass the Earth has which is GREATER than the "sands of the sea". We also know roughly how many stars are in our galaxy while the Bible doesn't even try to give a number.

Besides, any Neanderthaul could simply look up in the sky and think "wow, there are a lot of those little specks of light up there." No divine intelligence or revelation required.

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Again, the loon doen't think ancient man couldn't figure out that things wear out? What an astounding prediction. If the Bible is so great with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why don't any Fundies ever understand it?

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

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.

Again, the fundie idiot thinks ancient man couldn't figure out that if you bleed enough, you die?

Besides, the verse is talking about spiritual life here, blood atoning for sins. You'll notice the Bible NEVER describes what blood's role in life is (carrying oxygen to the body's cells).

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

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.

Fundie moron figures the ancient Hebrews never saw a tornado? Besides, the wind travels in more than just two directions.

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

He's bullshitting. The verse says NOTHING about gravity. And even if it did, even toddlers can figure out that things fall DOWN and not up.

and many others.

Considering the quality of the first list, I'm not imipressed and not about to take the guy's word on faith.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

Bullshit.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

Most of which involve colorful interpretation of the verse in question.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The best thing about that quote about the sky like a tent is that it actually is a verse talking about the Earth being flat. Just think about the analogy and you'll see why.

[Wicked Pilot]

I have yet to find a spelling error in my Bible. Obviousily it is divinely inspired. Or God uses WordPerfect.

[defanatic]

I think that the first one (round earth ) is a load of crock. Terry Pratchett's Discworld is also round, but that does not make it scientifically accurate (this analogy also works in that whoever wrote the Bible believed they lived on a disc... Or disk. ???).

[Darth Servo]

I think that the first one (round earth ) is a load of crock. Terry Pratchett's Discworld is also round, but that does not make it scientifically accurate (this analogy also works in that whoever wrote the Bible believed they lived on a disc... Or disk. ???).

You typical fundie will INSIST that the original Hebrew word means 'sphere'

[DPDarkPrimus]

I think that the first one (round earth ) is a load of crock. Terry Pratchett's Discworld is also round, but that does not make it scientifically accurate (this analogy also works in that whoever wrote the Bible believed they lived on a disc... Or disk. ???).

You typical fundie will INSIST that the original Hebrew word means 'sphere'

But then you can point out that, in fact, they had a different world specifically for spherical objects than the one that was used in that verse.

[Setzer]

Someone more skilled in mathematics than me can explain it better, but basically it's saying that Pi is 3.0, not 3.14.

So? Maybe it was just built by Bloody Stupid Johnson?

(cookie for the reference)

[Lord Zentei]

Someone more skilled in mathematics than me can explain it better, but basically it's saying that Pi is 3.0, not 3.14.

So? Maybe it was just built by Bloody Stupid Johnson?

(cookie for the reference)

At least it would be less egrarious than the bath-room in the Unseen University (takes cookie).

[Setzer]

I was reffering to the New Pie, actually.

[Darth Servo]

But then you can point out that, in fact, they had a different world specifically for spherical objects than the one that was used in that verse.

Really? I haven't heard that one before. What are the different Hebrew words in question?

[Metatwaddle]

I love the way fundies are so eager to quote the "circle of the earth" verse while ignoring the "four corners of the earth" ones (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2).

I also love the way "Wow, there are a lot of stars up there" is suddenly a Sign of Great Scientific Sophistication.

[DPDarkPrimus]

But then you can point out that, in fact, they had a different world specifically for spherical objects than the one that was used in that verse.

Really? I haven't heard that one before. What are the different Hebrew words in question?

To be honest, I don't remember, but other people have pointed that out in threads I've read on other forums.