Scientifc accuracy in the Scriptures.

[bluethread]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 19 by bluethread]

Maybe I'm just tired, but honestly my head is spinning a bit here. It sounds like you are asking more than one thing, but stating things slightly different each time. I already answered the OP, but now I will go back and answer as best I can your other questions.

Question 1:

If the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement? Yes or no?

What? Do you mean to ask if I would find the document suspect because it has some accurate information in it? Why would I do that? Of course not. No.

However, I'm not clear I'm answering what you are actually asking since the question seems very odd. Do some people suspect documents based on the accurate information they find within? Don't people usually suspect documents that contain inaccurate information? Are there double negatives going on here that I'm missing?

Question 2:

If a statement, common to many grade school science texts, was found in a document that many claimed to be inspired by a deity, would it be reasonable to reject that claim based entirely on the scientific accuracy of that one statement?

See, now you've changed the question yet again. It's subtle, but that's why I'm confused.

I will try to break this down:

1) There is a statement that is common to many grade school science texts.
Ok, are we assuming this is a scientifically validated statement? Like water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen? Or is it an unvalidated, but possible hypothesis like the big bang or abiogenesis. Sorry for being so picky, but it's not entirely clear what you mean.

-> I'm going to assume you mean a scientifically validated statement. Water = H20

2) This statement was found in a document that many claim is inspired by a deity.
Ok, let's say the document in question stated that water = H20.

3) Would it be reasonable to reject that claim based entirely on the scientific accuracy of that one statement.
Now you've completely lost me. Why would I reject the claim about water based on the accuracy of the claim about water? Or do you mean the fact that some people claim the document is inspired by a deity?

Are you trying to ask (in my hypothetical) if I would reject that water = H20 because I happen to find that statement contained in a document that some claim is inspired by a deity? Of course not. I already know water = H20 from other sources. (and I've also done the whole making H2 and Os in chemistry class).

So no, I do not reject statements outright just because I find them in documents that are claimed to be inspired by anyone or anything. Would I be suspicious if I didn't already know the information in question? Darn right I would be. Wouldn't you?

I'll give you an example. I write the following short manuscript which I claim is inspired by Nambalina the grey speckled pixie:

Yonder they traveled under the burning sun. Twice they came across the sacred elixir which shone pink and smelled of jasper. At noon, rain clouds formed in the sky in the shape of a fooxample. A quick drink of the pink source of life brought them home.

So, do you think rain clouds can form the shape of a fooxample? What's that? You don't know what a fooxmample is? I have one right here on my desk. Trust me, clouds can make that shape. Now, yes or no, do you trust that statement about the rain clouds? Why or why not?

My point is that if a statement can be validated, then I will accept that statement. You seem to be trying to setup some sort of strawman that non theists don't believe a single word in any holy document. Is that what you are getting at? Of course we are sceptical about things that cannot be validated, especially if they are surrounded by clearly nonsensical claims. These are two different things though.

Again, I'm not clear what the point of this OP is. Are you claiming some people reject ALL words in a document if the document is claimed to be inspired by a deity? I've never made that claim.

I am, however, very suspicious and doubtful about claims from these holy documents that CANNOT be validated by any other means. After all, why should we accept unvalidated claims from any source?

[McCulloch]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

Firstly, the argument seems moot. There are no such scriptures.

Secondly, if there was, but it could be shown scientifically that it got some other facts wrong, it would be disqualified as being divine revelation.

Thirdly, scientific accuracy does not prove divine authorship. Scientific innacuracy disproves divine authorship.

[Tiberius47]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

If it could be shown that Sumerian precursors hadn't made it common knowledge, yes...

The initial source of the assertion is not really the question. The question is, if the Scriptures plainly stated that the sun was the center of the solar system and the planets orbit the sun, would that statement meet the requirement that a revelation from a deity be scientifically accurate?

The question is, if the Scriptures plainly stated that water was wet, would that statement meet the requirement that a revelation from a deity be scientifically accurate?

I hope this clears up any confusion. The claim that water is wet would not count, because revelation from a deity would not be required for that knowledge to be possessed. Likewise, if knowledge that the sun was at the center of the solar system was common knowledge to the Sumerians, such knowledge could not be claimed to be revelation by a deity.

Now, of course, if such knowledge was NOT common knowledge, and such knowledge was clearly and unambiguously described, that would be a different thing.

[Kenisaw]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

That statement would be scientifically accurate, and therefore that verse would be scientifically accurate.

[evilsorcerer1]

Interpretation of Genesis Ch 11

Due to the fact that I (the author of the bible) had never even seen another human being in all my time on the earth and that it couldn’t be possible there were more than two people created in the beginning (I’m the one who wrote the story about the garden and I’m never wrong), I think god must have realized how divine my writings were and confused the languages. If he didn’t, my writings probably would have made people smart enough to reach heaven and overthrow god (this guy didn’t blaspheme).
So he divided the people into different nationalities - I’m guessing when god made adam and eve skins in the garden that’s what he was talking about - then scattered them all over the earth. He probably used the same whirlwind he’ll use to take elijah to heaven. Strange I thought it might be called babel for another reason. Babel, bible, abel.

other words and meanings decoded; Moses in the basket -
moses-basket noah - ark david - ark of the covenant jonah - belly of the whale
tents - things people lived in because they didn’t know how to build houses; **and Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.** uncovered - the true symbolism of the character revealed; cubits - measurements
people used to describe objects with flat bottoms and sides; bark - how people built boats without tools;
the devil - everything when you’re like me and want to defeat god so you can destroy everything blasphemy - the serpent tricking adam and eve in the garden of eden; the serpent - what adam and eve unknowingly called god; god - what the people unknowingly call themselves ; skins god made for adam and eve; things snakes can shed but humans can’t; given to us in the beginning, not later when he confused the languages; eastward where the garden was - Jordan (jordan, garden) and probably as far as they could walk to escape the desert; noah was moses; river - one of the things flowing out of the garden, what noah thought he was crossing; ocean - what noah was really crossing; basket is to casket as river is to ocean; jonah (noah, jesus, all people) after death; burning bush - Moses (noah) when he realized he hadn’t heard from god; The great abyss the devil will be thrown into in Revelation - that thing that used to be where the ocean is now, which the author of the bible tried to cover up with fire and brimstone from Sodom and Gomorrah. Before that the world was flat and it hadn’t rained and you could just fall off; fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah for people trying to sleep with angels - volcano eruption after a child of god died so there would be no problem they were defiled by our existence. the bottomless pit - where we go when we ide; since man is matter he must be resurrected in the destruction of the world; when we die we cease to exist, thus the phrase “bottomless pit�. there will be no time because we don’t exist and in the same instant will be resurrected with all people that have ever existed at the same time; fire, ice, metal - all the things that can cause pain and our physical selves will be resurrected to exist in eternal judgement, not just fire. if we can feel pain and live here, we should be able to live and feel unlimited pain later ; the two false and true witnesses (meaning true as in physical, false as in symbolic) . . the two lamp stands - moses and elijah; moses is the burning bush representing fire and also water; elijah represents the earth and wind and that fire is not the only source of unlimited pain. The two olive trees are the apple tree and the olive tree. The apple tree in the garden of eden was very likely a fantasy as the direct result of living in the desert where the olive tree grew. It symbolized early man's attempt to find something better. Many times vowels are used at the beginning of a word describing something non physical, an idea. The olive tree was probably given the name incorrectly by someone, although it isn't a real fruit. There are many possible answers; the sun ☀ and moon may be the real witnesses. The bible describes Enoch and Enosh. If the genealogy of adam was just a bunch of numbers and symbols that couldn't be interpreted correctly, it could have been an astronomy log. Enosh could be revolutions but it would have been thought the sun was revolving around us. And Enoch would be moon.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by evilsorcerer1]


Moderator Warning


What you may have intended to be profound, parody or whatever is just coming across as cryptic and incomprehensible.

This post and any similar posts in the future may be removed, as they do not meet minimum standards of comprehensibility.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[evilsorcerer1]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]

. . Listen I'm not going to sit here and let you insult me and my posts because you have a fake perverted religion. You come off with your snide remarks and say my posts are stupid. Your god is fake and sick like your beliefs and your ideas are basically the same as everyone on the earth - act like an immoral pig and god will forgive you. And how do you and these people protect their families and children; they war and kill at the expense of others and the 10% or whatever percent doesn't live you ignore that. And that's not including the people who live probably avg 50%-80% of total lifespan. So you with your fake protecting children religion when all you're protecting is yours and others rights to do the opposite of protecting.
If your god is the real god bring him out. You can't because he's made up. So don't tell me my posts and beliefs are dumb unless your willing to defend it with your life, since you and about everyone else is gambling with my life every day without my permission. My life is ruined by people like you. I've been busted so many times for so many things. I bet 10 times alone for people claiming I was touching their kids or trying to. It's like I have a sign on my back that says chicken and everyone is after me. I can't just say they were after me because they thought I was a chicken because they're killing each other too. What I can say is you and people are crazy perverts that aren't trying to protect people your trying to sneak up on people. Grow up and realize the whole bible is a lie.

[Neatras]

So I'll try to get this question in before... well, we all know what's going to happen.

But sorcerer, what is the highest level of scientific education you have received? And what would you rate your scientific literacy as? Preferably on a scale of 1 to 10, if you feel like arbitrarily quantifying it.

[bluethread]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

That statement would be scientifically accurate, and therefore that verse would be scientifically accurate.

Thank you. It is good to see there is someone who knows how to answer a direct question. Now, let me ask why you accept this as scientifically accurate, since scientifically there is no precise center of the solar system? Every planet orbits a different point, none of which are static, but constantly in motion due to the various competing gravitational forces in the solar system. Admittedly, most of those moving points remain within the diameter of the sun. However, the point orbited by Jupiter is some 46,000 km beyond the surface of the sun. So, if one where a scientist on Jupiter, it could be said that, along with Jupiter, the sun orbits that point. Wouldn't that disqualify the OP statement, in the same way that other scientific inaccuracies are seen as something someone with perfect knowledge would not say?

[Neatras]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

That statement would be scientifically accurate, and therefore that verse would be scientifically accurate.

Thank you. It is good to see there is someone who knows how to answer a direct question. Now, let me ask why you accept this as scientifically accurate, since scientifically there is no precise center of the solar system? Every planet orbits a different point, none of which are static, but constantly in motion due to the various competing gravitational forces in the solar system. Admittedly, most of those moving points remain within the diameter of the sun. However, the point orbited by Jupiter is some 46,000 km beyond the surface of the sun. So, if one where a scientist on Jupiter, it could be said that, along with Jupiter, the sun orbits that point. Wouldn't that disqualify the OP statement, in the same way that other scientific inaccuracies are seen as something someone with perfect knowledge would not say?

Does it feel good to demand direct answers to questions that are obviously traps? Do you get any amount of pleasure from blatant subterfuge? Do you consider what you just did to be intellectually honest, charitable, or good-natured?