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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 48 by rikuoamero]

I did and there is a table giving a barycenter for Jupiter...but not 46,000 km.

Riku ... check out the last row for the Sun and Jupiter in that table. r1 is the distance to the barycenter from the center of the Sun (the primary), and R1 is the radius of the Sun. If you do r1 - R1 you get 742,000 - 696,000 = 46,000 km, which is the distance to the barycenter from the "surface" of the Sun.

[bluethread]

The question is whether you'd have the science to test it.
If the answer is yes, we have to ask is it science of 100 ys ago, science of 2017, 4017, 5017.. 10017...?

This totally ignores context in favor of perfect knowledge using forms of communication that do not yet exist, which is the point. If a deity were to communicate with you, would you expect that deity to communicate to you within your level of understanding, or would you expect a deity to present the information in a way that would not be understood for some 3 or 4 thousand years?

[William]

[Replying to post 51 by bluethread]

This totally ignores context in favor of perfect knowledge using forms of communication that do not yet exist, which is the point. If a deity were to communicate with you, would you expect that deity to communicate to you within your level of understanding, or would you expect a deity to present the information in a way that would not be understood for some 3 or 4 thousand years?

I would expect that the deity was able to communicate with me both within my level of understanding AND to also throw in a few things which I wouldn't immediately understand at all and might even appear gobbledygook to me, and even annoy/frustrate me, because it would also expect me to learn Its language, so to speak.

This is because I only know English and while it is a fun language and can be used in a way which can be confusing or enlightening, like all languages, it can be very limiting and structured and predictable in relation to keeping ones thoughts on particular notions which require one to stay within the box so to speak.

I expect a Deity would understand this about language and that a Deity would not be so constrained by language but would require me to learn not to be under the influence of language constraints which produce limited conceptualization and dogmatism - things I would think would undermine any intercommunication between me and a Deity.

I do not think that a Deity would communicate something to me which I would not be able to understand in my lifetime, but would be understood by others 3 or 4000 years into the future. should my records of it survive for that long.

In relation to arguing whether religious material was inspired by a Deity(s) and what was told to someone by the Deity could not be understood by that person who then recorded it anyway, that thousands of years on the data would instigate some kind of 'ah ha' moment for those having access to it...but still only to 'those in the know'...perhaps...but open to the abuse of interpretation re 'those in the know.'

But why?

Did the Deity go somewhere else and is the Deity not able to be accessed by the individual in the here and now?

Where is the logic in that?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 51 by bluethread]

This totally ignores context in favor of perfect knowledge using forms of communication that do not yet exist, which is the point. If a deity were to communicate with you, would you expect that deity to communicate to you within your level of understanding, or would you expect a deity to present the information in a way that would not be understood for some 3 or 4 thousand years?

I would expect that the deity was able to communicate with me both within my level of understanding AND to also throw in a few things which I wouldn't immediately understand at all and might even appear gobbledygook to me, and even annoy/frustrate me, because it would also expect me to learn Its language, so to speak.

Well, it appears that the expectation is not just what you would understand, but what someone in another time and culture would understand. That is the objection. Why isn't the revelation to a group of people living in a wilderness, thousands of years ago, written in a way that could not be misunderstood by people who live in 100 story buildings thousands of years later? Maybe it is because, He wasn't talking to those latter people.

This is because I only know English and while it is a fun language and can be used in a way which can be confusing or enlightening, like all languages, it can be very limiting and structured and predictable in relation to keeping ones thoughts on particular notions which require one to stay within the box so to speak.

Therefore, I would think that if a deity were to converse with you, that deity would communicate within that box.

I expect a Deity would understand this about language and that a Deity would not be so constrained by language but would require me to learn not to be under the influence of language constraints which produce limited conceptualization and dogmatism - things I would think would undermine any intercommunication between me and a Deity.

Well, there are many on this site that think that such a requirement of you would constitute proof that a deity does not exist. So, if a deity speaks directly to a particular group of people, that shows the it can't be a deity. Yet, if the revelation is written in the context of a time and culture that is far removed from them, it can't be a deity either. That sounds like egalitarianism in the extreme. Why must a deity revel itself to anyone, let alone everyone?

I do not think that a Deity would communicate something to me which I would not be able to understand in my lifetime, but would be understood by others 3 or 4000 years into the future. should my records of it survive for that long.

Then you agree with my point. There is not reason why science should even apply to understanding the Scriptures. Not that they are anti-science, but they have nothing to do with science.

In relation to arguing whether religious material was inspired by a Deity(s) and what was told to someone by the Deity could not be understood by that person who then recorded it anyway, that thousands of years on the data would instigate some kind of 'ah ha' moment for those having access to it...but still only to 'those in the know'...perhaps...but open to the abuse of interpretation re 'those in the know.'

But why?

Did the Deity go somewhere else and is the Deity not able to be accessed by the individual in the here and now?

Where is the logic in that?

You are presuming that a deity is obligated to reveal itself at all. At the risk of sounding like a Gnostic, maybe the deity is only interested in those "in the know". The reason that is not a Gnostic argument is that the knowledge is not a secret. It is there for all to see, as this forum indicates. All one needs do is recognize that the world does not revolve around oneself.

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by bluethread]

Well, it appears that the expectation is not just what you would understand, but what someone in another time and culture would understand. That is the objection. Why isn't the revelation to a group of people living in a wilderness, thousands of years ago, written in a way that could not be misunderstood by people who live in 100 story buildings thousands of years later? Maybe it is because, He wasn't talking to those latter people.

Well i may have missed it. Are there any example already given in the thread as to these supposed communications to an ancient people which we in this modern world would not understand?

Therefore, I would think that if a deity were to converse with you, that deity would communicate within that box.

Yes. At least to begin with. But the idea would be to get me out of that box too.

I expect a Deity would understand this about language and that a Deity would not be so constrained by language but would require me to learn not to be under the influence of language constraints which produce limited conceptualization and dogmatism - things I would think would undermine any intercommunication between me and a Deity.

Well, there are many on this site that think that such a requirement of you would constitute proof that a deity does not exist.

Why would they think that?

So, if a deity speaks directly to a particular group of people, that shows the it can't be a deity.

Why not? Please expand on this. Are you meaning a deity in the form of a humanoid for example?

Yet, if the revelation is written in the context of a time and culture that is far removed from them, it can't be a deity either. That sounds like egalitarianism in the extreme. Why must a deity revel itself to anyone, let alone everyone?

It depends on the deities agenda in relation to individuals and groups. It also depends upon the individual or groups willingness to engage.
Egalitarianism is certainly not to be frowned upon.
Elitism is questionable though. Which reminds me. This.

Then you agree with my point. There is not reason why science should even apply to understanding the Scriptures. Not that they are anti-science, but they have nothing to do with science.

Sure I do. What I have to say about that can be found in my Members Notes...
♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

You are presuming that a deity is obligated to reveal itself at all.

Not really. I speak from experience. There are many ways in which the specific deity I communicate with, is able to reveal itself to me/anyone who chooses to interact with It. The Earth Entity is as close to us all as our own breath is.

At the risk of sounding like a Gnostic, maybe the deity is only interested in those "in the know". The reason that is not a Gnostic argument is that the knowledge is not a secret. It is there for all to see, as this forum indicates.

The deity is interested in those who want to be 'in the know'. Not only, but as a matter of working with what is available to It.

All one needs do is recognize that the world does not revolve around oneself.

Subjectively speaking, yes it does, but I know what you are saying. The world isn't about just you the individual. We need to recognize that the world revolves around each of us and each of us are the center of the universe, because that is the nature of subjective reality. This is the case whether you are experiencing being a human, a planet consciousness, a sun, a galaxy or even a whole universe, although how can the universe revolve around itself eh? . The idea though is to understand this about subjectivity and - yes - remove oneself from the 'ego-box'.
We are all in this together - individual humans and individual deities.

[evilsorcerer1]

Noah’s ark;
how many days did it rain for? 40 days and nights;

-Where did the ark land after the flood?
on top of a volcano 🌋 in Turkey, mt. ararat: elev 16,854′
how many feet of water is that per day?
over 400;

-what is the symbol of the covenant god made with noah after the flood?
a rainbow

And what is the promise? the ark and the line; the ark {angle} of the rod (writing instrument) and a lot of crooked lying.

-why is that? there was never a covenant; rain comes from evaporated moisture in our atmosphere, not from 1 â…“ months of 400+ feet of rain per day;

the sun would have to get hot enough or close enough to evaporate all the oceans water and drop it back down in 40 days and still not have enough.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 55 by evilsorcerer1]

how many days did it rain for? 40 days and nights;

Actually...we don't know for sure how long there was rainfall in the story. In Genesis Chapter 7, we have verse 12 "And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." and verse 17 "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth"
Then we have verse 24 which muddies the waters (no pun intended) a bit
"The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Basically the story is unclear. Now of course, if this were an event that happened in real life, we could use science to determine the course of events...

[William]

[Replying to post 56 by rikuoamero]

Actually...we don't know for sure how long there was rainfall in the story. In Genesis Chapter 7, we have verse 12 "And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." and verse 17 "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth"
Then we have verse 24 which muddies the waters (no pun intended) a bit
"The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

I think the notion of the waters flooding the earth for more days than it rained has to do with it taking that long for things to subside and normalize.

But really - such an event would have left its watermark on the environment and thus be accessible to the process of science.

Apparently this is not the case?

*shrugs*

[paarsurrey1]

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?

the Sun is the center of the solar system

But is that the core of the truthful religion, please?
The truthful religion has left such matters to be explored by the secular disciplines. Is it wrong, please?

Regards

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 58 by paarsurrey1]

But is that the core of the truthful religion, please?
The truthful religion has left such matters to be explored by the secular disciplines. Is it wrong, please?

When it comes to deciding which religion (if any) are the 'truth' (whatever that means), it helps matters to talk about things that can be shown to be true, and not talk about things that can be shown to be not true.
If the text is trying to have us humans trust it when it talks about matters that are not empirically verifiable, why tell us things that we can find out are not true, such as that plants came before the sun? If the text is wrong there, why would I trust it in other matters?