Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 79 by Elijah John]

In addition to some scientific members here, there's tons and tons of readily available, readable literature available right online and elsewhere on how and why science assumes the sun is the center of the solar system. Matter of fact, that was a major subject in my junior high-school science course. I'd like to say more here, but am tied up right now with other posts. As I say, if anyone is puzzled over why science has a solar-centered solar system, the information is readily available at the push of a button.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 79 by Elijah John]

In addition to some scientific members here, there's tons and tons of readily available, readable literature available right online and elsewhere on how and why science assumes the sun is the center of the solar system. Matter of fact, that was a major subject in my junior high-school science course. I'd like to say more here, but am tied up right now with other posts. As I say, if anyone is puzzled over why science has a solar-centered solar system, the information is readily available at the push of a button.

Oh, I don't doubt the solar-centric solar system, I just don't have the scientific skills to methodically prove it.

For me, it's enough to believe the experts on this matter (the astronomers and geologists, etc) as opposed to a very small minority of Bible literalists.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Yes, it certainly does take considerable study and loads of patience to get a full grip on the subject. There is a long, complicated history of teh development of the heliocentric theory. To really get into it, you have to cover tons of material, covering hundreds of years of history and quite a cast of characters, much too much to address in a few posts here. That's why I strongly suggest that those who have trouble accepting and understanding why science went that way take a class or seminar in the matter.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, it certainly does take considerable study and loads of patience to get a full grip on the subject. There is a long, complicated history of teh development of the heliocentric theory. To really get into it, you have to cover tons of material, covering hundreds of years of history and quite a cast of characters, much too much to address in a few posts here. That's why I strongly suggest that those who have trouble accepting and understanding why science went that way take a class or seminar in the matter.

HH, understanding the heliocentric solar system (and non-geocentric universe) does not require intense study of the history of how the concept was developed and eventually accepted (over strong opposition by the RCC).

The concept itself (the Earth revolves around the Sun) is easily demonstrated and understood UNLESS one is previously convinced / indoctrinated to believe the geocentric ideas and refuses to accept contradictory evidence (as we see happening). I have discussed / 'taught' the subject here in debate many times -- and have done so with home-school students of primary or middle school level (as well as university students). The only people who seem to have difficulty are die-hard Traditionalists / Literalists / Fundamentalists.

This ties to the OP by emphasizing that ancient writers did incorporate into the Bible false ideas / errors -- and those committed to literal belief in those writings often refuse to acknowledge the errors.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Well, I'll go along with you on this one, as you say you have had experiencing teaching this particular subject matter, whereas I haven't. I did graduate work in the history and philosophy of science, which is why I pushed teh historical component. But I also suppose, now that you mention it, that such material might be a bit much in a general science course. Most science classes really don't deal much with history.

[1213]

[Replying to post 76 by 1213]

I don't think this two-theory view of Genesis is at all workable. Neither account speaks of there being two separate creations of the animals.

That is true, Genesis 2 doesnt speak about creation, it tells how certain things were formed, not created.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 79 by Elijah John]

In addition to some scientific members here, there's tons and tons of readily available, readable literature available right online and elsewhere on how and why science assumes the sun is the center of the solar system. Matter of fact, that was a major subject in my junior high-school science course. I'd like to say more here, but am tied up right now with other posts. As I say, if anyone is puzzled over why science has a solar-centered solar system, the information is readily available at the push of a button.

Oh, I don't doubt the solar-centric solar system, I just don't have the scientific skills to methodically prove it.

For me, it's enough to believe the experts on this matter (the astronomers and geologists, etc) as opposed to a very small minority of Bible literalists.

Are they bible literalists or just a faulty knowledge of science?

I'm a bible literalist. Being a bible literalist seems irrelevant on this topic.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Wootah]

"Biblical literalist" refers to individuals who claim that the text should be understood in terms of what the plain text states and that the Bible is a 100-percent accurate account of events. When he Bible states that there was Adam and Eve, it means precisely that and just that, that there was a man and a woman. This is to be taken as a true account of creation.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 86 by 1213]

"Formed" means created, however.

[1213]

[Replying to post 86 by 1213]

"Formed" means created, however.

In Bible, it doesnt seem to be so. In Genesis 1, when God (Elohim) creates, he does something by His word, makes something to exist by His word out of nothing. In Genesis 2 Yahweh God forms for example human out of dust of earth. The difference is like: If you would make a pot from nothing, you would have created something, if you make the pot out of pile of clay, you have formed something not created. I think people can create only in their minds, in real life humans just form things.