Science In The Bible

Oct 08, 2008 02:19

Once again we're back to these crazy fallacies of the Bible. If we are to assume that the Bible was written by God, and God is a perfect being, then he should have known better than to write these errors that have been scientifically proven to be false.

This will only help to prove our case that the Bible is NOT the word of God, and it was written ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

geeky_collector October 8 2008, 14:12:24 UTC
This argument is just ridiculous. You can't expect to throw down a whole religion based on the fact that the sacred text is inaccurate. The text is not the basis of the religion, the faith is. The text is just a means of communication, and even if it is claimed that it's the word of God, that doesn't mean the interpretation and translation is infallible.

This line of reasoning is as faulty as fundamentalists who interpret the text as factual truth.

Reply

imlac October 8 2008, 17:22:13 UTC
"The text is not the basis of the religion, the faith is."

Says who? Liberal religious perspectives can take this route perhaps, but there are a lot of people who insist that the bible (or the Torah, or the Koran) is the EXACT word of God.

"This line of reasoning is as faulty as fundamentalists who interpret the text as factual truth."

This argument agrees with the fundamentalist when they say 'if the text isn't literally true then the faith is bankrupt.' It just asserts that the antecedent is true, hence the conclusion must be as well, whereas the literalist thinks it's the other way around.

Reply

geeky_collector October 8 2008, 17:59:37 UTC
"there are a lot of people who insist that the bible (or the Torah, or the Koran) is the EXACT word of God"

That very well may be, but it doesn't mean the entire religion can be thrown out along with just one article of faith. Interpretation of text is one of the most contended issues in religion, even among practitioners, I don't see how pointing out inaccuracies brings down any religion.

Reply

imlac October 8 2008, 19:52:46 UTC
"I don't see how pointing out inaccuracies brings down any religion."

Perhaps that, in and of itself, is an indictment of religion. If there were such obvious inaccuracies in, say, a scientific theory, or a political ideology, or a philosophical frame work then surely this would be at least a major objection to these would it not? The very fact that religion is so immune to the facts seems to make it less relevant.

Reply

geeky_collector October 8 2008, 22:08:17 UTC
Well, I don't see these as MAJOR inaccuracies, as long as we don't take an specific interpretation of an specific translation as a central article of faith. See, the thing about religion is qou just can't compare it to hard sciences, you have to bring the discussion to it's field. So religion has to be discussed from a theological point of view, and with theological methods and background. And it may be immune for some people, but not all. I know plenty of religious people that are more than willing to open up to discussion.

Reply

unlearnfaith October 8 2008, 21:38:18 UTC
Why can't you? It's supposed to be the word of God and God is perfect. Why would someone perfect be so WRONG??? It's obvious that it was written by man and not God.

Reply

geeky_collector October 8 2008, 21:56:31 UTC
Playing Devil's advocate here, or more likely, religion's advocate (I'm an open agnostic, BTW), the Bible is the word of God, and in it lies moral and spiritual rectitude, but it first must be deciphered and interpreted by man, and man is imperfect and his imperfection taints the message.

The obvious next question: Why all the circomvulations and tricks and obstacles, why doesn't God show us the way directly, no middle-men, no prophets, no parables? The point here is that God doesn't want to force salvation, men must freely and willingly choose the right path.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up
[]