The Bible is Completely Unreliable

The bible is the best selling fantasy book of all time. People didn't even know the earth revolved around the sun until Copernicus. Why would we trust our theological knowledge to a book written nearly 2,000 years ago? Why would men know more about the universe/God in the time of Jesus? People often quote the bible as evidence for God but it's really the best evidence against God as well.

 

There really was no science back then.. so there is little reason to think the Bible is science or history.

 

While I agree that the Bible is an excellent story book & offers little in the world of history & science, there was indeed "...science back then..." with the burning of the ancient Library in Alexandria being one of mankind's greatest losses.


"Ancient Egyptian medicine"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_medicine



"History of science in early cultures"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_cultures

 

Not much.. Certainly the OT stories have NOTHING to do even with what passed for scientific thought at the time.

 

Yes, the library in Alexandria was catastrophic.

I think what we don't see in those times is a scientific process such as we use today in order to be more careful about eliminating false ideas and rejecting sources of evidence that we would clearly reject today.

However, it is undeniable that they did make progress.

Eratosthenes' Calculation of earth's circumference 250 years BC - cool!!

 

No one knows for sure how the library of Alexandria was burned, either accidentally on on purpose but I would be careful not to generalize about the scientists of early times from around the globe.

Additionally, the sea level 10,000 years ago was 60 meters lower than today so we don't know what is contained in all the port cities.
I've always been fascinated in archeology and was lucky enough to see many of the ancient sites that are now off limits. For example, in 1972, I spent 2 nights, alone at Stonehenge.
I was also able to spend nights at Delphi, Babylon, Troy and many other places that are now either altered, destroyed or off limits.
I wonder what future archeologists will make of us?

 

Cool post!

 

People need bs to help them cope with bad decisions, poor health, and death.

 

You need to compare Bible with any history books written back then. Bible makes not much difference in terms of human witnessing. The only difference is that history is the recording of human deeds while The Bible can be the recording of God's deed. It means in the case that God is true, this could be the only way for the truth to convey, there's no other way round.

Evidence basically is a joke. Both future and past are basically blocked from the reach of humans. That's why you (and each and every human) can't present the evidence of what you yourself just did as recent as yesterday.

You are clueless about what science is the what it can do. Basically, science is experiment based. You don't have a science for the past or future as long as you can't go back to the past to do the experiments.

In a nutshell, humans don't rely on evidence to reach a truth. They rely heavily on putting faith in a "middle man" (or eye witness) to reach a truth. This is the reality you failed to deal with!

 

There are any number of sciences that study the distant past. Evidence abounds. And, it is most certainly possible to run major experiments to verify understanding of what happened in the past.

As for the Bible, you say that if that is what happened, then that is what happened. The catch is that it is an empty statement. But, with science we have huge evidence from large numbers of different kinds of sources.

As it is today, there is clearly very little agreement even by theologians concerning what the Bible says or means. That's why we have literally thousands of variants of the three major branches of the Abrahamic religions.

I'm fine with people trusting in their god, taking moral leadership from that source, etc..

However, suggesting that science is without foundation (as you do) is just plain wrong - both in absolute terms and as compared to religion.

 

If the Bible somewhere teaches that the sun (which is really just another star) revolves around the Earth, I will immediately become very suspicious of it.

Where does it say that, exactly?

 

I'm not very interested in holding the Bible to that kind of accuracy.

Religion is about why - as in, why are we here.

Also, one has to accept that significant portions of the Bible are allegory.

Otherwise, one must believe that there was an enormously important tree called the "Tree of Life" growing in Iraq, but it died. Or, that there was a literal "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".

Under stress, it can seem like time passes slowly - that doesn't mean god actually literally slowed the heavenly bodies.

 

The Christian Bible is quite obviously a conglomeration of the Multiple texts that came before it and is really just the final version as humankind grew beyond the need for such things. Today we have not just grown beyond it but, now have more grounded explanations (science) for the many things it was meant to explain. Current adherence and belief is waning as our species evolves mentally and discovers new realities of our existence and Universe.
There will of course be some people that cling to our past as with virtually everything...but our progress will end all religion eventually.

 

This seems to imply that a serious belief in science and a serious belief in the Bible are utterly incompatible.

If I really though that were true, I would go with the former--without hesitation.

But I simply do not see any incompatibility here.

Do you?

And if so, then what?

 

Yes I do...the list of stories that defy scientific reality are too extensive to give a complete list and the obvious ones will be danced around by the devout (you) even if I state them...so I'll pass.

Actually, in anticipation of your reply I will give you a few so you can begin the dance.

There is not enough water on this planet for the flood and never has been.
Humans cannot be re animated after death.
Mud and soil cannot be given life.
Snakes cannot talk.

Have at it.

 

I agree that the OT didn't have much to offer in the field of scientific thought but was talking about findings elsewhere at the same time period.

Even though I've read several books on the subject, we'll never know exactly what was lost in Alexandria's magnificent library but I strongly suspect that what was lost was significant in many fields.

 

In addition to your list, people don't live to be hundreds of years old.

I don't know its the OT was intended to be taken literally or not but it makes for very interesting reading as do the other religions of the same time period.
The flood myth is prevalent in several religions & ancient literature like "The Epic of Gilgamesh" just as there have been recent recorded cases of premature burial.

"The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" by John M. Allegro brings into the picture the use of prevalent use of hallucinogenic mushrooms by many Mid Eastern religions which can explain talking snakes, the blinding light of Paul & other miracles.

I don't know of anybody that thinks of the Bible in exact literal terms but it, like other holy books hold many fascinating stories

 

Err...ummm.....it is not a science or history book. Perhaps you should try and read it.

 

Try this =

1 Esdras 4:34 (CEB) =
“Gentlemen, aren’t women strong? The earth is great, heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course, for it circles the heavens and returns again to its place in a single day."

Joshua 10:13-14 (ERV) =
"So the sun did not move, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies. This story is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky. It did not move for a full day."

 

I have read it cover to cover numerous times. I said it wasn't science or history. Are you drunk?

 

The Bible is a spiritual text. Through it, God speaks in parable and metaphor, in attempt to convey spiritual dynamics to physical beings. Its not a history or science lesson and was never intended to be. Those who promote a literal interpretation of it know nothing of spirituality.

 

What do any of you have to loose by believing? You also left one thing out. Hope.

 

Something that's not meant to be a science book - especially something that even PRECEDES science - isn't necessarily a book of fantasy.

Because, there are LOGICAL reasons why we should?

EXACTLY!


Even way before the time of Jesus! Way before the Bible was printed.....the Scripture was passed verbally through who knows how many generations, or thousands years more!


The Book of Genesis alone - if not translated literally - has a wealth of information......that's been scientifically confirmed!

That's not true...... by what I just explained above.

 

The Hebrews borrowed from the mythos of Sumer and the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the poetry of the Ugarit AFTER the Babylonian exile.

The also had a rewrite before the birth of Christ to consolidate the differing creation stories in Genesis.

 

There's a lot to lose by believing in a lie.