Science In The Bible

[naomi24]

A day or two back a contributor here said….

“It's [the Bible's] contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date.”

…. but he declined to elaborate.

I know the bible fairly well, but I can’t think what he might be referring to. Does anyone have any idea?

Or perhaps he would like to explain?

[solvitquick]

No idea what he means Naomi. The only science applicable to, presumably the christian bible, has been exhaustive in respect of archeological findings, notably the Dead sea scrolls and liguistic history (Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc.).
These have produced a negative effect as to the veracity of the bible!
Apart from the fact that it is a collection of tales edited approx 300 A.D. in various versions and selected as far as possible to make jesus appear as the true messiah by fulfilling earlier prophesies, he was a simple anti-roman naughty boy. As we have agreed long ago, his principal "do-gooder" words and actions were the invention of Paul of Tarsus.
An interesting statement which you quote and let's hope the originator can expand. But if any sort of god exists he's keeping a low profile and won't be found in any bible.
Sorry for preaching to the converted atheists,
SIQ

[modeller]

To expand on your comment SIQ . St Marks gospel at least has the honesty to have no fictitious beginning and ending. It starts at John the Baptist when Jesus was 30 ( no nativity nonsense ) and ends with the empty tomb ( no resurrection stories ) . They were added later to fit in with the others.
I know nothing of any science in the bible . I think that comment has the same valdity as the claim that the hundreds of versions we read today are accurate copies of the ' original ' of which there were many.
I wonder if the 'science ' referred to the eastern star and the earthquake
both now known to be false.

[Zacs-Master]

.....no fictitious beginning and ending.....

[Zacs-Master]

Surely that's a matter of opinion?

[naomi24]

Thank you both for your responses.

//I wonder if the 'science ' referred to the eastern star and the earthquake
both now known to be false. //

It can't be either of those. These are things that he claims to be 'scientifically sound' but 'discovered only at a later date'. That is exactly the sort of thing that determined Koranic scholars claim - erroneously. If this statement has some foundation, it’s his perfect opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of the bible, but alas, he declines to elaborate, and therefore my only option is to conclude that his elusive claim is groundless.

[naomi24]

Sorry Zacs, you weren't there when I wrote that^^. Thank you all for your responses.

[jim360]

Sorry to post, but it's only a brief point: just about all the information you need on deciding whether or not to use the Bible as a Scientific guide comes from noticing that they take pi = 3.

[Hypognosis]

Its grasp on whale anatomy was notoriously inaccurate. ;-)

[naomi24]

Of course inaccurate, but the Babylonians and the ancient Egyptians were aware of the approximate value of pi, so if that's what he means, that information was already in the public domain.

[naomi24]

Sorry, cross posted. ^^ That relates to pi. I'll research the whale's anatomy. ;o)

[sandyRoe]

They must have applied some science to guide their shipbuilding. A boat 300 cubits long, 50 wide, and 30 high couldn't have been built without the appliance of science.

[naomi24]

It couldn't have been fit for purpose either.

[sandyRoe]

On the contrary, the fact that we're all here is proof that it was.

[ludwig]

// It's [the Bible's] contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date //

There's a bit in Deuteronomy where it says 'and Lo, the seed of Betamax will initially shoot up with great promise, but wither and fail when exposed to the bright sunshine of VHS'.

[Khandro]

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

Li'l David was small, but oh my !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Goliath
Who lay down an' dieth !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !

Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...

Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo' he made his home in
Dat fish's abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.

Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol' Pharaoh's daughter,
She fished him, she said, from dat stream.

Wadoo ...

Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so !

To get into Hebben
Don' snap for a sebben !
Live clean ! Don' have no fault !
Oh, I takes dat gospel
Whenever it's pos'ble,
But wid a grain of salt.

Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show,
It ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't necessarily ... so !

[naomi24]

Ludwig, haaaaaaa!

Khandro, have you been taking lessons here in copying and pasting? :o)

[ludwig]

// Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !... //

That's the most sensible thing you've said all year khandro. ;o)

[naomi24]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[jim360]

Ludwig always makes me laugh!

[jomifl]

Sandy, the fact that you believe the bible to be true and that you think that science was involved in building the ark (whether or not it actually existed)demonstrates that you don't know what science is. You are confusing science with technology and empiricism.