What do you all think about this paper/article?

[AV1611VET]

Science can't really touch it from a representative standpoint either. Whether science can "touch" the bible depends upon not whether or not it's literal or generic ancient history.........................but whether or not it actually is Prophetic in nature.

Science can't touch It prophetically, either.

All science can do, re the Bible, is observe and report.

And science is so myopic, I'm using the word "observe" very loosely.

And for the record, their reports are usually wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science can't touch It prophetically, either

All science can do, re the Bible, is observe and report.

And science is so myopic, I'm using the word "observe" very loosely.

And for the record, their reports are usually wrong.

Apparently, you and I have different definitions and views about what both the Bible and Science are.

I'll just stick with my sources and wait to see folks disprove them (which hasn't really happened yet on this forum.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

And for the record, their reports are usually wrong.

There you go again. You would have had agreement on the bible /= science and nothing to do with each others notions, but then you just go and add a gratuitous slam on science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently, you and I have different definitions and views about what both the Bible and Science are.

They are what they are.

You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to ascertain them.

The Bible is the word of God; and science is the word of man.

I'll just stick with my sources and wait to see folks disprove them (which hasn't really happened yet on this forum.)

Graveyards are littered with the bones of men who have, in good faith, tried to disprove the Bible.

They all died either born-again ... or frustrated.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go again. You would have had agreement on the bible /= science and nothing to do with each others notions, but then you just go and add a gratuitous slam on science.

Am I wrong?

If so, was Pluto our 9th planet 20 years ago?

Is Thalidomide a prenatal wonder drug today?

Is Vioxx sold in supermarkets everywhere?

Was the Chal... skip that one.

Is the Florida footbridge saving lives today?

Were L'Aquila residents safe to go back to their homes?

What museum can you find the bones of Australopithecus haroldcookii? (or is it Hesperopithecus?)

Shall I go on and on and on where science is usually wrong?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Am I wrong?

If so, was Pluto our 9th planet 20 years ago?

That's a classification issue.

Is Thalidomide a prenatal wonder drug today?

Is Vioxx sold in supermarkets everywhere?

Don't know which drugs are available over the counter

Was the Chal... skip that one.

Is the Florida footbridge saving lives today?

Did some one drop an egg on a passerby? 'Cause otherwise bridges are science.

Were L'Aquila residents safe to go back to their homes?

What museum can you find the bones of Australopithecus haroldcookii? (or is it Hesperopithecus?)

Don't know, sounds fake.

None of these, even if we grant that they are science, has anything to do with the bible.

Shall I go on and on and on where science is usually wrong?

But you can't go on endlessly or you would. There is a reason you have your list of 7-10 items (most of which aren't even science issues) that you keep repeating -- that's all you've got.

So yes, you are wrong when you say the reports of science are mostly wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

So yes, you are wrong when you say the reports of science are mostly wrong.

QV please: SCIENCE'S TOP TEN ERRONEOUS RESULTS

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They are what they are.

You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to ascertain them.

The Bible is the word of God; and science is the word of man.

Those who actually do mainstream science know very well that their 'truths' are provisional. It's only those who carry the torch for an epistemologically superlative type of science who think science says more than it actually can (e.g. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, or Intelligent Design advocates like Michael Behe).

Graveyards are littered with the bones of men who have, in good faith, tried to disprove the Bible.

They all died either born-again ... or frustrated.

For me, it's not merely about the fact that Secularists try to disprove the Bible; it's that they sometimes mistakenly try to disprove other aspects of Philosophy and Science as well. Of course, some Christians try to disprove my Philosophy and fail too, for various reasons....

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who actually do mainstream science know very well that their 'truths' are provisional.

So do I.

And I don't do mainstream science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So do I.

And I don't do mainstream science.

What kind of science do you do?

 

[AV1611VET]

What kind of science do you do?

Vulgar science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Vulgar science.

And here I thought you'd say, "Mad Science."

 

[sjastro]

QV please: SCIENCE'S TOP TEN ERRONEOUS RESULTS

For a balanced discussion here are the top ten Bible errors.

1. “Let the children first be killed” – Mark 7:27
This line is indeed awkward as it was supposed to mean “filled” instead of “killed”.

2. “If the latter husband ate her”
This is a typo from a printing that was done in 1682 and changes the original passage completely. The word “hate” has been mistakenly typed as “ate”

3. “Sin on more”
The phrase appears in an edition of 1716 and is also referred to as the “Party Bible’. Here the phrase “Sin no more” has been replaced by “Sin on more”. About eight thousand copies of the edition were printed before someone could actually spot the typo.

4. “Printers have persecuted me”
The phrase appears in an edition that was published in 1612 where the word “princes” have been mistakenly replaced with “Printers”.

5. “Jesus”
It seems as if the original word was “Joshua” that originates from the Hebrew word “Yeshua”.

6. “Out of thy lions”
Though, Bible has plenty of lions, this phrase appeared in an edition published in 1804.

7. “Holy ghost”
It is a perfect example of the pitfalls involved while translating the Bible. Pneuma in Greek means spirit or breath. While translating in a version by King James, it was wrongly translated as “ghost”. So while translating the notion of Holy Spirit becomes chaotic.

8. “Owl husband”
An edition published in 1944 by King James actually altered the commandment “…submit yourselves to your own husbands” to “…Submit yourselves to your owl husbands”.

9. “To remain”
A term needs to be invented by us for this particular phenomenon. This is whenever there are words that are meant as advice; persuade themselves as flattery within the text.

10. Peace on Earth and good will toward men”
According to a version by the King James, this phrase was addressed to some shepherds by an angel near Bethlehem. However, the correct translation would have been “Peace on Earth to people he favors”.

 

[AV1611VET]

And here I thought you'd say, "Mad Science."

Wow! Much better than my answer!

 

[Hans Blaster]

QV please: SCIENCE'S TOP TEN ERRONEOUS RESULTS

Did you not even read the sub-head:

Mistakes from the past demonstrate the reliability of science​

I've got more than 10 results myself, none erroneous , so 10 is hardly "most".

 

[Astrid]

There you go again. You would have had agreement on the bible /= science and nothing to do with each others notions, but then you just go and add a gratuitous slam on science.

Who cares?

 

[dlamberth]

Graveyards are littered with the bones of men who have, in good faith, tried to disprove the Bible.

In the same breath, graveyards are littered with the bones of men who have, in good faith, tried to disprove the science.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the same breath, graveyards are littered with the bones of men who have, in good faith, tried to disprove the science.

Really?

Like Dr Chemistry disproved Dr Alchemy?

Like Dr Combustion disproved Dr Phlogiston?

Like Dr Ptolmey disproved Dr Copernicus? *

As I understand it, Hubble rewrote the book on Astronomy.

* The universe may have very well been geocentric at one time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is Thalidomide a prenatal wonder drug today?

It's actually shown to be very good at treating drug resistant leprosy.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go again. You would have had agreement on the bible /= science and nothing to do with each others notions, but then you just go and add a gratuitous slam on science.

Is Thalidomide a prenatal wonder drug today?

It's actually shown to be very good at treating drug resistant leprosy.

So you would prescribe it to a pregnant woman, who had a drug-resistant leprosy?

Or was science wrong?