Why are we here?

[juvenissun]

You don't get to claim that ancient people had special knowledge about humans being last, when they got so many other things out of order.

Whatever ancient people said in the Bible is absolutely correct. So far, I have not found anything which is scientifically wrong. I am absolutely amazed and eagerly wish to have a challenge on that.

 

[juvenissun]

In my experience, attempts to claim the Bible is scientifically prescient is usually just based on post-hoc reasoning.

Tell me one. I am excited to argue about it.

Scientific messages in the Bible are mostly plain descriptions of some features. Post-hoc or not, the descriptions do not change, and one by one, they are found fit perfectly on knowledge discovered thousands years later. Tell me another religion scripture which has this nature.

 

[Speedwell]

If you do not trust what the Bible says, then your religion has no scripture.

Who said I didn't trust scripture? You're way off base there.

 

[bhsmte]

Whatever ancient people said in the Bible is absolutely correct. So far, I have not found anything which is scientifically wrong. I am absolutely amazed and eagerly wish to have a challenge on that.

LOL

 

[pitabread]

Tell me one. I am excited to argue about it.

Scientific messages in the Bible are mostly plain descriptions of some features. Post-hoc or not, the descriptions do not change, and one by one, they are found fit perfectly on knowledge discovered thousands years later.

The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong. It also completely leaves out the most abundant life forms on Earth.

Tell me another religion scripture which has this nature.

As I said, similar claims get made about the Quran.

 

[juvenissun]

Who said I didn't trust scripture? You're way off base there.

YOU decide with Bible verse to accept or not. What kind of religion scripture is that?

 

[juvenissun]

The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong. It also completely leaves out the most abundant life forms on Earth.

Which order is wrong?

 

[Speedwell]

YOU decide with Bible verse to accept or not. What kind of religion scripture is that?

I accept all of it, 100%, as the inspired word of God.

 

[46AND2]

I accept all of it, 100%, as the inspired word of God.

Even the interpolations?

 

[pitabread]

Which order is wrong?

As an example, it describes the creation of things like fruit trees and grasses (Genesis 1:11) before the creation of water life (Genesis 1:20).

In reality, life in the water (including animals) appeared much sooner than grasses and fruit trees.

 

[Speedwell]

Even the interpolations?

Interpolations are interesting--so long as they are recognized as interpolations. And who's say what divine inspiration the interpolator was or was not receiving?

 

[Tinker Grey]

And who's say what divine inspiration the interpolator was or was not receiving?

Ay, there's the rub. After all, who's to say how much inspiration the anonymous author of the Canticles was receiving? Etc.

 

[juvenissun]

I accept all of it, 100%, as the inspired word of God.

But, you do not accept the creation Day sequence.
What else in the Bible you do not accept in a similar manner? Are you picking and choose?

 

[juvenissun]

As an example, it describes the creation of things like fruit trees and grasses (Genesis 1:11) before the creation of water life (Genesis 1:20).

In reality, life in the water (including animals) appeared much sooner than grasses and fruit trees.

I have a full, but lengthy, argument on that issue. What you see is the apparent situation on the earth. When we open our eyes to the whole universe, it shows a different picture, which strongly suggests that plant was created before our sun.

To highlight the argument, consider one question: where does the organic molecules in comets come from? A practical implication on that thought is: If we found large organic molecules on Mars, or found sea weed in the ocean of Europa, could we claim that we found "life" outside the earth?

 

[juvenissun]

Even the interpolations?

This very viewpoint is exactly a very strong argument for the truth of Bible message.

The Bible is a historical document. At any moment in the history, any verse in any Book of the Bible could be modified, for any reason, by Scribes. If so, what would be the consistency of the Bible messages after thousands of years? A similar situation can be seen in Buddhism scriptures. Do you know what is the current situation of Buddhism scriptures? Tell you in brief: it is disastrous. That is why we have denominations in Buddhism which is far far diversified (disastrously) in doctrines when compared with Christian denominations.

 

[46AND2]

This very viewpoint is exactly a very strong argument for the truth of Bible message.

The Bible is a historical document. At any moment in the history, any verse in any Book of the Bible could be modified, for any reason, by Scribes. If so, what would be the consistency of the Bible messages after thousands of years? A similar situation can be seen in Buddhism scriptures. Do you know what is the current situation of Buddhism scriptures? Tell you in brief: it is disastrous. That is why we have denominations in Buddhism which is far far diversified (disastrously) in doctrines when compared with Christian denominations.

It is not an argument for the truth of it at all. Even if it was perfectly preserved, that says nothing about whether its contents are or ever were truth.

 

[pitabread]

When we open our eyes to the whole universe, it shows a different picture, which strongly suggests that plant was created before our sun.

Genesis 1:11 is just about plants though; it's specific to certain types of terrestrial plants like grasses and fruit-bearing trees.

To highlight the argument, consider one question: where does the organic molecules in comets come from? A practical implication on that thought is: If we found large organic molecules on Mars, or found sea weed in the ocean of Europa, could we claim that we found "life" outside the earth?

And this is exactly what I said: post-hoc interpretation.

When you interpret things this way, you can make passages in the Bible fit anything you want them to fit.

 

[juvenissun]

It is not an argument for the truth of it at all. Even if it was perfectly preserved, that says nothing about whether its contents are or ever were truth.

It a strong support to the truth of Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis 1:11 is just about plants though; it's specific to certain types of terrestrial plants like grasses and fruit-bearing trees.



And this is exactly what I said: post-hoc interpretation.

When you interpret things this way, you can make passages in the Bible fit anything you want them to fit.

No. The argument has to be scientific. Scientific argument is never post-hoc. You have to respond scientific argument with one of the same nature.

 

[pitabread]

No. The argument has to be scientific. Scientific argument is never post-hoc. You have to respond scientific argument with one of the same nature.

I'm talking about your Biblical interpretation. That is what is post-hoc.