ax

After careful reading of some of the posts here at "Infidels", I've noticed that the arguement of how the bible relates to science, is taken out of context.The authors of the O.T. for example were not scientists, and did not have the information that we have today.They observed the enviroment and put it in their best words.If you focus in on some words there is always an answer.(By the way,
the begining of genisis is a "mud map" view of what's going on.Also, try going back to the original greek and hebrew texts for some more answers).

Major Billy

The Bible was written for political purposes, by members of the court of <a href="http://www.furman.edu/~bbibb/projects/united_monarchy/minimalists.htm" target="_blank">King Josiah</a> of Judaea, to legitamize his rule and unite his people.

ax

I hope you're refering to the O.T., and even so,
do you know when Josiah was around? You can't put the O.T. into a box like that.The law( written and verbal) were written for entirely other purposes.(we've gone off-track anyway).

ax

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: ax ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ax:
After careful reading of some of the posts here at "Infidels", I've noticed that the arguement of how the bible relates to science, is taken out of context.The authors of the O.T. for example were not scientists, and did not have the information that we have today.They observed the enviroment and put it in their best words.If you focus in on some words there is always an answer.

Ax,

the last couple of threads you started, you did not come back to continue intercourse with us, and they died. Why should anyone continue this conversation?

What is it you hope to accomplish with this? The statements on "scientific" facts are all well-known and their contexts are understood. The issue of correctness in this area arises only for that tiny, mad segment of believers who think that the Bible contains no errors, a position universally regarded by serious scholars as laughable in the extreme.

We don't normally debate inerrantists here, because it is obvious that the Bible contains numerous errors. Many websites list them. Since inerrantists are people who believe in spite of material evidence, there's not much point in talking with them, except for the amusement value.

Perhaps if you came back with a list of specific criticisms you feel are out of context, we could discuss. There's a good list at the <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">Skeptic's Annotated Bible</a> that you can peruse for errors. The magazine Bibilical Errancy, hosted in the library at infidels, also contains numerous errors in the Bible.

So instead of making useless general statements, come back with a list of specific points you want to discuss. I am sure you'll be the center of attention for as long as want.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Major Billy, I don't know if you got this link from one of my earlier posts, but you might want to present all sides of the story. You picked the "minimalist" side, I assume, because that is what you believe. But there are other equally plausible (and I feel more reasonable) sides which you forgot to present. Don't attempt to deconvert someone based on your prejudices alone. At least give them all the information you know about...

Haran

Haran

Material evidence? Vorkosigan, you do realize that most of that "material evidence" against the Bible is actually just a lack of evidence, right?

While I don't necessarily have inerrantist views, I'm pretty close...

I have seen many good arguments here against the "Skeptics annotated Bible". I have a hard time understanding why the more critical of you keep presenting it to new people. Is it in hopes that you can deconvert them based on bad and biased information? Perhaps I shall take my leave if good arguments make no difference to so-called "critical thinkers" here.

I agree that the poster should make more specific accusations if they want a conversation. However, the person may simply feel that they have a specific point to make and that is all.

Haran

Godless Dave

I agree, ax. Now if only the fundamentalist Christians could figure that out. They think that things like Noah's flood and demonic possession literally happened.

Sci_Fidelity

Come on, ax. You believe the bible is an inspired work, right? Now you're asking us to accept that the authors turned off their god- receivers while discussing scientific matters?

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bobby_G ]</p>

Skeptical

I was in agreement with you up till "if you focus on some words there is always an answer.". I don't want to make assumptions about your meaning, so please clarify what you mean by "an answer". Do you mean that if you take the factors of the world in which the writers wrote, their statements are _reasonable_, meaning that we can understand why they wrote what they did, or do you mean what they wrote is factually correct, althought it might not appear to be initially?

As for the rest of your statements, just take this line of thought one tiny step further and make an attempt to as fully as possible understand the culture and history of the people who wrote the stories of the Old and New testament. Having done this, grant that a significant portion of these works may be considered allegorical, mythical or "non-factual", and I for one would have no argument with your assessment.