Magus55

Until recently we didn't know Orion's band was loosened or there are openings and volcanoes on the ocean floor or that all humans are related through DNA ( Time magazine even did an article on that and based it on Adam and Eve), or that the sun causes the wind patterns.

Care to prove it was common knowledge that stars were far? That wasn't common knowledge 3000 years ago since Astronomy didn't exist and no one even knew what a star was other than a light in the sky.

Nope wasn't painfully obvious that blood was the life line of the flesh, modern medicine didn't exist yet, no one knew what the heck blood did or that it carried oxygen and materials throughout the body.

Because if it was talking about a commandment it would have said the ordinances of the Earth or world, Heaven is the universe in the Bible ... Gen 1:1, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Commandments were given for laws were to be followed in relation to God and other humans, not the celestial heavens.

Sorry, those are still accurate scientific accounts whether you want to believe it or not. You defenses aren't very good.
And you still haven't explained how 3000 years ago they knew of Orion and Pleiades since they weren't named or even noticed until thousands of years later.

Mageth

Ok, so you picked out one that could be taken in a different way,

Every one of these examples can be similarly deconstructed. I simply picked one as an example of the faulty logic used on the site.

Job still knew the clouds had forces being exerted on them which is why they were being "balanced" in mid air.

First, Job didn't write the book of Job. Second, the verse does not indicate that the writer knew anything about "forces" being exerted on the clouds. One could just as easily interpret the verse that the clouds were magically being balanced on invisible scales. Sheesh..

What about Orion's band loosening, or Pleiades Constellation thousands of years before astronomy and the telescope was invented. Or the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light, or the sun being the cause of the winds currents or the Water system of evaporation and condensation etc etc.

What about them? They at best indicate accounts of simple observations of nature that were not unusual in ancient civilizations. Ancient peoples sometimes knew far more than we give them credit for. The author is guilty of assigning significance where none is due.

For you to dismiss those facts on that page would truly show that you have absolutely no desire to find out if the Bible and God are true, only to be closed minded and not let anyone prove you wrong.

Hey, if you can prove me "wrong", go ahead. I'll accept proof.

And if you accept those "facts" on that page as indicating the bible is "scientifically accurate" and thus must be written by God, you are credulous enough to believe anything. You may have little desire to critically examine the evidence, and instead wish to remain closed-minded and not let anyone prove you wrong.

As I said above, even if all of those "facts" are indeed scientifically accurate, that is not proof that the rest of the content of the bible (and god) are true. Many religious texts can make similar claims to scientific accuracy. I've seen sites and TV shows where Islamic scholars systematically show how accurate the Koran etc. is, esp. in comparison to the bible! They list and explain pages and pages of places where the text is amazingly "scientifically accurate" ahead of its time. To be truthful, some of it was more impressive than the stuff your site claims.

Wyz_sub10

That would make more sense (and account for how "1011x1011=1022). Still, I don't see this connection to the verse quoted, other than that number represents "a lot".

It would seem, too, that they can be numbered, can't they?

Mageth

And you still haven't explained how 3000 years ago they knew of Orion and Pleiades since they weren't named or even noticed until thousands of years later.

Surely you jest. Please, please, tell me that you can critically examine this and, with a little properly-applied reason, logic, and research, tell me what is wrong with your claim.

I challenge you, Magus55, to at least play the devil's advocate in this case, look at this claim critically, and see if you can come up with at least some of its problems.

Mageth

It would seem, too, that they can be numbered, can't they?

One of the two verses claims they can't be numbered, and the other claims that god knows the number! And yet the bible has no contradictions...

Mageth

or that all humans are related through DNA ( Time magazine even did an article on that and based it on Adam and Eve)

I highly doubt that Time "based" the article on A&E, if you're referring to an article on Mitochondrial Eve.

But since you bring this up, from the site:

[QUOTE"Adam called his wife's name Eve : because she was the mother of all living." Genesis 3:20

DNA is found in every cell, in both the nucleus and the mitochondrion (energy station). Mitochondrial DNA is always and only inherited from the mother. Analysis of this DNA in humans from all over the world shows unmistakably that all humans on earth have inherited it from one woman. This research was done by Wilson, Cann, and Stoneking from the University of California, Berkeley.[/QUOTE]

A poor understanding of Mitochondrial Eve. Read here for an explanation. From that site:

The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent.
...
ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers (and of the many humans who were her contemporaries).


Thus, Mitochondrial Eve is not equivalent to the biblical Eve. Claiming that the description of the biblical Eve is an equivalent scientific "fact" to Mitochondrial Eve is false.

Wyz_sub10

Let's be clear that the bible does not clarify in any way what a star is.

Your rationale is obtuse – they knew they were far in the same way you know mountains are far when you see them on the horizon. They didn’t know how far, and guess what? Neither did the author of Job (or at least he didn’t share it with his readers).

As for astronomical knowledge of the ancient world, you can start here:

http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/index.html

or here

http://members.aol.com/chopstcks/gca...ry/ancient.htm

People fought and bled and died. When a person was cut and began bleeding, they knew what it meant. Even animals know this.

Please show me where the bible explains what blood is, and that it carries oxygen and "materials" throughout the body. You cannot, because it doesn’t say that. You are seeing what you want to see.

An inference on your part. Also, physical laws are not confined to the heavens. You seem to suggest that the “heavens” and “earth” are separate (which is what Genesis says, as you’ve pointed out). So again, it is an inaccurate assumption. If “heaven” meant “universe”, then Genesis has it wrong.

But this changes nothing – saying that “laws” exist is not a meaningful knowledge statement. Cause and effect relationships were well known, masonry and building was common throughout the world (i.e. use of mathematical laws), and the laws the site mentions are described no where in the bible.

My defences are fine. There are no knowledge statements there. You have not defended those website claims in any way whatsoever. Rather, you seem content to be in awe of this “evidence”. Furthermore, you have done nothing to contradict any of my arguments.

There are quite a few I didn’t respond to. I took a sample and spoke to them.

You also haven’t addressed the “telephone” comment, or the comment on the spherical earth with the NIV verse that changes the meaning – two blatantly misrepresented comments, twisted to make it appear to say something that is not being said.

eh

Another classic example of grasping at straws. I hope that M theory is proven correct one day, but only to hear the bible thumpers proclaim it to have been in the good book all along. I can just see it now. Any odd biblical reference to a string, a vibration, or something related and they be putting up websites that read: How did the ancient Hebrews possibly know about string theory 3,000 years ago when it wasn't discovered by science until the mid 1900's? God told them, that's how.

BioBeing

Evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible, is it? But genetic change in populations is a scientific fact too.

simian

Of course, it appears that all mammals are related through DNA - not that you will find many bible believers stating that is found in the bible.

Simian