The bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It was written so ordinary folks like Joe Sixpack and me could understand why we are here, why we have sickness and crime and war and death and what God intends to do about it. Additionally, it provides a sound guide for daily living.
How much more explanation of the earth's water cycle does the uninitiated need than Solomon's description at Ecclesiastes 1:7?
wandeljw wrote:Why would the Bible need to be scientifically accurate? Science retricts itself to the natural world. Issues of faith transcend nature.
Yes, but matters of the world...deal with the world.
Quote, " Issues of faith transcend nature." It also transcends logic, consistency, and nature.
cicerone imposter wrote:Quote, " Issues of faith transcend nature." It also transcends logic, consistency, and nature.
Issues of credulity transcend nature and reason. Issues of faith should not. That is why I have repeatedly asserted that when two conclusions are mutually exclusive, it must be the premises which are at fault.
neologist wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Quote, " Issues of faith transcend nature." It also transcends logic, consistency, and nature.
Issues of credulity transcend nature and reason. Issues of faith should not. That is why I have repeatedly asserted that when two conclusions are mutually exclusive, it must be the premises which are at fault.
That being said, it sure has been a difficult journey to arrive at mutually agreeable premises, has it not?
My only premise is that there is no need for the Bible to be scientifically accurate. Science textbooks deal with physical matter, the Bible addresses spiritual issues.
Quote, "That being said, it sure has been a difficult journey to arrive at mutually agreeable premises, has it not?" Without question.
The bible does not limit itself to "spiritual" matters. That's the reason why Genesis talks about the creation of earth and everything on it. Science has already refuted "in the beginning," by showing that this planet is 4.5 billions years old and not 6,000-7,000 years old.
BTW, if the bible had stuck to stricktly spiritual matters, it might have had some legitimacy. However, it would still need to reconcile all the contradictioins that is spelled out in the bible - concerning 'spiritual matters.'
It could just be a difference in our perception of the word accurate. Not much scientific know how is needed to understand a simple statement such as 'he walked'. In fact, too much scientific explanation might obfuscate the meaning entirely.
So; if you are saying the bible need not be specific, I would agree. It can't, however, be contrary to truth.
cicerone imposter wrote:Quote, "That being said, it sure has been a difficult journey to arrive at mutually agreeable premises, has it not?" Without question.
The bible does not limit itself to "spiritual" matters. That's the reason why Genesis talks about the creation of earth and everything on it. Science has already refuted "in the beginning," by showing that this planet is 4.5 billions years old and not 6,000-7,000 years old.
Go back about a page and you will find my post where I point out that the bible does, in fact, support your claim as to the age of the earth.
neologist, Expert theologians estimated the age of earth from the bible. Your opinion about the earth's age, shall we say, is unsupported blather.
BTW, I even asked a Catholic Priest about how they interpret creation, and he said Catholics are free to believe any interpretation.
Expert theologians have blessed cannons and battleships and have supported every crime imaginable. Their sins have created a stench over the entire earth. Look at every slaughter you can find in history. You will find an expert theologian, his buttocks quaking with fear, lest the powers who support his lifestyle should turn on him.
That's three strikes for the theologians. So, what's your credential?
I'm just a friend of Joe Sixpack, the quintessential common man. If he can't understand it, it may very well not be true.
Can't argue with that! So, one point for you - for the time being.
Quote:I'm just a friend of Joe Sixpack, the quintessential common man. If he can't understand it, it may very well not be true.
Unusual logic, I have no understanding of how to make a guitar, they therefore do not exist.
Damn, FM, you just put a lotta low-life slackers outta work . . .
Yeh, and imagine "Joe Sixpack" damn pussies, Id be known as Karl Kegger.
I believe Joe CAN make a guitar.
