Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate?

by FreeAtLast1914 126 Replies latest jw friends

lovelylil2

Lime, I took the liberty of using your words but added "God" in place of science. Because your arguement works well for my purposes too;
The facts and evidence surrounds us - we just have to look (and use the right tools). But most people don't seem to take any note of God, or think that it is all just 'religious speculation'. Somehow people with no religious education whatsoever can look at a research paper showing the facts in detail that God exists and created all things and yet will critique the paper on the basis that it "isn't what I want to believe".
believingxjw

HintOfLime,
"We know what the planets are made of. We can calculate how old the earth is, when it formed, how old the sun is, what elements comprise the sun and what relation those have to the planets. We can take ice core samples and determine what the atmosphere was comprised of millions of years ago. We can create computer simulations of the planetary bodies orientations and calculate backwards where they formed and from what materials."
The facts you cite really do not explain the very thing you claimed to know: the origins of the universe. The age of the earth and the sun and their elements do not explain the origins of the universe. Age and origin are two different things.
SixofNine

What about this one in Isaiah 9: 6-7 Here it is prophesied that a man was going to be born called God
Perry, are you saying that either of these scriptures needed supernatural knowledge to be written? If so, why? I'm not seeing that.
I'm seeing one scripture make a vague reference to another. I say vague, because the two scriptures don't even totally agree, no less constitute a proof of supernatural foreknowledge (I acknowledge that the writer of Matthew was referencing Isa)
I'll do further research on the original texts, but right now, this seems communion wafer thin as evidence of supernatural contribution to the Bible. Afterall, Jesus, at least in modern times is not really known as " Wonderful , Counsellor , The mighty God ", and especially not "The everlasting Father". He is known as "The Prince of Peace", I'll grant you that.
And while Matt. 1: 22,23 says "Now all this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet , saying ,
Behold , a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son , and they shall call his name Emmanuel ", Joseph and Mary didn't feel the need to play along, now did they? They named their son Jesus. Note also that these verses sound rather like a wink and a nudge, don't they? " "Now all this was done , that it might be fulfilled"....:wink wink: :nudge nudge:
Also, none of this has happened since Jesus time on earth: "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end , upon the throne of David , and upon his kingdom , to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever ". Unless it came/is coming Watchtower style, ie: "invisibly" or "soon, any day now, can't be much longer, the gentile times have.....", I'd say this is a failed prophecy both from the perspective of Jesus' day and from a long view.
HintOfLime

I engaged in this thread to address the misrepresentation of science in past statements. The topic of the thread is the scientific accuracy of the bible. Not my personal opinions on christians. (Cute picture you paint of me though. Argue the merits of the messenger rather than the messenger, etc. etc.)
The facts and evidence surrounds us - we just have to look (and use the right tools). But most people don't seem to take any note of God, or think that it is all just 'religious speculation'. Somehow people with no religious education whatsoever can look at a research paper showing the facts in detail that God exists and created all things and yet will critique the paper on the basis that it "isn't what I want to believe".
How cute. By "facts" in your copy I assume you mean "feelings".
The facts you cite really do not explain the very thing you claimed to know: the origins of the universe. The age of the earth and the sun and their elements do not explain the origins of the universe. Age and origin are two different things.
Science does have theories regarding the origin of the universe, however the evidence those theories are based on tend to be rather second-hand: background levels of radiation and such. The amount of evidence to base those theory from may grow as our technology and understanding in other areas improve. In the meantime, its not a strong theory. But still it is fairly obviously things did not happen in the order described in geneis - for which there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever.
In a case of 3 weak facts vs. 0 facts - 3 weak facts can still make a strongcase.
- Lime
lovelylil2

lime,
The bible is not a scientific book in the first place, It is a faith book. Therefore, why would it have to agree with modern science? The jws are really the only ones who try to apply bible scriptures to modern science to prove its merits. Most of mainstream christianity does not do this. We believe the Bible stands on its own merits for what it is, a faith book for God's people.
Anyway, in some of my posts, I was just kidding with you. Peace to you, Lilly
Perry

Well, I guess a 700 yr old prediction about a man being born who is called God didn't impress you. Do I have to list the other 1999 now?
HintOfLime

Well, I guess a 700 yr old prediction about a man being born who is called God didn't impress you.
Nope. Horus did it first - depending on what references you go by though... that stuff becomes really mucky with christians giving one account of horus and non-christians a different account.
At any rate, it's not the first or the last time a 'savior' is foretold in a holy book. I'm not sure why that is impressive.
- Lime
lovelylil2

Lime this may interest you;
many try to link Jesus with the Horus myth, but does it hold up under scrutiny?
Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.

Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph.

As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary. In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is. Seb is Osiris’s father. Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph. Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

This is accurate.

Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.

I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds. I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds.

Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels.

There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it. In a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus. When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth.

Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)

There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen. The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus.

Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them.

There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus. so this is accurate.

Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.

There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12.

Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. Jesus was not baptized until he was 30 years old. His baptizer was killed so this is ture.
Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.

According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did.

Claim #10-Both walked on water.

Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did.

Claim #11-Both performed miracles.

This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus.

The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus. It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life. There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story. Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead.

Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion. Yet, I can locate any of this. No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection. There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it.
HintOfLime

I take the Horus stuff with a grain of salt - you usually find it on youtube videos posted by 'some guy' with no references and the claims just seem too incredible. I'm sure there are a few loose corelations to be found (like between anything) - maybe there was some influence from the story transferred to the biblical account.. maybe not. Probably not a good example.
At any rate, the story of a 'god' or 'chosen one' being born amoung men to save them is by no means an original plot amoung holy writings.
- Lime
SixofNine

Well, I guess a 700 yr old prediction about a man being born who is called God didn't impress you.
Calling a man by the name used in a "700 year old prediction", after that man is dead, in order to "fulfill" the prediction that a man will be called "god" does not impress me, no. Hell, it wouldn't impress me even if Jesus had been called "Emmanuel" by his parents. And calling a man "god" certainly isn't impressive (especially when you're trying to "fulfill" some old text). Jesus probably wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last to have that distinction.
I think you'll agree that that is not evidence of supernatural foreknowledge.
For that matter, it seems doubtful that Isaiah was really looking 700 years into the future when he wrote that. It seems much more likely that he was looking to the immediate future.
I'm looking for evidence that the bible is from a supernatural source; ie, not simply the word of men who sincerely sometimes believed they were speaking for god (or not). Heck, I know AGuest and Larsinger et al, are sincere in their beliefs that God speaks through them directly but I don't believe they are really transcribing God's word. And yet, AGuest sure has the patois down, don't she?

Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate?

Share this