"the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies" (page 2)

snowbird

Did Jacob place those branches in the water to influence the livestock's coloring or to cause them to come into heat faster?

There is lots of information to be gleaned on the web - google Jacob and Laban.

Sylvia

sir82

One day or six?

Good question...depends on which of the 2 distinct creation accounts in Genesis you accept.

It appears the writer of Exodus bought the "6 day" model.

If the Almighty had started Genesis by establishing his credentials thoroughly I'd be more inclined to take the rest of the book seriously. Why was no Bible writer inspired to jot down the first 100 digits of pi?

AK - Jeff

Agreed, Nic.

You start off telling a goofy sounding fairy tale about making a planet in 6 days, and how it all went wrong because a talking snake convinced a naked lady to eat an apple in a garden, and thus all of mankind is poop... well, credibility is pretty thin by the time you get to page 5 or 6. Why bother with the other 1500 pages?

Jeff

jwfacts

Incredibly, something like 40% of Americans believe that statement, and such concepts as the world being created in a literal 6 days and that they will shortly be raptured by Jesus.

dissed

The WTS can prove anything with that statement because they will twist the explanation or spin it to fit their current version.

What was obvious to early Genesis-Bible believers was that it was 24 literal hours because that's what the description implies. Only AFTER it was PROVEN that the light from those stars took millions of years to reach the Earth did they come up with a new explanation.

"Oh, the Genesis writer didn't REALLY mean that"

The same with Jacob and Labans account. When you read it, Jacob really thought he could breed spotted sheep by spotted branches. Again early readers would draw the same conclusion till that was scientifically proven otherwise.

And to add: Some people even today wanting a boy will place blue colors in rooms with a pregnant women. Pink for girls. That color thought goes way back in time

JerkhovahsWitless

Its simple. When the Bible seems like it contradicts science, the Bible isn't being literal, its being poetic or metaphorical. When the Bible agrees with science, that's because its from God, you doubting, sinning, godless heathens!!!

WTWizard

The Bible lies. To begin, I don't think it is scientifically possible for cherubs to guard only one entrance to the garden. If it was my garden, I would have had the whole perimeter secure to prevent unauthorized access, since what is to stop someone from making another entrance to the Tree of Life? If only the main entrance is guarded, someone else could create another one or go in through the bushes, gather fruit from the tree of life, and hand it out.

The Flood is another impossibility. To begin, since when is the atmosphere capable of holding all the moisture in the oceans and still be at a temperature where life is possible? And, where did all that water go? You cannot tell me that water can push heavier rock masses up--no matter how heavy it is (remember, water is very fluid and will not focus all its weight on one region). Water would also push the whole rock mass evenly--where there is a dip, it still would not have been able to push rocks up. That would be like having a baby being able to push an adult on a seesaw at the same distance. It will not work.

How is the sun going to stay in one place? The only way to make that happen would have been to stop the earth from rotating suddenly for the day. Now, that would have been a terrific event--at the equator, things are moving at 1,000 MPH. Anyone that has been in a car crash knows what happens if you suddenly stop a moving object, even at 55 MPH. There is going to be quite a bit of disruption. Stopping things at 1,000 MPH is going to create an even worse event--the crust is moving at 1,000 MPH, trees are moving at 1,000 MPH, and the oceans are moving at 1,000 MPH. Stopping them suddenly would create whopping tsunamis (first water, than magma because the crust would move out of the way), super whoppers of earthquakes, and widespread destruction. All to fight one lousy war? How come there is no account of such widespread destruction, even within the Bible?

It is totally possible to part the Red Sea with wind. However, such wind would have to be highly local or the whole sea is simply going to be blown onto the land. And, it would have to be around 120 MPH or stronger to blow that much water to the side. Has anyone tried walking against a wind of even 50 or 60 MPH? They would have been walking into the wind--and it would have blown them right back. Any wind that is strong enough to blow 16 feet of water out of the way is also strong enough to blow a 6 foot tall human out of the way as well.

Scientifically accurate?

wobble

I do agree with JerkhovahsWitless. that we have to read the Bible very carefully ,and recognise when we are reading an allegory, a parable or poetry etc.

And we have to recognise the time in which the writer lived, and therefore his scientific knowledge, and his theology etc.

But we have to be honest and say that any "inspiration" that the writers "received" is not from a source that knows any more than we would expect them to know.

The thread "a sphere is not a circle" was interesting on this, showing that at the time Isaiah was writing about the earth resembling a dinner plate, other men on earth had worked out that it was a sphere, but Isaiah was not informed of this scientific knowledge.

Love

Wobble

Doug Mason

Who do you think these guys are writing to? Are they addressing the scientific intelligentsia of this world or the religiously superstitious?

When a supposedly educated literate country like the USA has people who think the world was created in six days just a few thousand years ago, what difficulty will the WTS have convincing those of less advanced countries? Or does the WTS want its US citizens to have the same level of education as those of a Third World country?

Doug

"the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies"