[CondoleezzaProtege]

The website page touches on evidence for the Bible based on

1) Fulfilled Prophecy 2) Archeological Discoveries 3) The Bible' Internal Consistencies 4) External Verification 5) The Bible's Amazing Scientific Accuracy and Foresight 6) The Manuscript Evidence 7) The Bible's Forthrightness About It's Author's and Hero's Failures 8) The Willingness of Jesus' Disciples to Suffer 9) The Bible's Transforming Power for Good 10) The Testimony of Jesus, the Son of God

[Uncle Miltie]

The Torah states that you are required not to harvest from your fruit trees for three years. This comports with modern tree management practices.

The army is also required to build latrines, and cover them when moving on. This comports with relatively modern sanitation practices.

Etc. A person could go on for quite some time showing how Torah is correct and was eventually supported by science.

[ElayneJ]

bookmark

[Moonman62]

Let me know when they find the Periodic Table in there.

[donmeaker]

I think the Bible got Pi wrong.

[Moonman62]

Writing of the sun in Psalm 19:6, David said, “Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end.” For many years critics scoffed at this verse, claiming that it taught that the sun revolves around the earth. Scientists at that time thought the sun was stationary. However, it has been discovered in recent years that the sun is in fact on a circuit through space, just like the Bible says.

Why no mention of the galaxy through which the Sun makes it's circuit? It's these twisted and dishonest interpretations of the Bible that make religion look bad.

[GoDuke]

Trusting in God and His Word has NEVER steered me wrong.

[The Black Knight]

Thank you for posting. I needed that today.

[goodtomato]

Very good, thanks for posting! Merry Christmas

[MilicaBee]

Thanks!

[count-your-change]

That’s a pretty good list!

[RatRipper]

To me, Hebrews 11:3 squares pretty well with the big bang theory:

(NIV) “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

[Natural Law]

"...the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time -- from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world."

"In the Beginning...." A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall - excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

[Edgewood Pilot]

Bookmark !

: )

[shield]

bfl

[bogusname]

Great post!

Isn’t it funny how the faithless knuckleheads always come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as you post something upright and wholesome?

[Stultis]

Oh. Wow.

That one about the sun's "circuit" is really embarrassing. I don't think I've ever seen a more laughably and ludicrously forced example in one of these lists.

Just look at the entire Psalm. In verse 2 it refers to day and night.

So, the psalmist proceeds to give a specific example of how the heavens daily ("day by day" and "night by night") speak and show the glory of God, and his choice is to (cryptically) cite the Sun's 226 million year orbit around the Milky Way?!

Really?! That's supposed to be a phenomena which is readily apparent and visibly proclaimed by the heavens "day by day"?! Even though a given day only represents 1/8,249,000,000th of the "circuit," which movement is visibly undetectable (but rather only inferred from theory) even today?!?!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

What kind of desperation would drive someone to even cite such a facially stupid example?

[bezelbub]

I have no doubt that you can find a Muslim scholar who’ll explain to you how the verse “…when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring” can be interpreted as scientifically accurate...

[Stultis]

The Hebrew word there for circle [“chuwg”] literally means “sphere.”

No it doesn't. The author just made that up out of whole cloth.

I can't find a single instance in the Bible where "chuwg" is translated as "sphere" or "ball" or anything of the like.

Neither do any of the Hebrew lexicons give the sense of "sphere" to this word. For instance, Strongs says:

Definition
	circle, circuit, compass (BDB) vault (of the heavens)
Translated Words
	KJV (3) - circle, 1; circuit, 1; compass, 1; NAS (3) - circle, 2; vault, 1;

Furthermore, when I looked at the issue before (sorry, don't remember the verses) I never found sphericity implied by context. Instead the earth, as to its creation or formation, is described in ways that imply flatness. For instance God draws it with a compass on the surface of the waters. He stamps, or pounds, or spreads it out. Etc.

The Bible certainly might have conveyed sphericity in any number of ways. For instance, instead of saying that God spread out or pounded out the earth, it could have said that He gathered it together, or that He formed it in His hands, or that He sculpted it. It might have compared the earth to a fruit, or it's surface to the rind of a fruit. But it never does. None of the analogies or language convey sphericity.

[Raycpa]

If the earth were flat Noah’s flood would be hard to explain. Wouldn’t the water merely run off the edges? Wouldn’t Noah’s ark eventually fall off with the water?

[Soothesayer]

“More than 2,000 years later some people still believed that Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) was going to sail off the edge of a flat planet in 1492”

Not entirely true. Many sailors prior to 1492 already knew this but none of them had enough political clout to make the landlubbers believe it.