Is the Bible the Word of God II?

The database for the original thread for this topic became corrupted, so I'm opening a new thread for it. I apologize for any inconvenience.The original thread for this topic lost all posts after February 8th, but it still exists. It can be found by changing your list settings (upper right on the List All Topics or Great Debate pages) to List All Topics.--Percy
--EvC Forum Administrator

While this is on the Pi=3 thread I think it belongs here as well....*reposting*From:
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/Pihistory.htmlBabylonians 2000? BCE 3.125 = 3 + 1/8
Egyptians 2000? BCE 3.16045
China 1200? BCE 3
Bible (1 Kings 7:23) 550? BCE 3
Archimedes 250? BCE 3.1418 (ave.)
Hon Han Shu 130 AD 3.1622 = sqrt(10) ?
Ptolemy 150 3.14166
Chung Hing 250? 3.16227 = sqrt(10)So book, chapter and verse would be 1 kings (7:23)...Seems to me that if the babylonians got 3.125 in 2000 B.C and the Egyptians got 3.16045 in 2000 B.C a God inspired inerrant bible should do better than 3 in 550 B.C....

I think there is a problem with all the forums. postings are not posted right away. for example, someone had put a second message in this thread, but i cant see it.

I believe I'll be able to restore the messages from the past week, but I can't get to it till later tonight.Quicksink, hit refresh. Your browser isn't aware the software has rewritten the page with your message at the bottom and so doesn't reload it, but only displays the copy it already has in it's cache. Hitting refresh causes the browser to load the latest version of the page.--Percy

This happens to me too, for some reason. If you go to the thread & the persons post isn't there, clicking refresh on your browser will make it right.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

To adress the thread...again. The logical conclusion,based on a carefull study of history and all of its many diverse culture is...no,the Bible is not the inerant word of God. What it is is simply an interpretation of the divine made by people of earlier times with a primitive understanting of the workings of the universe. And while we are far from the point where we can say that we understand the universe 100%,i'll bet my company's earnings last year (counted in 6 digits numbers...) that we know more about the world than the people who wrote the Bible did.

"To adress the thread...again. The logical conclusion,based on a carefull study of history and all of its many diverse culture is...no,the Bible is not the inerant word of God."
--Then I am almost positive you have that information that I asked for earlier, thanx, care to present it?"What it is is simply an interpretation of the divine made by people of earlier times with a primitive understanting of the workings of the universe."
--Primitive? I think you just boosted the definition of primitive as estramly knowledgable."And while we are far from the point where we can say that we understand the universe 100%"
--Probably closer to .005% on its workings."i'll bet my company's earnings last year (counted in 6 digits numbers...) that we know more about the world than the people who wrote the Bible did."
--Are you saying that because the Bible isn't a science book that it isn't scientifically accurate? Care for a supportive reference?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"To adress the thread...again. The logical conclusion,based on a carefull study of history and all of its many diverse culture is...no,the Bible is not the inerant word of God."
--Then I am almost positive you have that information that I asked for earlier, thanx, care to present it?

​

LUD: i do,though its certainly not iron clad,i will grant you that. But then again,i dont think we can expect any certainty about the past until we invent time machines. There is no set way by which historians determine the dates they work with. Most of them use selective judgement based one a number of historical references. Many of them even use books like the Bible among those references to varying degrees,something which i'll admit i found surprising at first. But one of em,Doctor Zelner i believe,a canadian anthropologist explained in a printed article that there was good reason to use holy books as historical references,since many of them do contain a number of confirmed historical events. But at the same time,he was warning against using just one or too few references,as most of them are given a tolerence of about 20-40% as a rule when used alone. About the study of Sumer now...aside from the Sumerian clay tablets,which historians all accept as the first writen language FOR THE TIME BEING(this was stressed several times by him),there is precious little direct information about the Sumerians. There are however quite a few references to them in Babylonian lore. Now,the building of the tower of Babel is placed at about 2200 before christ and it was build by the babylonians. But the Babylonians in their stories talk about the ancient empire on which they build their as being something like a millenia or more in their past. As i said,its not iron clad but its about as good as those determinations gets about the disant past. If fact,Zelner said that an easy way to identify a historical fraud is when they claim greater precision than this. So...what do you think?

​

"What it is is simply an interpretation of the divine made by people of earlier times with a primitive understanting of the workings of the universe."
--Primitive? I think you just boosted the definition of primitive as estramly knowledgable.

​

LUDrimitive in comparaison to ours,yes it was...vrey much so.

​

"And while we are far from the point where we can say that we understand the universe 100%"
--Probably closer to .005% on its workings.

​

LUD:In that case,you could easily say that THEIR's was about .00005%.

​

"i'll bet my company's earnings last year (counted in 6 digits numbers...) that we know more about the world than the people who wrote the Bible did."
--Are you saying that because the Bible isn't a science book that it isn't scientifically accurate? Care for a supportive reference?

​

LUD:I gave you supportive evidence...you just re-interpret in however it strikes your fancy TC and i'm getting tired of going over this again and again and again. So i gave you supporting evidence,you did not accept it,lets leave it at that

​

---

"LUD: i do,though its certainly not iron clad,i will grant you that."
--Thats ok, I wouldn't expect it to be."But then again,i dont think we can expect any certainty about the past until we invent time machines."
--Whew, I'm glad we can agree on that one."There is no set way by which historians determine the dates they work with. Most of them use selective judgement based one a number of historical references. Many of them even use books like the Bible among those references to varying degrees,something which i'll admit i found surprising at first."
--Neat."But one of em,Doctor Zelner i believe,a canadian anthropologist explained in a printed article that there was good reason to use holy books as historical references,since many of them do contain a number of confirmed historical events."
--They sure do."But at the same time,he was warning against using just one or too few references,as most of them are given a tolerence of about 20-40% as a rule when used alone."
--I could agree on these possibilities, (though ofcourse I havent encountered a problem with biblical dating, that is, on events)."About the study of Sumer now...aside from the Sumerian clay tablets,which historians all accept as the first writen language FOR THE TIME BEING(this was stressed several times by him),there is precious little direct information about the Sumerians."
--I guess the first written language goes hand and glove in who were the first cultures in the first place."There are however quite a few references to them in Babylonian lore. Now,the building of the tower of Babel is placed at about 2200 before christ and it was build by the babylonians."
--They would have come to that conclusion I am sure by the dating of the babylonians, along with babylonian structural techniques, and its location. Not near conclusive to say it was the babylonians, though they could have been one of the cultures that stayed near the tower after many other cultures dispersed."But the Babylonians in their stories talk about the ancient empire on which they build their as being something like a millenia or more in their past."
--How do they say this, do they directly say it, or is it product of dating Babylonian empire in contrast with the Babylonian date in the first place."As i said,its not iron clad but its about as good as those determinations gets about the disant past. If fact,Zelner said that an easy way to identify a historical fraud is when they claim greater precision than this. So...what do you think?"
--I think this is good informaiton, though I think we can both see that at this point it couldn't be used as argument against the dating of the Flood or the Creation date for that matter, we would need more information."LUDrimitive in comparaison to ours,yes it was...vrey much so."
--Sure, in a way they were 'primitive' compaired to our knowlege, but they were still either extreamly smart, or had some sort of inspiration on much of their writting."LUD:In that case,you could easily say that THEIR's was about .00005%."
--Well more of a .0008% "LUD:I gave you supportive evidence...you just re-interpret in however it strikes your fancy TC and i'm getting tired of going over this again and again and again. So i gave you supporting evidence,you did not accept it,lets leave it at that."
--You said it yourself: "i do,though its certainly not iron clad,i will grant you that."
--You have yet to give me something that can come to some conclusion. You can't argue out of a lack of evidence to bring about a conclusion.------------------

Unfortunately I am unable to restore the posts of the last week to this thread. I apologize for the inconvenience.--Percy, EvC Forum Administrator

"Unfortunately I am unable to restore the posts of the last week to this thread. I apologize for the inconvenience."
--Thats allright, I was surprized though, that was like 150 or so posts that were lost, all from about 4 days of posting, thats one of the reasona I like your forum, its always active, and can't forget that it is a great place for intelligent discussion.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"But at the same time,he was warning against using just one or too few references,as most of them are given a tolerence of about 20-40% as a rule when used alone."
--I could agree on these possibilities, (though ofcourse I havent encountered a problem with biblical dating, that is, on events).

​

LUD: no problem but no independent confirmation either,which is why historians like Zelner consider using just one source of historical references to be quite suspect. To your knowledge,are the dates given in the genealogies of the Bible corroborated by outside,non biblical sources?

​

"About the study of Sumer now...aside from the Sumerian clay tablets,which historians all accept as the first writen language FOR THE TIME BEING(this was stressed several times by him),there is precious little direct information about the Sumerians."
--I guess the first written language goes hand and glove in who were the first cultures in the first place.

​

LUD:as i said,they consider it being the first writen language as the most plausible explanation so far,until new data if put forth. Zelner also said something that may please you,though not perhaps in a biblical context. He advanced that Adam,Eve and their descendent may well have been the Sumerians. But he also implied that they were likely very normal human beings who became part of a myth of Genesis.

​

"There are however quite a few references to them in Babylonian lore. Now,the building of the tower of Babel is placed at about 2200 before christ and it was build by the babylonians."
--They would have come to that conclusion I am sure by the dating of the babylonians, along with babylonian structural techniques, and its location. Not near conclusive to say it was the babylonians, though they could have been one of the cultures that stayed near the tower after many other cultures dispersed.

​

LUD:that was his very point.

​

"But the Babylonians in their stories talk about the ancient empire on which they build their as being something like a millenia or more in their past."
--How do they say this, do they directly say it, or is it product of dating Babylonian empire in contrast with the Babylonian date in the first place.

​

LUD:in babylonian lore they refer to their ancestors as "children of the summer god". I know,not iron clad but certainly interesting.

​

"As i said,its not iron clad but its about as good as those determinations gets about the disant past. If fact,Zelner said that an easy way to identify a historical fraud is when they claim greater precision than this. So...what do you think?"
--I think this is good informaiton, though I think we can both see that at this point it couldn't be used as argument against the dating of the Flood or the Creation date for that matter, we would need more information.

​

LUD:Well,considering that the flood theory is build on at least as shaky ground as the knowledge of the Sumerians,if not more,i dont see why the arguemnt cant be presented as a counter point. As i said,there are no certainty of the order proposed by the Bible in serious scientific thinking about the distant past.

​

"LUDrimitive in comparaison to ours,yes it was...vrey much so."
--Sure, in a way they were 'primitive' compaired to our knowlege, but they were still either extreamly smart, or had some sort of inspiration on much of their writting.

​

LUD:i would believe that they were smart,because that is substanciated by the facts uncovered about earlier cultures and even inspired to a point...by their imagination,something that still exists to this
day

​

"LUD:In that case,you could easily say that THEIR's was about .00005%."
--Well more of a .0008%

​

LUDoteto,potato...

​

"LUD:I gave you supportive evidence...you just re-interpret in however it strikes your fancy TC and i'm getting tired of going over this again and again and again. So i gave you supporting evidence,you did not accept it,lets leave it at that."
--You said it yourself: "i do,though its certainly not iron clad,i will grant you that."
--You have yet to give me something that can come to some conclusion. You can't argue out of a lack of evidence to bring about a conclusion.

​

LUD:i dont think either of us knows enough to draw any conclusion either way so...

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"But one of em,Doctor Zelner i believe,a canadian anthropologist explained in a printed article that there was good reason to use holy books as historical references,since many of them do contain a number of confirmed historical events."
--They sure do.

---

BUT that of itself does NOT make them accurate or objectively true.For every virtuos religous leader there are five who see it as
a way of gaining earthly power for themselves ... look at the
middle east today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"But at the same time,he was warning against using just one or too few references,as most of them are given a tolerence of about 20-40% as a rule when used alone."
--I could agree on these possibilities, (though ofcourse I havent encountered a problem with biblical dating, that is, on events).

---

Would you care to give us some examples of accurate biblical dating
of an independently verified event?Biblical dating puts the Flood 500 years after the establishment
of pharoahs in Egypt ... and they have an unbroken genaology which
lasts a bit longer than 500 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"About the study of Sumer now...aside from the Sumerian clay tablets,which historians all accept as the first writen language FOR THE TIME BEING(this was stressed several times by him),there is precious little direct information about the Sumerians."
--I guess the first written language goes hand and glove in who were the first cultures in the first place.

---

True. But the oldest found writings do not.

GEN 004:001 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.GEN 004:002 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.GEN 004:017 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.At this time Adam, Eve and Cain should have been the only humans on earth (Abel was slain by Cain). So where did Cain's wife come from? God does not explain that he made more humans. Did he leave this part out? If so, why?

"At this time Adam, Eve and Cain should have been the only humans on earth (Abel was slain by Cain). So where did Cain's wife come from? God does not explain that he made more humans. Did he leave this part out? If so, why?"
--They Simply do not mention other people that were born, as you can see it is perfectly compatable, and also if this is a real problem, than there would only be a couple hundred people by the time of Noah. The bible simply does not mention Cain's wife.------------------