Secularly Verifiable Evidence for Biblical Inerrancy

But that's not your claim, now is it? You're not claiming that the Bible says things that are true if you look at them a certain way - you're claiming the Bible contains scientific facts.Well, this isn't one of them. The Earth does not hang, in any scientific sense. No, spheres are spheres. Circles are circles. To get pedantic about it, a sphere is a surface such that all points on the surface are equidistant from a center; a circle is the set of all points that are equidistant from a center and coplanar with that center.If spheres were circles, the what would a cylinder be? And yes, ancient Hebrew has both a word for "circle" and a word for "sphere." Try reading your Bible:

quote:

---

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

---

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not in Africa; they're in the Middle East. I don't know what your FYI guys are basing their view on, but it's not the Bible. Which didn't flood the Earth. Nor was an Ark constructed. I don't see how glacial meltwater proves your point, except in the loosest sense of "flood". You did, after all, make the claim that statements in the Bible were literal scientific facts.Yeah, if you wanted, you can interpret the Bible so that it says whatever you want. Unsurprisingly, you can do this with any collection of statements in any language.

That's not the claim you made in post 1:

quote:

---

I was wondering what everyone thought about portions in the Bible which can be used as objective evidence for its inerrancy. There are many instances in the Bible where scientific fact is spoken before science discovered them to be fact.......

---

You didn't open the topic to discuss things that could be true from an "anthropological point of view", whatever that means. (I would point out that since humans do science, all the findings of science are from an "anthropological point of view" anyway.) You opened the topic to discuss, and I quote, "objective evidence for its inerrancy."So, which is it? Are the scientific facts in the Bible supposed to be objective or subjective? You seem to switch back and forth whenever it suits you. Uh-huh. And you know this because you asked? Well, I call bullshit. Show me the survey that you're using to substantiate this point; I think you're making it up. I ignored them because I've never heard of them, and don't know where they are.Do you know where they are? Can you tell me, please? What "change in aspect" would cause them to flow in a different continent, separated by two different seas? If the T and the E are in the Middle East, and the other two are in North Africa, you're looking at an Eden the size of China. Of course, you haven't even bothered to find out where any of those rivers actually are, now have you? It's enough, I suppose, that someone told you in passng that Eden was in North Africa, without supporting that contentious statement in any way. No world-wide floodings have ever occured, ever. The existence of life on Earth right now proves that all floodings have been local since the dawn of life. A world-wide flood? Since that's what we were talking about. Literally. God speaks light into being.That's not what happened - for starters, there doesn't appear to be any God at all to do the speaking.

In mathematics and engineering, not science.He has no scientific journal output that I can find, however. He's not, unfortunately, in any way a scientist - just a science-minded writer.

Right. That's what it means to be "blatantly unscientific." That's how we determine what is scientific, and what is not - falsifiability. If it can't be falsified, then it isn't scientific.