Scientific Knowledge In Sacred Text

people who believe their sacred text came from divine inspiration usually make these claims:

1) their sacred text is the right one

2) their sacred text makes predictions

3) their sacred text had scientific knowledge way before actual science


-----------------------------------------------------

1) this first claim is just arrogant. claiming your system is the best among others when they are all faith based and not fact based beliefs is so egoistic, no wonder you can't look at your own religion objectively. especially if you know full well that your religion is one of those based on an older religion re-branded.

2) prophecies from religions will have this in common:
- written in a language that is poetic or allegory
- vague
- still hasn't happened yet.

when you have prophecies written like this, any number of events could have occurred to fulfill them because of their vagueness. a great example is nostradamus predicting 9/11 attacks.

3) my pep peeve. claiming that a faith based system, based on a book written in poetic language can have any meaningful scientific value.

first of all the obvious problem is that nobody ever ever ever right any scientific literature in this way. the reason is obvious, when you are writing scientific explanations, or any kind of explanation you don't want interpretation.

if you consider the bible in this context, any scientific fact that you get out of it, will come without any explanation, and as we know, science is all about explaining, not just stating a conclusion without a body of reason.

 

In the grand scheme of things, your religion is just a short fad.

 

Like this whole post isn't you just being arrogant.

I mean if you are going to try and refute the Bible at least do some research. This whole drivel about Christianity being based on an older religion re-branded has been well researched and has been proven false.

You've been to one too many sideshow palm readers. Nostradamus is an excellent example of vague prophecies that could be applied to anything.

The Bible on the other hand tends to be very specific and accurate.

Honestly no one has called the Bible a science text book because it is not but where it touches on science it is accurate.

For instance, some of the laws regarding sanitation, quarantine and the handling of corpses predate the science on the subjects thousands of years.

 

i concur doctor.

these are the two best examples i can give you off the top of my head:

-krisna was also born of a vergin, much older religion.

-the story of noah and the flood can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia.

id like to stay away from this argument, because i "foresee" you bringing up literature that is going to be open to interpretation.

this is just wrong. plain wrong. i know you wont admit it, but its plain wrong to those who are rational.

take any scientific knowledge that you want from the bible and it will fail the following test:

1. It must be correct. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is incorrect, because the scientific method necessarily eschews incorrect data.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical scientific foreknowledge if it isn't in the Bible, because the only possible source of Biblical scientific foreknowledge is the Bible.[note 1]
3. It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is ambiguous, both because science is necessarily precise and because ambiguity allows modern science to be shoehorned into ancient religion when none is present.
4. It must have been outside of contemporary knowledge. A statement it cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it was already known, because this makes the "foreknowledge" into merely "knowledge" and makes divine intervention unnecessary.[note 2]
5. It must have been outside of contemporary technology. A statement cannot be considered scientific foreknowledge if it was knowable with the technology of the time, because this makes divine intervention unnecessary.

laws regarding sanitation quarantine and the handling of corpses fail this test as it was already contemporary knowledge around the world, and not outside of contemporary technology.

if you apply this test to genesis, it fails hilariously.

 

science is not a body of knowledge, but a method of discovering knowledge.
the scripture of any belief, addresses an entirely different area of concern.

thus religion and science are truly apples and oranges.
this is something of which the majority of people in science tend to be very much aware,
while many, if not most, people in religion, choose, or pretend, to ignore.

 

I met an ex Hare KrIshna once who had become some kind of spiritual healer. He seemed quite shocked when I suggested that knowledge of the existence of bacteria and DNA is a recent discovery made solely by science.

Did I imagine that the ancient sages didn't know about DNA or bacteria?

That's the kind of thing I find just annoying.

 

hare krisna's are probably the most superstitious of all religious people.

 

that reminds me i actually know a real spiritual healer, shes a lady, and she does some shit with crystals, she has a successful practice (if you can call it that) and she makes 6-7 figures a year. she was one of my clients.

 

Let's just deal with this nonsense quickly, Wikipedia, who has no dog in this fight says:
"This is occasionally brought up as evidence for the hypothesis that "virgin birth" tales are a fairly common phenomenon in non-Christian religions around the world. However, there is nothing in Hindu scriptures to suggest that it was a "virgin" birth. By the time of conception and birth of Krishna, Devaki was married to Vasudeva and had already borne 7 children."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

 

Definitely among the most superstitious.

 

Really? Contemporary knowledge? Who? Millions still die today because of poor sanitation. And there was no way at the time to know about germs the "scientific" reason for sanitation. As for the handling of corpses, did you know that recently Ebola was being spread by improper handling of corpses which could not have happened under the Mosaic law.

In what way? Just because you have no idea what it is saying does not mean that what it says is incorrect.

 

That's correct, as any reader of the Mahabharata will tell you. Krishna was (according to the myth) taken from his birth mother, Devaki shortly after he was born and was raised by a step mother, Yashoda.
Neither of these ladies was a virgin.

I wish people would check their facts before posting.

 

Did you notice that the wikipedia page you use to refute that one single instance of virgin birth has listed in it many other instances, which lend their part to the point at hand?

 

IMjustfishin is the one that gave one of the "best examples i can give you off the top of my head" "Krishna". I was just pointing out that if this is one of the "best examples", it would seem to call into question this whole "Christianity is based on an older religion re-branded" concept.

Perhaps, since you seem so interested, you would like to mention a few other "best examples"?

 

"Zoroaster's mother, Dughdova, was a virgin when she conceived Zoroaster by a shaft of light"

 

This is what I found in wikipedia and there doesn't appear to be any mention of a virgin birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

Life
The Gathas contain allusions to personal events, such as Zoroaster's triumph over obstacles imposed by competing priests and the ruling class. They also indicate he had difficulty spreading his teachings, and was even treated with ill-will in his mother's hometown. They also describe familiar events such as the marriage of his daughter, at which Zoroaster presided. In the texts of the Younger Avesta (composed many centuries after the Gathas), Zoroaster is depicted wrestling with the daevas and is tempted by Angra Mainyu to renounce his thinking (Yasht 17.19; Vendidad 19). The Spend Nask, the 13th section of the Avesta, is said to have a description of the prophet's life. [26] However, this text has been lost over the centuries, and it survives only as a summary in the seventh book of the 9th-century Dēnkard. Other 9th- to 12th-century stories of Zoroaster, such as the Shāhnāmeh, are also assumed to be based on earlier texts, but must be considered as primarily a collection of legends. The historical Zoroaster, however, eludes categorization as a legendary character.
Zoroaster was born into the priestly family[citation needed] of the Spitamids and his ancestor Spitāma is mentioned several times in the Gathas. His father's name was Pourušaspa, or "Poroschasp", a noble Persian, and his mother's was Dughdova (Duγδōuuā). With his wife, Huvovi (Hvōvi), Zoroaster had three sons, Isat Vastar, Uruvat-Nara and Hvare Ciϑra; three daughters, Freni, Pourucista and Triti.[27] His wife, children and a cousin named Maidhyoimangha were his first converts after his illumination from Ahura Mazda at age 30. According to Yasnas 5 & 105, Zoroaster prayed to Anahita for the conversion of King Vištaspa,[28] who appears in the Gathas as a historic personage. In legends, Vištaspa is said to have had two brothers as courtiers, Frašaōštra and Jamaspa, and to whom Zoroaster was closely related: his wife, Hvōvi, was the daughter of Frashaōštra, while Jamaspa was the husband of his daughter Pourucista. The actual role of intermediary was played by the pious queen Hutaōsa. Apart from this connection, the new prophet relied especially upon his own kindred (hvaētuš).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster
Life
The Gathas contain allusions to personal events, such as Zoroaster's triumph over obstacles imposed by competing priests and the ruling class. They also indicate he had difficulty spreading his teachings, and was even treated with ill-will in his mother's hometown. They also describe familiar events such as the marriage of his daughter, at which Zoroaster presided. In the texts of the Younger Avesta (composed many centuries after the Gathas), Zoroaster is depicted wrestling with the daevas and is tempted by Angra Mainyu to renounce his thinking (Yasht 17.19; Vendidad 19). The Spend Nask, the 13th section of the Avesta, is said to have a description of the prophet's life. [26] However, this text has been lost over the centuries, and it survives only as a summary in the seventh book of the 9th-century Dēnkard. Other 9th- to 12th-century stories of Zoroaster, such as the Shāhnāmeh, are also assumed to be based on earlier texts, but must be considered as primarily a collection of legends. The historical Zoroaster, however, eludes categorization as a legendary character.
Zoroaster was born into the priestly family[citation needed] of the Spitamids and his ancestor Spitāma is mentioned several times in the Gathas. His father's name was Pourušaspa, or "Poroschasp", a noble Persian, and his mother's was Dughdova (Duγδōuuā). With his wife, Huvovi (Hvōvi), Zoroaster had three sons, Isat Vastar, Uruvat-Nara and Hvare Ciϑra; three daughters, Freni, Pourucista and Triti.[27] His wife, children and a cousin named Maidhyoimangha were his first converts after his illumination from Ahura Mazda at age 30. According to Yasnas 5 & 105, Zoroaster prayed to Anahita for the conversion of King Vištaspa,[28] who appears in the Gathas as a historic personage. In legends, Vištaspa is said to have had two brothers as courtiers, Frašaōštra and Jamaspa, and to whom Zoroaster was closely related: his wife, Hvōvi, was the daughter of Frashaōštra, while Jamaspa was the husband of his daughter Pourucista. The actual role of intermediary was played by the pious queen Hutaōsa. Apart from this connection, the new prophet relied especially upon his own kindred (hvaētuš).

 

Yep, you caught me. Obviously all of Jesus' disciples went to India, learned sanscrit, read The Mahabharata and decided to model Jesus' birth after Kunti with a few changes of course.

 

They didn't need to. The myth of the virgin birth is neither rare in history nor reserved for religions; even Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great were said to be born of virgins.

Ultimately it makes not a whit of difference even IF jesus was the only person in all of mythology to be claimed to be born of a virgin, but it's simply ignorant to claim this.

 

It is not "ignorant" to claim it if it's true.