Scientific Knowledge In Sacred Text

Interesting op post. I agree addendums to prophecies and revisions/reinterpretations of passages in holy books to correspond with current scientific knowledge and events is pretty annoying

 

You have no proper evidence for this. A claim such a this, a miraculous suspension of the laws of biology, would require incredible proof to believed. The woman would have to conceive inside of a lab with all variables accounted for and all other possible explanations ruled out. Second hand accounts from millenia ago written by simple desert folk simply don't cut it. It shouldn't be good enough for you. I can find you ancient scratchings that explain that the earth is flat and rests on an infinite procession of tortoises, will you believe that too?

 

You need proof when someone makes an obviously true statement? The statement; "It is not "ignorant" to claim it if it's true" is a true statement on it's face and needs no "proper evidence" or proof to prove it's validity. You need to get a grip.

Interesting! You get all excited, it can't be done, it can't be done it would take a "miraculous suspension of the laws of biology, would require incredible proof to believed" and yet in almost the very same breath you say:

Yep, God the creator of the universe can't do it without bending universal laws but if you give man a nice lab he can do it, no miraculous suspension of the laws needed. Honestly, do you ever stop to think about what you are saying?

Well if the the Bible said it, I might think about it but interestingly the Bible says the earth hangs upon nothing. That is kind of the way the earth looks when viewed from space, if NASA pictures are to be believed. Surprise, surprise, surprise it looks like the Bible got it right.

 

You misunderstood my post. When I said that you have no evidence, I was referring to your claim that jesus was born of a virgin. This is the claim which lacks evidence.

You misunderstood the lab part as well; I'm not saying a scientist in a lab could produce a virgin birth. I don't believe that to be possible. What I'm saying is that in order to believe an account of a virgin birth, it would have had to occur inside an airtight lab, with many cameras and sensors, televised, so that we can rule out any human interference, and so that we could be absolutely positive that it was in fact a virgin who gave birth to a child.

What's more likely, a virgin gave birth to a child, or a woman had sex, conceived, and gave birth, and the details were glossed over by those who had religious intentions?

 

"The Bible on the other hand..." claims in Leviticus that bats are birds. In a few places, it claims that the "firmament" is a solid dome around the Earth to which god affixed the stars. In Revelations it is claimed that stars are tiny objects which can fall from the sky, "like a lamp". In Genesis, it is claimed that Earth was made before the sun. All very specific, all patently wrong.

I could go on and on, but I won't. I might from time to time jump into a discussion to correct falsehoods, but I've no desire to fiddle with what another believes.

 

Then why didn't you just say that rather than first quoting the statement I made which in of itself was quite valid.

Why not? Couldn't In Vitro fertilization cause a virgin birth if the implanted woman was a virgin when implanted?

No, what you are saying is that in order for you to believe it, it would take all that. There many who believe in Jesus' virgin birth without the need for any of that.

Well since so far, in the history of mankind, there has only been one virgin birth and there have been billions of non-virgin births, I would have to say a non-virgin birth is probably more likely.

 

Stop ducking the point. Stop playing these sad games of who said who, and account for your beliefs like an adult.

It depends on how we define "virgin", but even allowing such methods of artificial insemination, those methods were not available 2,000 years ago in jerusalem, and even if they were, the claim here is that the virgin birth was of divine origin.

Argument Ad Populum; "If many believe so, it is so". Then I suppose you concede also that Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the final prophet of Allah (SWT), since no less than 1.5 billion people believe this?

Fools believe all manner of things. What about Mormons, who believe that Jesus will come to earth in the next 50 years, in Missouri? Do you believe this because they do? I'm not going to waste my time with more examples because this is such a basic foundational error in reasoning that really I'm disappointed I have to point this out to you.

Incorrect, there have been zero proven virgin births, by any reasonable definition of "proven". "Because it says so in the bible" is not proof. If we accept this as proof of Jesus' virgin birth, then we have to accept all other written accounts of virgin births, both from gods of the past, and from secular humans such as Alexander the Great. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't just "decide" that the bible is an acceptable authority but the religious texts of all those other religions are not.

 

Interesting. Well let's see how well he has done his homework.

Well by not citing where in Leviticus this is found he makes it hard to check but it seems like he is talking about Leviticus 11:13-20 where in the King James translation the word "fowls" is used, which he seems to believe can be changed to the word "birds". This is a common problem when reading a translation from the original languages to assume that the translated word is exactly the same as the translated word with all it's nuances, which is seldom the case. The original word is עוֹף transliterated as`owph and might be better translated as flying creatures and would include insects and bats as well as birds. So the Bible is not claiming that bats are birds but that they are flying creatures.

Again he has neglected to cite where this can be found. I did a search and checked each occurrence of the word firmament in the King James translation and was unable to find an occurrence that could even be stretched to fit his claim.

If anyone has been reading my posts, they will that I have many times said it is fairly easy to tell if something literal or figurative because the Bible will generally just come out and tell you. So the title of the Book "Revelation" should give you your first clue of what you will find in Revelation but if it didn't then the first verse of Revelation should clear it up when it says; "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John". So in answer I would say if you read something there like; "stars are tiny objects which can fall from the sky, "like a lamp"", it is more than likely symbolic and is not to be taken literally.

This is a common misunderstanding. In Genesis there are several descriptions of the "creation" of the Earth.

First is the Universal view; "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Please notice that this tells of everything being created, which would include the Sun and the Earth. Also notice there is no time frame mentioned and so this could taken place yesterday or hundreds of billions of years ago.

Next is a description of the preparation of an already existing earth for mankind, from the viewpoint as if they were standing on the earth watching it happen. And so the description is of the sun becoming visible on the earth was not of it being created.

Jump in any old time and I'll help you with your misunderstandings.

 

Ducking the point? Yeah blame me for you being ambiguous.

You really don't have any grasp of the concept of God do you? If man could do it now, what would prevent God from doing it 2,000 years ago? He is God you know and hey, that would make it of divine origin.

Please try to stay with the discuss and stop going off on these tangents.

My reply was to your statement; "What I'm saying is that in order to believe an account of a virgin birth, it would have had to occur inside an airtight lab, with many cameras and sensors, televised, so that we can rule out any human interference, and so that we could be absolutely positive that it was in fact a virgin who gave birth to a child." implying that it could not be believed without these conditions and I merely pointed out, that is what you think you need to believe but they are not needed conditions for everyone's belief.

I didn't say or even imply "Argument Ad Populum; "If many believe so, it is so"", again I just was pointing out that many don't need the conditions you stated to believe something.

What you continue to fail to realize is that you are not the arbitrator of what "reasonable proof" is for others.

As for ""Because it says so in the bible" is not proof.", again if a person has found the Bible to be credible then "Because it says so in the bible" could very well be all the proof that person needs. And that would mean that if that person does not find other written accounts to be credible then that person would not have to accept those accounts.

As for Alexander's birth,
Several legends surround Alexander's birth and childhood. According to the ancient Greek biographer Plutarch, Olympias, on the eve of the consummation of her marriage to Philip, dreamed that her womb was struck by a thunder bolt, causing a flame that spread "far and wide" before dying away. Some time after the wedding, Philip is said to have seen himself, in a dream, securing his wife's womb with a seal engraved with a lion's image. Plutarch offered a variety of interpretations of these dreams: that Olympias was pregnant before her marriage, indicated by the sealing of her womb; or that Alexander's father was Zeus. Ancient commentators were divided about whether the ambitious Olympias promulgated the story of Alexander's divine parentage, variously claiming that she had told Alexander, or that she dismissed the suggestion as impious.

Yep, resounding testimony, to the "virgin birth" of Alexander. Dream of being struck by a thunder bolt and you're pregnant and this is just one of several legends of his birth. Come on, even someone as "gullible" as I am, needs a little more than legends and possible interpretations of dreams to believe Alexander had a virgin birth, how about even a simple statement like; Alexander had a virgin birth. So no, I do not find this account credible.

Yes I can, I may not be able to decide for you but I can certainly decide for myself.

 

Okay, fine. It's true where it's true and the rest is poetry, allegory, metaphor, and/or mistranslation.

 

Okay, nice talking with you .

 

I don't even know why I bother honestly. It's like talking to a paid infomercial.

 

So now the story of Jesus a legend.

Let me ask you a question, if four eye witnesses wrote accounts of the same events and wrote the exact same thing word for word would you believe them or would you suspect [SIZE=11pt]collusion.[/SIZE]

Personally I have always thought the minor differences between the accounts to be proof that they are true eye witness accounts.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the fact that about half of Luke and Matthew's genealogy of Jesus are different which would seem to be more of a problem than anything you mentioned. But then there is an easy answer for that as well.

1) Perhaps Paul didn't feel it was necessary to mention the virgin birth since it had already been mentioned in the Gospels. As for saying Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh", Jesus' fleshly mother, Mary, was a descendant of David and thus Jesus was "the seed of David according to the flesh".

2) And this is proof of what? Does this in anyway prove it didn't happen?

3) This one is a little more difficult to explain and I could post a rather lengthy article that explains it but I'm not sure anyone really wants to read it and I would clog up the post but let me know and I'll post it for you.

4) Yes he does, after Jesus was born.

5) Yes he does before the birth of Jesus and then they travel to Bethlehem where Jesus is born.

6) After a length of time Mary and Joesph returned with Jesus to Nazareth which in Galilee and that is where Jesus grew up. So people who knew Jesus grew up in Galilee and didn't know about his birth and short residence in Bethlehem could ask about his coming from Galilee when they knew the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem.

7) It has no secular source as of yet and there is no proof it didn't happen either. You can call it a draw if you wish. As for Luke not mentioning it, did he say it didn't happen? Perhaps there were other things that needed to be mentioned.

8) Seems reasonable since Mary would probably already know she had conceived and had already been told that she would.

9) Seems reasonable that Mary would be told before she conceived, so to avoid any unpleasant surprises.

"Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[6][7] Consequently, very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural."

From this it would seem that the Ebionites may be more legend than Jesus virgin birth.

 

I did not mean to present a false dilemma. I merely was pointing out that often when discussing the Gospel accounts people call for an almost exact word for word duplication in the Gospels but don't realize that if that was the case they would probably then say it was an obvious case of collusion, kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

You must realize that even in agreement there can be differences in some of the details.

You are correct.

I must say I answered without thinking, sorry. So I looked it up and what I found was that Matthew which mentions the virgin birth was written in 41C.E. and all of Paul's epistles were written after that from 50 to 64 C.E., there is some debate over the exact dates though.

As for Paul knowing Jesus' brother and Jesus' brother telling Paul about the virgin birth that did not obligate Paul to write about it in his epistles.

Well, like I said since Mary was of "the seed of David according to the flesh" that would mean Jesus was pretty much of "the seed of David according to the flesh". While there may be various figurative interpretations, there is only one literal interpretation, Jesus was ""the seed of David according to the flesh".

Actually to God and Jesus, the virgin birth is more of a side point and is of little value except as a fulfillment of prophecy. It is non-Christians that tend to make a bigger deal of it than Christians.

There are not several "versions" of the birth and childhood of Jesus. Details added or left out do not make a different "version".

Of course if there were contradictory statements made about the birth and childhood of Jesus, that would be different, then we could talk about the different versions but that is not the case.

Honestly, if I told my own life story several times, it would probably be different every time and that would not mean there are several "versions" of my life story but only that my life story can be told different ways by adding or leaving out different details.

 

hey whats up OWB! been at the beach so i haven't been able to take part in this conversation.


so unlike you, i guess im wrong sometimes! :bigcry: but, ill be back to participate in this thread laters, its too serious for my mood right now!!

 

Science consists of; verifiable facts, and replicable experiments, and most logical working THEORIES, and continuously evolving explanations that best fit with the latest facts and observations. Nothing in real science is sacred, everything is open to peer review and scrutiny with logic and reason and facts.

It is the superstitious and religiously ignorant who are always misrepresenting science, manipulating and cherry picking facts and restating THEORIES as if they were facts in an intellectually dishonest bid to reinforce their superstitious, religiously ignorant, ancient, and biased sacred beliefs.

-
oops, sorry OP, I thought that said "science is sacred text"