Using scripture as evidence

@gideon1451 Said

The Bible is one of the oldest books in existance, if not the oldest book. Its also been rewritten not very much compared to other books being that old, making it more like the actual experiences that have been recorded.

@crazychica Said

Not exactly. THere are older written words. The oldest known written languages belong to the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians. The Bible as we know it now, has been translated from 3 different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into Latin, English, Spanish and all the other languages it is currently available in. The amount that has been lost in translation could be incalculable. Add to that that there have been many copies made from one or two original copies and the errors that pile up and you have a major headache.

Plus, the stories in the Bible were not written as they happened or even just after, but decades or, in some cases, centuries after their conception. It's full of mistakes and contradictions, and I was talking a Christian just last week who admitted this. It is no more viable than any other religion out there, so why use its scripture as evidence? Keep going that way and we have over 9000 gods to worhip (priests will have a hard job) and several different creation stories.

@crazychica Said

Also, this is the oldest known printed book
clicky

@gideon1451 Said

Well, from my perspective, that's possible, because God left the world to us, and we sort of made a mess of it, we probably made a mess of the Bible too. Even so, I believ that the basic meaning is still the same in the Bible, as many of it can be proved. Through science as unbelievable as that sounds, with scientology and all.

We did something in school about the Bible's accuracy, I've forgotten most of it to be honest, but I remember that it is more accurate than you think.

@crazychica Said

With scientology? Scientology is a religion and an extremely dangerous one at that. Unfortunately, the whyaretheydead website no longer exists but google scientology and deaths and you should get to some websites about it.

As for it being proved with science, I'd like to see that. I'm a forensics student. It's classed as a Life Science at my university but there's a good mix of biology, chemistry and a dash of physics in there and I have yet to see such evidence. I'm a science geek and yet none of my science education has even shown me evidence of any deity. So please, show me this scientific evidence

@dlsharp Said

What do you base your evidence?

@crazychica Said

With scientology? Scientology is a religion and an extremely dangerous one at that. Unfortunately, the whyaretheydead website no longer exists but google scientology and deaths and you should get to some websites about it.

As for it being proved with science, I'd like to see that. I'm a forensics student. It's classed as a Life Science at my university but there's a good mix of biology, chemistry and a dash of physics in there and I have yet to see such evidence. I'm a science geek and yet none of my science education has even shown me evidence of any deity. So please, show me this scientific evidence

@crazychica Said

I base my opinions on the evidence. I'm an atheist agnostic. I don't know whether or not there's a god because there's just not enough evidence for the existance of a deity but nor could there be evidence to prove that there isn't one. But based on this I believe that there is no god, because there is no evidence for one. It's the same approach I would take to anything. If there's no proof of a murder, no body, no large volumes of blood, then you can't say that a murder has taken place.

@gideon1451 Said

Scientology is dangerous. I've read a book that included it, Dan Brown - Angels & Demons, and it is. But some science can be used to back up Christian theory. Quite a lot of things that are now basic scientific fact are mentioned in the Bible far before they're discovered by human. For example - in the Bible, animals & fish & creatures were created before man, this happens to have happened in life. I think that creation in the Bible isn't nessercily fact, but metaphorical, and God used scientific processes. If you look at everything, how the Universe was created, how the Earth just how happens to work, biodiversity, how things happen - like people surviving against all odds [it happens] - it seems to me, that how did any of that happen totally by chance? There's got to be another force at work.

I've strayed a bit there.

Well, I do advanced further sciences, chemistry, physics & biology myself at school, so not as advanced as you there, but I'm A* material. I've seen evidence of the Bible being true, far before humans knew any of this.

The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.



I you want to believe that evolution happened, then there's evidence here. I believe that evolution was used by God.

The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.











Not the best evidence to be utterly honest, but it's hard to describe it. Many scientists who've done lots of work and found out things have seen God's work in it, and the Bible's truth. My science teacher is a Christian.

@dlsharp Said

I've always heard that science is based on fact and really all I ever hear is theory, so what makes it any different?

@crazychica Said

Can you explain how the Bible got its animal classifications wrong then? Birds and fish are animals but the first organisms to evolve were single celled such as bacteria. Push it a bit further and you get plants next, more specifically mosses and algae. Then mitochondria which were absorbed by larger cells, allowing the first multi-cellular animals, which were water creatures. Thing progressed from there. Yet the creation story doesn't mention bacteria and plants didn't come along until man learned to farm (speaking of which, how would anyone survive?). How can the Bible have gotten the order right and yet so long at the same time?

Also, man didn't some from dust. The first organisms formed in water because there wasn't a lot of land back then and that's where the earliest fossils have come from. The plates had to get pushing and pulling each other into volcanoes and mountains first, which took a while. Amino acids are not dust and tend to hang out in aqueous enviroments. A large portion of your body is aqueous for this reason.

Yes, many scientists are Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc and see the work of their deity in science, however, none of this conclusivel proves that the Bible is right and God is real. Nor does it really back up what the Bible says because it's based on what your interpretation is. Also, I believe some versions of the Bible say man was formed from clay or a clot of blood, not dust.