The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:27:08 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

The bible maybe that but it also has history and science in it too.

There is so little "science" as to say none.

Actually it has considerable details of what an ancient person thought
was science.


As far as history... well,
you have such a mix of fiction and distortion that trying to extract
reliable history is a huge problem, full of uncertainty and ambiguity.
It provides hints to our distant past, but not much more than that.

That is certainly not the view of many famous historians and
archaeologist like André Lemaire, Kenneth Kitchen, William G. Dever,
Helga Weippert, Amihai Mazar and Amnon Ben-Tor.

This is a very silly discussion.

The traditional read is that the quotes are suggesting Abraham's
descendents won't die out. And trying to take this stuff literally is
a mug's game.

In article a1e6535b-6a3a-4620-ad4f-7724ac84f49f@
1g2000pre.googlegroups.com, says...
This is a very silly discussion.

The traditional read is that the quotes are suggesting Abraham's
descendents won't die out.

I do not read that interpretation.

And trying to take this stuff literally is
a mug's game.

Then do not play this game.

Because it comes out of a time before printing when scribes were rare
and expensive. But every word in the old testament was carefully picked.

SolomonW wrote:
Mark Edelstein wrote:

This is a very silly discussion.

The traditional read is that the quotes are suggesting Abraham's
descendents won't die out.

I do not read that interpretation.

chuckle

As I read the original post, the discussion was more about how the
bible might hint at the existence of a pre-Gallileian (sp?) telescope
through one man's _wildly_ unsupportable interpretation.

That's not only silly, but an amusing stretch in usage of a text that
has no intent or purpose other than to warn people about the social
ills, evils, and injustices that result from governance by those who
do not have love for others, and to provide solice and comfort in the
knowledge (faith) that there is at the verly least a spiritual reward
in our physical and socio-economic sufferings.

Scientifically speaking, one can only take such comfort as far as the
grave. That's about all the science there is to be found in religion,
and that is only an observation of psychology.

Taking the scientific approach to religion a step further...

Observation indicates that the primary danger of the psychology of
religious belief, lies in the confluence of two ideas, first, that
spiritual reward transcends death, following us into an after life
where social ills, evils, and injustices do not exist, and second,
that it is somehow the responsibility of the "faithful" to secure
those rewards for others, at any cost.

That of course is a losing game that leads to genocide, which rightly
breeds disdain for religion among both the educated and spiritually
mature.

-SteveP

SolomonW wrote:
The bible maybe that but it also has history and science in it too.

Please name one thing from the Bible that clearly predicts something
known to science today that was not known to science when the Bible was
written. Just something simple and straight forward. The moons of
Jupiter? Craters on the moon? The Sun is a star? Dinosaurs?
Antarctica? That taking Lithium will stop the voices?

From what I can tell there is no science at all in the Bible, which is
one of the many reasons it is so illogical for a few extremists to work
so hard to to find it there.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

In article a686165b-c6ea-4fe8-bc40-ba8cf70c3378@
34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...
SolomonW wrote:
Mark Edelstein wrote:

This is a very silly discussion.

The traditional read is that the quotes are suggesting Abraham's
descendents won't die out.

I do not read that interpretation.

chuckle

As I read the original post, the discussion was more about how the
bible might hint at the existence of a pre-Gallileian (sp?) telescope
through one man's _wildly_ unsupportable interpretation.

Much of it yes, it shows the danger of trying to make it correct.

The other part was the biblical writer's science limitation.



That's not only silly, but an amusing stretch in usage of a text that
has no intent or purpose other than to warn people about the social
ills, evils, and injustices that result from governance by those who
do not have love for others, and to provide solice and comfort in the
knowledge (faith) that there is at the verly least a spiritual reward
in our physical and socio-economic sufferings.


I think the text, I quoted has nothing to do with this.

Scientifically speaking, one can only take such comfort as far as the
grave. That's about all the science there is to be found in religion,
and that is only an observation of psychology.


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Science is a moving target. For example we know Newtonian physics was
wrong about absolute time, but in Newton's time such discussions were
science.

By the same token biblical cosmology was science when the bible was
written.


snip - I will pass on this stuff

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:19:52 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:54:09 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:

You go ahead and believe that dead chemicals came to life
all on their own...

I don't believe that. The chemicals are still dead.

Came together to form life. You knew what I meant.

--

If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio
out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:28:36 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

By the same token biblical cosmology was science when the bible was
written.

It most certainly was not. You are confusing "science" with "knowledge".
Science cannot be wrong; it is merely an approach to developing
knowledge. The knowledge itself, of course, can be wrong. Biblical
cosmology is both factually wrong, and bears no relationship to science
since it wasn't developed by scientific methods. Modern cosmology may be
wrong, although more likely it is simply not yet fully developed- more
likely to be incomplete than incorrect. Modern astronomical knowledge
changes because the nature of science is to iteratively improve the
accuracy of understanding. Biblical knowledge does not change, because
it was locked into place by those who recorded the stories.

There was little or no science to be found a few thousand years ago,
because that way of thinking has yet to be developed. I don't doubt,
however, that intelligent people did apply something akin to the
scientific method to ordinary problems of life. But probably not to
explaining how the world works.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:10:18 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:28:36 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

By the same token biblical cosmology was science when the bible was
written.

It most certainly was not. You are confusing "science" with "knowledge".
Science cannot be wrong; it is merely an approach to developing
knowledge.

Scientists can be and are quite a number of times.
But folks are dumb enough to think that what the
scientists say, is science, when lots of times, it's
just their faith.

--

The Last Days were in the first century:

1 Corinthians 1:7-8

7) So that *YE* come behind in no gift;
WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST:
8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end,
that *YE* may be blameless in the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:28:36 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

By the same token biblical cosmology was science when the bible was
written.

It most certainly was not. You are confusing "science" with "knowledge".
Science cannot be wrong; it is merely an approach to developing
knowledge.

I am not sure this makes sense, if the approach is wrong then the
science will be wrong.


But let us get a definition first for what science is

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to
discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world
works.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The knowledge itself, of course, can be wrong. Biblical
cosmology is both factually wrong, and bears no relationship to science
since it wasn't developed by scientific methods.

If you said modern science, I would agree. However if you look here you
can see a section about ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian science so it
was around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science


Modern cosmology may be
wrong, although more likely it is simply not yet fully developed- more
likely to be incomplete than incorrect.

Maybe.

Modern astronomical knowledge
changes because the nature of science is to iteratively improve the
accuracy of understanding. Biblical knowledge does not change, because
it was locked into place by those who recorded the stories.

Which would make people that use the bible in such a manner wrong!


There was little or no science to be found a few thousand years ago,

There is a big difference between little and no in this context.

because that way of thinking has yet to be developed. I don't doubt,
however, that intelligent people did apply something akin to the
scientific method to ordinary problems of life. But probably not to
explaining how the world works.

Yes. We are talking about a period before the development of scientific
methods. This is really talking here 1600s.


_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com