The Bible: Ahead Of Science By 3,000 Years (or More)

[masugidsk8r 0]

Read or scan this page: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Summary:
Based on what's said in that article, the Bible speaks of things which Science has only proved thousands of years later. I know, I found this very interesting at first but take a good look and have a Bible in hand in case you have any doubts.

It's very interesting to find that the Bible said the Earth was round, the moons and stars are not gods but inanimate objects. Here's a list of what the Bible said proven by Science many years later.

- The earth is round
*many people thought the earth was flat, that if you walked far enough you'd fall at the edge of the earth

-There are valleys, mountains in the ocean
*people believed they were craters...?

-The bible spoke of a group of stars only found recently in the 20th century
*Pleiades, Orion and Aractarus was spoken about 3,000 years ago when it was only discovered until these past few years!

[truefusion 3]

There's more than what that web page has, but i guess the creators of that site figured that would be convincing enough. All of those i had already known about, though. But for some reason, even with all these facts, people still don't believe.

[masugidsk8r 0]

Well, if you try that hard and they still don't believe then that's that. We can't force everyone to believe.

[adriantc 0]

I am sure there is tons and tons of scientific proof in the Bible... thousands of year ahead of its time! And it is all coded... if you read the 2nd letter of every word in the Bible you will find our the meaning of life. One thing is for sure.... God has a sense of humor. Instead saying: "And God created the Earth round...". All is coded... Why does he need codes. Can't he simply tell us in a sentence something that we would understand once we know enough.

But of course God speaks in codes. If you really believe in something and you want something to be you will end up convincing it is as you wish. If I say an apple is blue and I believe enough that the apple is blue it will look blue to me!

Edited December 9, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

[kobra500 1]

- The earth is round*many people thought the earth was flat, that if you walked far enough you'd fall at the edge of the earth

That is a fallacy, infact since the acient greeks (before the bible) people knew about the earth being round, the ones who said the earth was flat were thought to be stupid. So theres one of the points the bible didnt predict actually predict.



There are 100's of facts that are said to be true, that we know are false, these are all false. I can reccommend a show "Q.I" hosted by Stephen Fry here in the u.k.

There's more than what that web page has, but i guess the creators of that site figured that would be convincing enough. All of those i had already known about, though. But for some reason, even with all these facts, people still don't believe.

It may be something to do with the Dark Age Regression, or something to do with lack of tracked science, could also be explained by the fact a non-existant being couldn't make this up.

The Steam engine was invented in acient times. God must have given them the knowlegde, shame it was useless. Ironically rails had been invent years before even that.

Also all the scientific evidence made since then goes against God.

It's amazing with all these facts people still believe.

-see what I did there?

you don't look for a logical explanation, don't understand x theory.. just say God did it. The fact you believe these techs must have been God shows your lack of logical thought. I've already disprooved one of your list for a fact (and these are older written texts.
Edited December 9, 2008 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

That is a fallacy, infact since the acient greeks (before the bible) people knew about the earth being round, the ones who said the earth was flat were thought to be stupid. So theres one of the points the bible didnt predict actually predict.

Actually, the proof isn't in showing who wrote it down first, but in how they obtained the knowledge. I haven't seen anyone prove to me that the Jews got it from the Greek. Whether or not the Greeks had that knowledge before the Jews is beyond me—i mean, can you really judge based on who wrote it first? Writing it and knowing it are two different things. In this world anyone can take credit for something if they release the idea to the public first, regardless of who knew it first. The books of the Bible were inspired, written for specific purposes, on the current times of the Jewish people.

Also all the scientific evidence made since then goes against God.

I'ma assume you mean against the existence of God. I'ma also assume that you may be alluding to things like, perhaps, the theory of evolution. Personally i have not seen anything in science that is true that has contradicted God's existence. Since this is the perfect topic for such a thing, perhaps you can go about in mentioning what are these evidences. 'Cause if i were to say, "All scientific evidence points towards a case for God," how is that any different from what you have said?

It's amazing with all these facts people still believe.

Facts will always be true—no wonder why they believe them.

-see what I did there?

What did you do there?

you don't look for a logical explanation, don't understand x theory.. just say God did it. The fact you believe these techs must have been God shows your lack of logical thought. I've already disprooved one of your list for a fact (and these are older written texts.

Oh, is this what you did? I don't know, i think i showed that for your case. You didn't disprove anything.

[cemeteryrecords 0]

"When people cannot explain something, they say it's God. But that God is more unexplainable than the original problem..."It's a quote I read in a magazine awhile back. It's not the exact, but it's close. It was a debate between an athiast scientist and a Christian scientist. It was very interesting. Has anyone else read it? I can't seem to find it anywhere...

[dre 0]

"When people cannot explain something, they say it's God. But that God is more unexplainable than the original problem..."

That seems odd, since a belief in god(s) would obviously mean that god(s) did everything, acting as a universal explanation. Naturally, god(s) would be unexplainable- if they were, they wouldn't be god(s) then.

[OpaQue 15]

All great beings who made the Bible possible will probably be existing in a higher level of mind to have written a science for Mankind which we refer as Spirituality now. To write something which runs through GENERATIONS capturing hearts of the believers in *ILLIONS!Considering the time when it was it was written and (if I assume that they are advanced) then, its feels that something inside Creation is very simple and those people knew it.

[rvalkass 5]

²²He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

In the Bible, and in the language of the time, the word 'circle' meant literally that - a flat, 2D, circular shape. It never meant a sphere. All references in the Bible point to the 'circle of the earth', implying it was actually believed that the earth was a flat circular shape rather than the spherical shape the Greeks knew was correct. The idea of a canopy over the earth wouldn't make sense if the passage referred to a spherical earth - how could you stretch a canopy over a sphere? The imagery of this tent-like canopy suggests a flat circular earth with the sky (heavens) placed above it like a big dome.

 

The Bible also manages to get a cornerstone of mathematics and geometry gravely wrong. The value of pi, according to the Bible is exactly 3:

 

Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.

At the time, far more accurate representations for pi were known. In 1650 BCE the Egyptians estimated it at 3.16049. By 250 BCE, Archimedes had got it down to 3.14163 - within 0.001% of the value used today.

 

Bringing the maths down a level, the writers of the Bible managed to fail at basic counting too!

 

The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.

Erm... I make it 5.

 

And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, Engannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages.

Nope. 15 methinks.

 

I find it hard to believe that the Bible can predict major scientific discoveries, yet fail at the basic mathematics and assumptions. And this only leads me to doubt its accuracy further.

[truefusion 3]

In the Bible, and in the language of the time, the word 'circle' meant literally that - a flat, 2D, circular shape. It never meant a sphere. All references in the Bible point to the 'circle of the earth', implying it was actually believed that the earth was a flat circular shape rather than the spherical shape the Greeks knew was correct. The idea of a canopy over the earth wouldn't make sense if the passage referred to a spherical earth - how could you stretch a canopy over a sphere? The imagery of this tent-like canopy suggests a flat circular earth with the sky (heavens) placed above it like a big dome.

In the language of the time, the word "circle" did not exist; "circle" is English. But let us examine the phrase "circle of the earth." What is that? Look up the word equator. If you run off of only the word "circle," you'll only conclude inaccurate statements; you have to consider the entire usage. And i don't see how you can see it is illogical to wrap a sphere with a canopy. How would one do it? The same way they would with a flat, circular surface. You say all references to the phrase in question implies a flat surface. You consider the entire phrase here rather than the word "circle" alone, yet you didn't even point to any reference to show that it implies a flat surface.

The Bible also manages to get a cornerstone of mathematics and geometry gravely wrong. The value of pi, according to the Bible is exactly 3:
At the time, far more accurate representations for pi were known. In 1650 BCE the Egyptians estimated it at 3.16049. By 250 BCE, Archimedes had got it down to 3.14163 - within 0.001% of the value used today.

Do you know what a cubit is? Do you know what time King Solomon existed in? A cubit was known to be the length from the tip of your middle finger to the elbow. People come in different sizes; and King Solomon existed over 650 years before 250 BCE.

Erm... I make it 5.

You excluded Shemaiah. 6.

Nope. 15 methinks.

It's fourteen. Use a more accurate translation; the sources and knowledge of the Biblical languages weren't as abundant back then as they are today. Using the 21st Century KJV translation doesn't make it accurate. If you knew about the goals of the KJV translators, you would know they try to keep it as faithful to the original (and understandable) KJV as possible. Read the preface, and you'll know. (The KJV that came out in 1611 is hard to understand, since the English is older than old English.)

I find it hard to believe that the Bible can predict major scientific discoveries, yet fail at the basic mathematics and assumptions. And this only leads me to doubt its accuracy further.

You're in luck, they don't. You can stop doubting now.

[rvalkass 5]

In the language of the time, the word "circle" did not exist; "circle" is English. But let us examine the phrase "circle of the earth." What is that? Look up the word equator. If you run off of only the word "circle," you'll only conclude inaccurate statements; you have to consider the entire usage. And i don't see how you can see it is illogical to wrap a sphere with a canopy. How would one do it? The same way they would with a flat, circular surface. You say all references to the phrase in question implies a flat surface. You consider the entire phrase here rather than the word "circle" alone, yet you didn't even point to any reference to show that it implies a flat surface.

Perhaps I could have phrased myself better. The original word, which was translated into 'circle', meant specifically a flat 2D circle, and never meant 'sphere'. This was translated, correctly, into the word 'circle'. The incorrect meaning of the word 'circle' used by many people, to mean a sphere, was used as evidence to say the Bible sees the world as a sphere. It actually shows the exact opposite - the Bible states the world is a flat circle.

 

Do you know what a cubit is? Do you know what time King Solomon existed in?

Yes.

 

A cubit was known to be the length from the tip of your middle finger to the elbow. People come in different sizes; and King Solomon existed over 650 years before 250 BCE.

The measurement used is irrelevant - it is the ratio used that is in question. He could have measured the diameter in bananas for all I care - but you would still need 3.14159... times that number to go all the way around, not just 3 times, and the value of pi was known much more accurately than that.

 

 

You excluded Shemaiah. 6.

OK, then you just doubled the problem:

 

22And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.

 

23And the sons of Neariah; Elioenai, and Hezekiah, and Azrikam, three.

 

24And the sons of Elioenai were, Hodaiah, and Eliashib, and Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Johanan, and Dalaiah, and Anani, seven.

Neariah and Elioenai are not included in their totals, so why include Shemaiah in the first?

 

It's fourteen. Use a more accurate translation; the sources and knowledge of the Biblical languages weren't as abundant back then as they are today. Using the 21st Century KJV translation doesn't make it accurate. If you knew about the goals of the KJV translators, you would know they try to keep it as faithful to the original (and understandable) KJV as possible. Read the preface, and you'll know. (The KJV that came out in 1611 is hard to understand, since the English is older than old English.)

The New International Version is no more accurate. The fact that there are these different conflicting versions just shows the Bible is not the inerrant word of God.

 

You're in luck, they don't. You can stop doubting now.

The jury is still out

[truefusion 3]

Perhaps I could have phrased myself better. The original word, which was translated into 'circle', meant specifically a flat 2D circle, and never meant 'sphere'. This was translated, correctly, into the word 'circle'. The incorrect meaning of the word 'circle' used by many people, to mean a sphere, was used as evidence to say the Bible sees the world as a sphere. It actually shows the exact opposite - the Bible states the world is a flat circle.

You have still yet to provide sources that prove what you're talking about. But let me go into further analysis of "circle of the earth." What does that mean? It means the earth owns a circle. How can the earth own a circle? Does it relate to circling the earth? How can one circle the earth if it's flat? "Have fun falling off." Or perhaps they'd run into the great ice wall. "What's this? An ice wall? I can't climb that... What a waste of a trip!" And if it doesn't relate to circling the earth, then what? Does it relate to an imaginary line that circles the earth? What? It doesn't have to explicitly say "sphere" to mean it.

The measurement used is irrelevant - it is the ratio used that is in question. He could have measured the diameter in bananas for all I care - but you would still need 3.14159... times that number to go all the way around, not just 3 times, and the value of pi was known much more accurately than that.

Assuming they care about the measurement of "pi" (whatever it was at the time of Solomon) as much as you imply they do, how could they even come up with the measurement of pi without measurement? Therefore the measurement is relevant. You are merely forcing a number that didn't exist during the time of Solomon just so you can say their measurement is inaccurate.

Neariah and Elioenai are not included in their totals, so why include Shemaiah in the first?

You claim there's a problem. Yeah, you're avoiding the punctuation used by the translation. You avoid the comma and the semicolon. Look at the verses again and follow the logic of the structure. How many sons did Neariah have? 3. How about Elioenai? 7. Shemaiah was included because it wasn't about him, it was about Shechaniah.

The New International Version is no more accurate. The fact that there are these different conflicting versions just shows the Bible is not the inerrant word of God.

That doesn't follow. Ignorance of the language structure, other culture related information, methods, along with lack of sources during the time of these other translations, doesn't make Scripture false—it can make the translation false on some level, though. And to claim that it is no more accurate is to willingly make yourself ignorant of all the manuscripts we have—which weren't available to them at the time—and all the Bible study and third party references that were considered in order to publish an accurate translation.

The jury is still out

Bring them back, they need to hear this.

[africa 0]

There's more than what that web page has, but i guess the creators of that site figured that would be convincing enough. All of those i had already known about, though. But for some reason, even with all these facts, people still don't believe.

Most people are ignorant to facts and people just believe what they grow up accustomed to.

I found out during the presidential debates...the people who analyzed afterwards, just stuck to the positions they had before!

Everything was seen in good light and so people stick to what they already know especially if its based on hope or faith.

[Quatrux 4]

Bible is quite a great book, an amazing book, really interesting book, but the fact remains:it was written by people.There are lots of interesting facts about the Bible, good and bad, funny and amazing.