Can anybody tell me how the Bible is scientific fact WITHOUT giving the following answers:?

Question

1. I'll pray for you.
2. Don't make Jesus/God angry.
3. You're gonna burn in Hell.
4. You're ignorant.
5. Jesus/God told me.
6. You gotta have faith.
7. The Bible says so.
8. copy/pasted scripture

9. Read it.

I'm talking about proof OUTSIDE the Bible. Not holding up a book and claiming it's information is factual because it's in print.

10. There is plenty of evidence.

Plenty of evidence for the Biblical God? At which museum or institution of higher learning?

Answer 1

To "Your Mirror", I say this: "no". That is called shifting the burden of proof. This person is asking you to provide proof for the claim that the bible is scientific fact. To ask for proof that it is *not* fact is the same as asking for proof that there is *not* a teapot on Mars. *You* have to justify *your* claim of factuality. You may counter by saying that it is our equal duty to do the opposite, but that is actually untrue: It is you and your ilk attempting to gain recognition of the bible as fact and thus you must prove your claim. A very long trail of science is our proof.

To "Saint of Sorts": non sequitur. That's Latin for "it does not follow" and is a common logical fallacy. It means that the first part of your argument does not support the last part of your argument. Breathing air and seeing life is no proof that God exists. You must provide the link between the two by proving that God is the creator of these things.

To "K": What part of rule #8 don't you understand? Scientific proof requires multiple outside confirmations. We already know that the bible says the bible is correct. Now go find something else that does.

To "Stellas litter": appeal ad antiquitatem. It's another latin phrase. It means "appeal to tradition" and is another common fallacy. You assume that because no one has proven the bible wrong so far, it must be right. In that case, sexism is perfectly fine, because women were subjugated for thousands of years without having the practice questioned.

To "Michele840": What you ask is that I accept this piece of evidence without giving it a critical scientific evaluation. That's fine if you're trying to sell me a religion. But when you're trying to pass the bible off as science, that doesn't work. That's basically saying "here, this is scientific evidence, but don't treat it like scientific evidence". It's self-defeating.

To "Travis J": Let's see... you're sources are: a non sequitur conclusion, a dead lady, a meager defense of one of the bible's weaknesses to being anything but not stupid, 4 pages of astrology and numerology, very, very weak proof that Jesus existed (a fact which I am not denying), and then a series of blurry photographs attempting to prove that there is *a* boat on Mt. Ararat. What are you trying to prove, that the bible records actual historical events? I don't deny that. However, that in no way proves that the bible is a scientific fact overall, or is a scientific basis for anything.

Van Landing Ham, I must say the following, and I know that it's probably your idea already, but it's this: the bible is not a proper basis for any sort of scientific reasoning. Yes, there is a substantial amount of scientific and historical data for many events in the bible (e.g. the plagues of Egypt, the life of Jesus, etc.) However, the overwhelming majority of the bible is either mythological (creation, the Garden of Eden) or vastly exaggerated and distorted (the great flood, the resurrection, Sodom and Gomorrah). It is illogical to claim that simply because some sections of the bible are true, all sections are (e.g. "The_Cricket").

The truth is that the same reasoning and logic used by Christians to disprove Classical and Norse Paganism works equally well to disprove Christianity. Religion, hundreds of years ago, was as good a guess as any science at the time about the nature of things. But as modern scientific understanding unveils the far-flung reaches of truth, religion can do nothing but shy away.

However, I am inclined to agree with many pro-bible responses on here on one issue: the purpose of the bible is not to be scientific fact. It is to provide happiness, enlightenment, and benefit to society; not dogmatism, tyranny, and intellectual oppression. So often, fundamentalists say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, and both sides should be equally taught. Yet then they openly attack evolution without giving it any critical evaluation. Now am I wrong, or is hypocrisy a sin? Because if it is, I know some people that have some atonement to do.

Longe vivet scientia!
Long live science!

Answer 2

Whoever claimed that the Bible was scientific fact has missed the point. It's not about science and it is not intended to be. Its about faith and purpose. About belonging to something larger and taking comfort in the idea that there is an order and a reason for the universe. Its about the idea that our suffering through life and our joy has some meaning.
The alternative is that we do not matter, nothing matters, we live due to a cosmic accident and everything we accomplish as individuals or a race has no significance what so ever. We and the ants are on exactly the same pane of universal importance.

Answer 3

The Bible is NOT meant to be scientific fact, and anyone who claims that it is, is deceiving themselves.

However, there's a whole world outside science. There's history, archaeology, culture, poetry, wisdom, literature...

And all this is either contained in or is in support of the Bible. Not all of it, of course, not yet. But there have been MANY archaeological discoveries which point to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

The Proverbs, which were written several hundred years B.C., contain wisdom that is used today, even by non-Christians and non-Jews.

However, the Bible also contains scientific facts:
1. It says the earth is round, or circular.
2. It says that the earth is supported on something that can't be seen.
3. Jesus says that it can be day on one side of the world and night on the other.

I'd give you which scriptures these are in, but you said no copied/pasted scripture was allowed.

Are you happy? I answered your question without referring to any of the things you restricted Christians from using.

Answer 4

Well actual the bible holds a lot of history in it I have looked at some aspects of it while studying Roman History. I did a 15 page paper on the different accounts of Christs trial and crucifixion. While the accounts very somewhat they seem to hold up to Roman Law and customs of that time period. The different in the accounts is normal, it all seems to just be what aspects the writes thought were more important and what and how they say the events unfold. My professor who is a Roman and Ancient historian gave me and A and said the work I did was very well done and was accurate with regards to the historical contexts of it. Then there are all of the various artifacts and things like that that seem to point to many different things in the bible being true. While like all ancient writing there is some skepticism regarding some things while others seem to be pretty accurate.

Answer 5

I'm sure that documentation of the physical existance of the bible and the various ancient writings used to compose it can be traced sufficiently to satisfy most skeptics. If you are looking for proof that specific people existed or specific things occured as stated in the bible, there are probably artifacts that exist in museums and religious shrines throughout the world that could serve as physical evidence to support the bible. But, other than these presumtions, I can't tell you. What's your point?

Answer 6

http://www.pdtsigns.com/hirosh.html

http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/lourdes_photo_aa.htm

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/pi.htm

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

http://www.masoncode.com/

that last one can easily be verified, by simply looking at the unconnected Hebrew Text here:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

The masons probably never noticed this actually.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdoctrine/message/176

I suddenly had the thought to check the above, and that is the result of checking something I had never had any inkling of.

http://www.shroud.com/

In the above subject, I independantly researched and came to the same conclusions in the documentary aspect. I was against the shroud. If a special shroud existed from the first century, and it appears that the Shroud of Turin, as it later came to be called, was it, then what does that suggest about the Image on it that many sciences and once skeptical scientists have documented tests on, which make a very good case for it?

Additionally, I can truly prove by comparisons of history with Prophecies, including in the Bible, Nostradamus', Merlin's, and Malachi's, that the Catholic Church and islam were well foretold as two opposite sides.

http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/Slide1.htm

As to the impression on that mountain of Ararat, I can't imagine anyone building a boat at a location where it could never get to water, nor could I imagine such a great structure being transported to that height by anything short of a very great flood.

Why is it that in Babylon there were large efforts made to develop pictographs that, like sign language, could be read as to meaning the same, regardless of different words for the same things? In the place where the languages were scrambled, there was the earliest known effort to learn all languages and compare them through textual translation comparison. How long, I wonder, with their perseverance, did it first take for one man to figure out another's strange tongue? The Chinese' earliest pictographs can be demonstrated to be from the same scripting efforts - this method prevails in China today.

And what's with that Glastonbury Thorn? Even after it was cut down by puritans, a branch was replanted, and still it is one of a kind in Britain.

There is much extrabiblical mention of the hours of darkness during JESUS' Passion.

Answer 7

Jesus spoke of unification. I am in the Father, you are in me, and I am in you. You don't hear that much in modern Christian circles because they focus on the Pauline version of things... but if you go back to the original gospel, this unifiction is a valid.connection.

Science is very keen on it these days... Big scientists of the day are out to prove their unification theories. It's a very valid part of science these days.

Unified aspect of the Original Gospel is explained in Ch 22, Gospel Enigma... a free online source.

That was a valid question.

Answer 8

we cannot PROVE that the bible is "scientific fact".

Just like the men and women of the jury, do you think any of them were witnesses to the crime?
maybe there were no witnesses, they have to go by the evidence provided.
there is plenty of evidence to back up that there are parts of the bible that are true, like some of the historical figures did in fact exist.

But the bible doesn't just preach on historical facts and events, its major focus is how men respond to God and to each other.
it talks about what love is, what guilt, what sympathy, and compassion feel like; you cannot deny those truths.

you dont need "evidence" to know how to love or any of those other things. you just do.

Answer 9

The Bible is scientific fact because the Bible is scientific fact. It's consistent with archeology, paleontology, astronomy, meteorology, biology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics. Simply read it and read it with an honest heart. Don't read it as if you're holding a grudge against God or you are trying to somehow prove that it's wrong. Tell God that you want to know if the Bible has any scientific fact and if you really mean it then He'll show you. How can I go further with this if you don't want me to copy and paste Scripture from the Bible itself in order to show you further?

Answer 10

I've never heard anyone say the bible is 'scientific fact' -- I do know muslims claim this about the Koran however.

The Bible isn't a science book...doesn't everyone know this?