Is The Bible Accurate?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
One; Blood letting was extremely controlled, normally using leaches or similar. When all the 'patients' blood was let it was called crucifixion. The romans certainly knew the importance of blood. Indeed, blood letting still went on in the 17th and 18th Centuries, in Christian Europe, so bang goes your theory.

Two; The biblical notion c ated the earth diameter.

So, ten refuted now. And ten tomorrow. Stay tuned Bat-fans!

Blood letting was extremely controlled, normally using leaches or similar. When all the 'patients' blood was let it was called crucifixion. The romans certainly knew the importance of blood. Indeed, blood letting still went on in the 17th and 18th Centuries, in Christian Europe, so bang goes your theory.

You’ve just validated my theory. The Romans “knew” that blood letting cured disease. In most cases this is not true, and if they had listened to the author of Leviticus they wouldn’t have quite literally drained the life out of their patients.

The biblical notion could also be seen to be the same as the common belief. Man's 'seed' needed a fertile place to grow into a baby. In those days, as now, a baby cannot grow except inside a woman.

No, I believe it wasn’t until the early 1900’s before science showed that there weren’t little people in a man’s sperm as was commonly believed.

eating of raw flesh forbidden? Drinking of blood? So what? What 'knowledge' have you proven?Are you choosing to forget that people in some cultures still drink animal blood for a number of religious ceremonies? What about people that eat sushi? Are they to be forgotten too? I like sushi.

The knowledge that it is risky and may cause disease. Some sushi restaurants now require customers to sign disclaimers.

Don't eat animal that died naturally. Animals die for a number of reasons naturally. The fact that the romans may or may not have had cultural restrictions on this type of thing is immaterial - it is unlikely they would scrape the roadkill up and fry it for dinner. Again, no 'new knowledge' here.

Dead animals rot Scott. Do you understand that rotten meat is dangerous? How many people do you suppose have died from food poisoning?

Quaritine of certain diseases. Well, the egyptians were using yeast to make beer long before the christians came along. There is also evidence they knew about bacterial contamination.

Leviticus was probably written around 550 BC and before the Romans had built their sewer systems. The verse talks about isolating the sick. Not making beer or a link between sewer and disease. It wasn’t until about the first century AD that the Romans knew much about diseases.

Prinicples of avoiding bacterial contamination. Again, see above point.

Diddo

pre-christian surgery. See this link for a nice selection of roman surgical instruments.

Those instruments date from first century BC. Genesis was written 750-550 BC.

The romans knew all about the importance of keeping their clothes clean. They used the ammonia (from urine) to effictively sterilise their clothes. Urine is, of course, sterile when it leaves the body, and has such a high urea content microbes cannot grow in it.

That’s not exactly true. A number of diseases can be transmitted through urine. The Romans used to make perfume out of the sweat from a gladiator. Is this your idea of hygiene?

The flat earth concept didn't come into existance until nearly 200 years after Christs death. Indeed, ancient greek philosophers even calculated the earth diameter.

Not according to Wikipedia.

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

“It is commonly assumed that people from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged.”

“Belief in a flat Earth is found in humankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus.”

Isaiah was written approximately 750 BC, so this was prior to the Greek philosophers. Up until about the first century, the earth was considered flat by most people, especially the Romans.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Because no-one ever broke their arm before Jesus! Man, I've heard it all now!!!

Any open fractures would have produced blood. There would have been no way for them to distinguish between blood and bone marrow.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Whatever bud, these claims are so outlandish, I'm not going to waste my time
trying to explain just to have you say that [b]I am discrediting the Bible.
That insult is so ironic, it's beyond funny.

Nemesio[/b]

Cheers.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is an example of what I mean.

The navel is where your stomach is. Obviously, to be physically fed, one
must attend to one's stomach.

Interestingly enough, modern translations use 'flesh' and not 'navel'
and 'bones' and not 'marrow.' These translations are striving to
communicate what was meant in the original and not to impose
some bizarre, prophetic statement on the nature of the placenta.

Nemesio

Proverbs 3:8: riphut t’hai l’sharekh v’shequy l’atzmoteykh.

Translations:

KJV: It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

NIV: This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones.

NAS: It will be healing to your body, And refreshment to your bones.

RSV: It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.

NRS: It will be a healing for your flesh and a refreshment for your body.

_____________________________________


The assumed root of sharekh is sh-r-r. It’s various forms can be translated as navel, umbilical cord, sinew or muscle, bracelet or (presmably idiomatically) as stubbornness. A lot of ancient peoples (and still in the East today), vital life-force or power (or even soul) is centered in the lower belly around or just below the navel.

In Proverbs 3:8, NIV and NAS take it as a euphemism for “body” (“flesh” in RSV and NRS); KJV translates it as “navel.”

shequy can mean drink or refreshment, from shaqah, to give tio drink or to irrigate. The KJV translation takes it as a euphemism for marrow. NIV translates it euphemistically as nourishment; NRS and NAS translate it as refreshment.

Again, the Hebrew is subject to multiple appropriate translations.

Context helps here:

5 Trust in YHVH with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Revernce YHVH and turn away from evil.
8 It will be healing to your body, And refreshment to your bones.

In this context, which is not speaking of babies or fetuses, I would take sharekh to refer to the navel region generally as the vital center of the body, and go with the KJV translation as navel. The health referred to could be physical or spiritual.

I would tend to translate the verse thus: “Healing will [it let] become in your navel, and nourishment in your bones.”

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Context is just a trick in itself. Not many people agree with your context, so believe as you will.

Context is just a trick in itself.

To a certain extent, I agree with this across the board. How one selects and applies context is itself a hermeneutic decision, and does not absolve one from hermeneutical responsibility.

Local context can inform a given verse and help to interpret it. Sometimes narrative context seems to serve the purpose of “pointing up” a powerful statement that can stand radically on its own, and could be “watered down” by too much interpretive application of context. Sometimes this “pointing up” is accomplished by setting a given verse in a context that seems contradictory. Sometimes local context actually serves to “hide” little important gems that have to be “searched out” (Hebrew: d’rash) and “lifted out” (this seems especially true in the Torah). Talmudic and midrashic readings sometimes reach far out of local context to relate concepts from far-flung corners of Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.

How you look at the local (and global) context depends on your hermeneutical strategy. If your doing “form criticism,” you look to see if context supports same-authorship of different passages. If your investigating prophecy (e.g., to see if there are fulfilled OT prophecies in the Gospels), you explore context from that perspective. If your reading contemplatively or midrashically for spiritual meaning or insight, you might look for how context (local or global) fills that in (e.g., in such a case, the question of same-authorship of different passages is irrelevant to your purpose). And on and on.

I tend to follow these principles (remember, I do mostly “close,” midrashic readings):

(1) Never simply ignore context.

(2) Context never applies itself—that is my hermeneutical responsibility.

(3) The function of context varies (see above).

(4) There is no such thing as a non-hermeneutical reading of the text.

I admit that principles (2) through (4) disagree with the view that “scripture interprets itself.” So be it; I am simply at impasse with those who hold that (hermeneutical 😉 ) position.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Blood letting was extremely controlled, normally using leaches or similar. When all the 'patients' blood was let it was called crucifixion. The romans certainly knew the importance of blood. Indeed, blood letting still went on in the 17th and 18th Centuries, in Christian Europe, so bang goes your theory.

You’ve just validated my ...[text shortened]... first century, the earth was considered flat by most people, especially the Romans.[/b]

So what? The bible was a bit of an almanac that kept alot of information together... What HAVE you proved there?

btw the earliest complete written old testament didn't come around (in Hebrew) until 900 AD.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

QUOTE "The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D."

Even the dead sea scrolls are only dated to 100BC "The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found. These materials are dated around 100 B.C."

Merrill F. Unger, Famous Archaeological Discoveries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 72.

What was that claim about the bibles age again?

Want some help with that question? Check this website;

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html#text2

You'll see that the earliest manuscripts are a minimum of 100 years YOUNGER than when they are claimed to have been written.

Here's a selected quote for you "Oldest Fragment - Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt."

Also, regarding the ancient greeks flat earth - round earth thing see the following website (particularly Pythagoras).

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/fgreek.html

No way he could have known about the bible since even the oldest documents wouldn't be written for another 400 years.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
There are plenty of people here who doubt that the Bible is accurate, or that God told the authors what to write, but lets consider the evidence.

Below I’ve listed 20 places where the author accurately wrote about things that were not known or accepted in his day. Might this indicate a divine connection?

A = What the author wrote. B = The be ...[text shortened]... Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job 38:22
[b]B Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste.[/b]

IS THE BIBLE ACCURATE ???

Killed by God, in one day, for premarital sex (1 Corinthians 10:8)
23,000 dead

Killed, at God's behest, for not giving God his due (Exodus 32:26-28)
3,000 dead

Killed for being counted by David (1 Chronicles 21:1-14)
70,000 dead

Killed by God for questioning Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16:35)
14,950 dead

Killed by God, in a plague, for whoring around (Numbers 25:1-9)
24,000 dead

Delivered by God to be killed by Israelites (Judges 3:28-29)
30,000 dead

Killed by God for engaging in homosexual acts (Genesis 19:24-25)
Everything dead in 2 cities

Killed by God after their king made fun of him (Isaiah 37:1-36)
185,000 dead

God threatened to kill for abandoning him (Amos 5:1-3)
90 percent of Israel

Killed by God when he was particularly disgusted (Genesis 6:5-7:22)
Everything dead on earth – except a few on an ark

Comply or spend eternity in hell (Rom. 6:23, Rev. 19:ll-15; 20:8)

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]A Principles of avoiding bacterial contamination - one person to another. Lev. 15:19-33 [/b]

It actually states: "Bacterial contamination" in the bible??

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Blood letting was extremely controlled, normally using leaches or similar.

[/b]Blood letting does lower a fever...
Putting maggots or leaches on an open wound does stop infection.

That's where it came from.

Originally posted by Nemesio

Why can't you people just use the Bible for spiritual guidance, how to talk to God
and inter-relate with each other? Why do you have to insist that -- by pulling
isolated statements out of context, you show that 'God had this great plan.'

Nemesio[/b]

You have a point here. The Bible was not written to be a book of science. Having said that it is interesting to note that a scientific discipline, namely Biblical archeology, is based soley upon the Bible. This does not prove that the Bible is a book of science, rather, it gives creedence to the validity of the Bible. The Bible was given to man in order to give light into a dark, dark, world. Take, for example, the ten commandments. You may view the ten commandments as nothing more than a bunch of rules that the children of Israel were forced to follow which made their lives harder as a result. Many of the commandments, however, we value today such as do not steal, do not murder ect. The ones in which we have the most trouble with today are commandments such as honor the sabbath and love the Lord your God with all your heart. What you fail to realize is that in that time human beings were slaves of men. God made the sabbath for men and not for himself. It was an attempt to help liberate man for one day of the week from the drudgery of his meger existence. As far as loving the Lord with all your heart, if you do this you will keep all the commandments without trying. This is because if you love someone, you will try to do what pleases them. Even though it may be difficult, it is not burdensome.

Another example of God's attempt to liberate mankind from themselves is found in 1 Samuel chapter 8. In this chapter we see that God has delivered Israel from the bondage of Egypt and has set up the nation of israel with judges to judge diputes between the peoples. This was their government. However, this was not good enough for the people. They wanted to be like all the other nations aound them and demanded a king. God saw this as a rejection of him and warned them about the evils of having corrupt men rule over them. They insisted despite God's warnings and he gave them what they wanted. They then chose Saul who wound up becoming an abysmal failure
.
Then Christ came into the world to liberate mankind as well. He came to heal and deliver people from what ailed them. What ailed them was their sinful nature. His attacks were not targeted against sinners, however. His attacks were against the religious leaders who were suppose to be about God's business in helping his people overcome their sinful nature. Instead, the religious leaders were more concerned about social status and political influence than they were helping God's people. Christ, therefore, was seen as a threat because he called them on it. This was their motivation for killing him. He not only healed people and liberated them while he was on earth, he liberated all of mankind from sin with his sacrifice on the cross. No longer do we have to rely on other men to help liberate us. We simply have to turn to the cross. It is up to us to accept him or reject God's attempt to liberate mankind.

With this brief post we can see the plan of God. He started with nothing after man's fall. Then with a group of men formed a nation. Then through that nation produced a Messiah for all of mankind. His plan is not focused on science or history, although as we can see it sometimes is used as such. God's focus is you and your liberation from your own sin and the sinfulness of men who are in authority over you.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
There are plenty of people here who doubt that the Bible is accurate, or that God told the authors what to write, but lets consider the evidence.

Below I’ve listed 20 places where the author accurately wrote about things that were not known or accepted in his day. Might this indicate a divine connection?

A = What the author wrote. B = The be ...[text shortened]... Snow and ice seen as valuable. Job 38:22
[b]B Snow and ice seen as a scourge and waste.[/b]

And here is 192 Biblical false prophecies for you....

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

I wanted 200 just so I could have 10 times your amount.

Here's another one. I'll find 7 more

OT claims sodomy to be a sin, and yet gay priests have been endorsed (or whatever) by the RCC. You might not be RCC, but the bible is the same. Surely it couldn't be ambigous now, could it?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
OT claims sodomy to be a sin, and yet gay priests have been endorsed (or whatever) by the RCC. You might not be RCC, but the bible is the same. Surely it couldn't be ambigous now, could it?

the modern church is in a terrible state. want a verse than contradicts the RCC appointing homosexual priests? 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

however, if that are meerly homosexual and have never actually had sexual relations with another man then this is fine. there is nothing wrong with this...

Originally posted by genius
the modern church is in a terrible state. want a verse than contradicts the RCC appointing homosexual priests? 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

however, if that are meerly homosexual and have never actually had sexual relations with another man then this is fine. there is nothing wrong with this...

Yes, I agree. The question is, 'how, under god, could the modern church get into this state?' How could god, with all the fore knowledge that he (supposedly) has, allow this state of affairs to come to pass? Especially when the entire universe is under his control and he can change anything, or could have created anything in any way he'd like it. This seems like the worst of all possible choices, his people all fighting and bickering, about how to worship him!

btw, how are things over there in St Andrews (i'm guessing by the 'home of golf' tag)? I did my first degree just over the Tay at Dundee U.

Thanks for the biblical ref; i could have found it myself had i been so inclined, but, as always, i couldn't be bothered and wrote from my head...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And here is 192 Biblical false prophecies for you....

Why are you wasting your time? He wants to prove plate techtonics and genetics
with the Bible! 🙄😵🙄😵🙄

He'll reject your explanations as 'unfulfilled' prophecies but claim that dividing the
world means Pangaea formed into our modern continents (all after humans
were on the scene).

Give it up. He's not interested in context; he's interested in finding comfort in
perverse interpretations of isolated passages of Scripture so that he can feel justified
that he's going to heaven.

How can you beat that?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Why are you wasting your time? He wants to prove plate techtonics and genetics
with the Bible! 🙄😵🙄😵🙄

He'll reject your explanations as 'unfulfilled' prophecies but claim that dividing the
world means Pangaea formed into our modern continents (all after humans
were on the scene).

Give it up. He's not interested in context; he's interes ...[text shortened]... hat he can feel justified
that he's going to heaven.

How can you beat that?

Nemesio

Nem, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that you can NEVER beat a die hard christian (DHC) with factual arguments. Belief relies on faith (or vice versa) which requires no facts, in fact, demands no facts (if it can be proven it's not faith any more - who believes in the kitchen sink, after all?). A DHC will disregard any and all facts if they don't suit his agenda, with the obligatory 'you don't understand because you're not saved' or 'god can do anything he likes'. Then they have a hissy-fit normally.