Has science trumped the Bible....again?

I wonder if this book will become less relevant as a "history" book over time.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

 

Please excuse my ignorance, but when has science ever trumped the Bible?

 

The age of the earth for example. But if you are a fundamentalist who takes the Bible literally or do not believe in radiometric dating, then don't bother with the following links.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/archbishop

Although the Bible does not state the specific age, it contains translation and conjecture; two ingredients for inaccuracy.

For the record, I am not an atheist. At times, my problem with religion in general is science. At times, my problem with science in general is religion. Things like this just continue to complicate all of it for me. I am still working on making both coexist.

 

http://boingboing.net/2014/02/12/tom-the-dancing-bug-the-truth-2.html

 

Reminds me of the Creation Museum :ack:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3211737&page=1

 

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but this speaks volumes.

 

The age of the Earth is not specified in the Bible. The calculation was done by a man.

Rather than look for ways that you think prove the Bible is false, you should rather pick one up and read it for yourself. For example, the comic Hught posted says the Bible defines PI as 3. It does not. The quote referenced says:
"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. Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest. It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward. It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths."

The author of the comic wants you to think that, because the the Bible describes "the sea" (part of the Temple at Jerusalem) as ten cubits across (diameter) and thirty cubits around (circumference), you are supposed to calculate that (PI = c/d) to be PI = 3. If the Bible were a book of plans to build a temple, I might question it. But it's a rough description just meant to give the reader an idea of the scale of the temple (it was friggen big!).

If you believe the Bible is a crock based on this, what do you think of meteorologists who talk about what time the Sun rises and sets? Meteorology must be false because we all know the Sun doesn't rise nor set, it's stationary relative to the Earth.

 

Again?



LOL

 

Which version of which translation?

 

Arameic, of course!

Which version and translation of "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" do you use when you're calculating your diving and stopping speeds? Do you read the original latin? Or are you a more progressive and read the english version?

 

Math translates rather well into any language, the Bible, however creates some interesting differences with translation.

 

Oh? How many translations have you read?

 

Parts of a couple. Enough to see the difficulties in deciding which version is correct.

For example:

http://www.prayerfoundation.org/ten_commandments_different_versions.htm

"Thou shalt not kill" is far different from "You shall not murder"

 

In the begining there were not so many written versions from which to choose, just the many spoken versions .....

http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm

 

The bible was written by men. Therefore subject to error and misinterpretation. I was brought up to believe in the sprit of the words, not necessarily strict literal interpretation. Science AND the bible can co-exist as long as one has a bit of common sense.

 

LOL! It is entertaining when you have a slow day at work. :cheers:

Like watching two pigs roll around in the mud. :jester:

 

Nice to see you add something to a discussion even if it is your usual ignorant stuff.

 

It is unfortunate that many of the religious leaders do not take such a stance.

I know a several scientists who are also religious because they ignore that whole literal word of God aspect, but it puts them at odds with those who lead their various denominations at times.

 

No wound to my ego, maybe to your persona, but that is not my concern is it.

 

Sherry,
Here's an example too.