Scientific Mistakes in the Bible?

[1newcatholic]

Looking at the bible from this perspective, to provide spiritual knowledge, we can truthfully say that there are no mistakes in the bible, scientific or otherwise.

Fred Conty, I was with you 100% until this part–the fact that the book isn’t “scientific” in nature doesn’t mean that therefore it contains no “scientific” “mistakes.” There are mistakes of science in the scripture, but as you say, they are irrelevant to the authority of the book, which is spirit and truth.

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m sorry. Did you just write that an atheist can’t do positive? That no atheist has or does anything positive whether it be in the fields of medicine, charity, science, economics, teaching, entertainment, the military, or any other field?

It is not their atheism that prompts this, but that is not what I said, it is impossible to approach the subject of theology from an atheist position without taking it from a negative position. How on earth did you get from theology to medicine et al.

You’re going to need to clarify that statement because there are many atheists who have added positively to us all.

But atheism itself hasn’t, it has just destroyed souls.

One of the classic explanations as to why that makes no sense is the idea of the “aunicornist”. I’m assuming that you don’t believe in unicrons (unicorns). If so that makes you an “aunicornist”. The thing is no one believes there are unicorns. The term, while accurate, isn’t used because there is no need to use it. Now imagine that there were billions of people out there who believed in unicorns. They wanted it taught in schools and wanted our governments to state that unicorns are real. Now the term “aunicornist” has weight. If you loved truth you would work to show that there were no unicorns, yet by your reasoning the only way to say “no” to unicorns is if there is a “yes”.

I’m sorry I am not an aunicornist nor a unicornist, I simply don’t care about the subject to formulate an opinion, and certainly not an argument (as do 95% of atheists who simply don’t care about God). I am not going to define myself according to something I know doesn’t exist. If however I believed unicorns could possibly exist, I would therefore take a position of aunicornist and spend my time negatively positioned against unicornists, in a desire to prove my position correct. I would probably start from the position that I have never seen therefore does not exist.

Bishop Fulton J Sheen said it better. But he used dragons or an animal with two or more heads or something else.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It is not their atheism that prompts this, but that is not what I said, it is impossible to approach the subject of theology from an atheist position without taking it from a negative position. How on earth did you get from theology to medicine et al.

Your exact words were:

I suspect the answer to that my friend, is that there is nothing one can truly do positive as an atheist

Breaking down that sentence as it stands, you are saying that an atheist can not do anything positively. It would be like if you said no one can truly do positive as a Hungarian. You describe the actor (an atheist) but you describe the act as simply positive. You are not describing an act that is both positive and atheistic.

Now what I think you mean to say is more along the lines of no one can do something positively as a way to endorse atheism, or no one can positively do an atheistic act.

Assuming I parsed what you’re implying correctly, then that’s very silly.

I’ll give you a perfect example. Sanal Edamaruku was invited to investigate a “weeping christ” in a Catholic church in Mumbai, India. Parishoners noticed that the feet of the statue of of Jesus at the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni were dripping water. People came from all around to collect and drink the water hoping it would cure them. Sanal investigated and saw that water from a washroom drain that had blocked up was traveling into the walls and to the bottom of the cross. He not only showed that this was not a miracle but got people to stop drinking contaminated water. Truly this is a positive act done specifically in the name of atheism – or at least to counter a false religious belief.

How was he thanked? By complaints made by believers for insulting their religion which has a penalty of three years jail. Mr. Edamaruku has fled to Finland. What’s most startling is that the archbishop of Bombay, Oswald Cardinal Gracias, said he would see to having the complaints withdrawn if Sanal would apologize for his “offense”.

But atheism itself hasn’t, it has just destroyed souls.

Assuming souls exist…

I’m sorry I am not an aunicornist nor a unicornist, I simply don’t care about the subject to formulate an opinion, and certainly not an argument (as do 95% of atheists who simply don’t care about God). I am not going to define myself according to something I know doesn’t exist.

I think it’s important to point out two things:

1. As I’m sure you know, people who take a certain position on things don’t solely define themselves by a single position. I am not saying that you believe atheists define themselves solely by their atheism, but I just want to make that clear to anyone reading who might have that misconception.
2. All of us have things which we are against something in general but for the most part we don’t have nice single-word terms for them. If someone doesn’t believe in spiritualism (ghosts, psychics, ESP, etc.) we could conceivably use the term “aspiritualist” but mostly people just state that they don’t believe in it. Some scientists are a-string-theoriests, not believing it will pan out.

If however I believed unicorns could possibly exist, I would therefore take a position of aunicornist and spend my time negatively positioned against unicornists, in a desire to prove my position correct. I would probably start from the position that I have never seen therefore does not exist.

Bishop Fulton J Sheen said it better. But he used dragons or an animal with two or more heads or something else.

So we agree that if enough people believed in something and/or enough external pressure existed to believe in something, and that something is not true, you would take a stance whose entire thrust is to oppose that belief. I’m not seeing the problem.

 

[Darryl_B]

My friend, I see you like argument rather than the argument, enjoy your life.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

My friend, I see you like argument rather than the argument

I think you’ve got me wrong. I seek to dissect different viewpoints to find the truth, but I understand your desire to end our conversation here.

enjoy your life.

I already do

 

[biplnkase9]

Your life on earth will end soon. Please do not dwell on it, but you find yourself looking for hope.

 

[didymus]

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

St Augustine of Hippo
De Genesi ad Litteram