Is the Bible historically accurate?

[Ryushikaze]

A day is NOT one of Earth's revolutions. A day is a revolution of whichever planet they are talking about or relating it to. Who says it had to be an Earth day?

Well, the 'planet they are talking about' happens to be earth...

Who says he can't? Why shouldn't he be able to with the correct guidence.

No. He can't. The Ark would collapse under its own weight and could not actually fit all the proposed animals inside either.

Also, for the anti-Christians or anti-God or whatever, I would like to point out that, before you go off randomly criticizing religions and the bible, that science has yet to produce any sane and likely cause for the universe to exist.

In which case, I'd like to point out that no religion has produced a sane or likely cause for any of their gods to exist.
At least we know the universe is here. Why does the universe need a cause? And why then, does your god not?

This is a little off-topic but I still think that it's important to say here

Anyhoo. Back to the matter at hand. There is only one thing that seperates the people who think that the Bible is correct and those who think that it's not: faith. I have faith. I believe. Therefore, I believe that there is a God and I believe that Jesus existed so I believe that the Bible is, except for the parables, true.

And the same can be said of UFO nuts and conspiracy nuts. They have faith that their beliefs are true as well. They also have no evidence to support their notions.

The one thing about the Bible, Qu'Ran (sorry if I mispelt it), the Torah etc. is that they can never be disproved as religion and God can never be disproved. That is why there can be no end to the arguement unless science, yet again, disproves itself.

Yet these religions can also never be proved, and the scientific method actually yields quite excellent results. The very computer you are using to decry science on would not exist if not for the understandings afforded to us by science.

Of course it's a dat on Earth. It's hardly likely to be talking about jupiter is it?
The point is that most of the bible is allegorical. Lazarus didn't actually rise from the dead, God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, There was no massive flood that almost destroyed the entire population etc.
However that's not to say that there wasn't a flood that killed some people who may or may not have been sinners.
The bible is not supposed to be a factual book, so criticising it for its lack of historal accuracy means that you haven't understood the point. It's a book for spiritual and moral guidance. Its historal accuracy or lack thereof is a moot point.

NOT when people are claiming that it IS supposed to be a factual book, Placebo. Then it is a very important point. Even more so when they're trying to mandate that it's version of events be taught as science.

 

[Shu]

The only universal truth is that the Universe nor time in which it was created can be infinite though. There has to have been a cause which is said to be the source of all things, proven by science and philosophy.

That is what is wrong with skepticism, we can denounce the Jewish or Christian God all we want, but to be honest we have no proof that God does or does not exist. No Proof whatsoever. Hince I wonder how many Agnostics are out there, and how many atheists claim to be athiests who are actually agnostic.

I believe that every single thing in the Bible can be falsifiable. I mean you have the opening of a book start off with creation. "Adam" - and then you have "Eve" created from Adam's rib. We as men take sole responsiblity of knowing women came from us, and yet Women were the root cause (temptation) who in fact caused us to be cast out of the Garden of Eden.

Seems Abraham and Moses were a tad bit sexist from that standpoint. Honestly if you look at it, it's backwards, you have women as the life givers and the men as the life takers. (Soldiers vs Mothers theory in the early jewish/roman times)

Then Sodam and Gamora (sp?) - well let's see.. a firestorm wiping all of the city out of the way along with someone looking back turning into dust... right.. sci-fi anyone?

The only thing I can think of is the Bible is not acurate whatsoever, but you can take alot of things from it. Parables along with prayers illustrate how to show compassion for others as well as not judging the stranger or the friend. There are a hand full of good lessons from the bible, and they do teach humility but the god in the old testament and the god in the new testament were two different gods all together.

One who sought to punish men for their sins - Old Testament
Another who was kind and caring for his creation - New Testament

 

[Ang]

In which case, I'd like to point out that no religion has produced a sane or likely cause for any of their gods to exist.
At least we know the universe is here. Why does the universe need a cause? And why then, does your god not?

Because science says everything has to have been created. God does not need a cause to exist. And WTH is the 'why does the universe need a cause?' thing about?
God does not need a cause because he does not. There's just no arguing that point.

Well, the 'planet they are talking about' happens to be earth...

So? It could be a day in heaven.

No. He can't. The Ark would collapse under its own weight and could not actually fit all the proposed animals inside either

God could have told him what to do.

And the same can be said of UFO nuts and conspiracy nuts. They have faith that their beliefs are true as well. They also have no evidence to support their notions.

Are you one of these 'if I don't see it it can't exist' people? Because they annoy me. Anyway, a God is the only sane reason for the universe to exist. Don't even get me started on the 'big bang' theory.

Yet these religions can also never be proved, and the scientific method actually yields quite excellent results. The very computer you are using to decry science on would not exist if not for the understandings afforded to us by science.

I'm not anti-science. Scientific results are excellent? What results?

I'm merely remembering that scientists, throughout all of history, have always been wrong. 'The Earth is flat'... no. 'The atom is the smallest thing'...no.

Also religion never needs to be proved. That's what science needs to be... proved. Religion has never, does not and will never need proving.

I'm done... for now.

 

[phantasmor]

i would like to say that i am withdrawing from this discussion until someone makes an intelligent argument with cited sources and that i am going to do some more research on historical records from the time of the bible

 

[Dionysos]

Says who, might I ask? A million man slave uprising from Egypt was never recorded, even in their correspondence, and the desert watchtowers could detect a two man escape. Also, there is no record of any sort of mass occupation in the sinai desert, especially not the kind one would expect from a 40 year occupancy thereof.

We can't ever be certain that an uprising and escape of slaves on a large scale did not happen, considering that the majority of records concerning Egypt are lost to the sand.

Also, the Egyptians aren't likely to record such an event in stelae, temples and monuments because it is disastrous for the Egyptians. They're not going to litter their temples that depicted their prowess in battle, fertility of crops, blessings of the gods, with their inability to keep slaves in their place.

Also we're not 100% sure under who's reign this event was supposed to have occured. Most settle for the Ramessid period; Ramses I, Seti I, Ramses II etc... But we don't know for sure, and Egyptian chronology isn't a sure thing, as each reign is measured seperately and as a new timeline.. So to date the years of one king, you need to know that of the king before hand and so on... It gets rather confusing, and people aren't sure about exact chronology. So therefore, it is hard to say anything about this subject unless we can be sure of which period it occured.

When you go back to any period of history, especially one this far away, it is impossible to say for definate that there WAS NEVER any records of such an uprising. Perhaps you could say none have been discovered. Only a small amount (given the rich history of Egypt in the New Kingdom alone, let alone all of its periods) of tablets of correspondence have been found, mostly from Amarna... For most places all we have are monumental architecture, tombs, stelae and other objects.

 

[Ryushikaze]

The only universal truth is that the Universe nor time in which it was created can be infinite though. There has to have been a cause which is said to be the source of all things, proven by science and philosophy.

Science does not say that the pre-universe or even the universe had a cause, and as for philosophy... Are you trying to use philosophy to determine empirical reality?

That is what is wrong with skepticism, we can denounce the Jewish or Christian God all we want, but to be honest we have no proof that God does or does not exist. No Proof whatsoever.

You owe me $1,000,000,000 dollars.
We have no proof that you do owe me this money, but we also have no proof that you don't.
That is why skepticism is good.

Hince I wonder how many Agnostics are out there, and how many atheists claim to be athiests who are actually agnostic.

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is simply the statement that one cannot know. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity or deities.

I believe that every single thing in the Bible can be falsifiable. I mean you have the opening of a book start off with creation. "Adam" - and then you have "Eve" created from Adam's rib. We as men take sole responsiblity of knowing women came from us, and yet Women were the root cause (temptation) who in fact caused us to be cast out of the Garden of Eden.

No... the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and the serpent were the sole cause of temptation in the bible. That Eve was tempted does not make her the cause of temptation, even in an allegorical sense.

Seems Abraham and Moses were a tad bit sexist from that standpoint. Honestly if you look at it, it's backwards, you have women as the life givers and the men as the life takers. (Soldiers vs Mothers theory in the early jewish/roman times)

They were from a society of bronze age farmers. What do you really expect?

Then Sodam and Gamora (sp?) - well let's see.. a firestorm wiping all of the city out of the way along with someone looking back turning into dust... right.. sci-fi anyone?

And yet, people take it as a given that it actually happened.

The only thing I can think of is the Bible is not acurate whatsoever, but you can take alot of things from it. Parables along with prayers illustrate how to show compassion for others as well as not judging the stranger or the friend. There are a hand full of good lessons from the bible, and they do teach humility but the god in the old testament and the god in the new testament were two different gods all together.

One who sought to punish men for their sins - Old Testament
Another who was kind and caring for his creation - New Testament

Take a look at the Jefferson Bible. All the teachings and the parables, all the bullhonkery involved.

Because science says everything has to have been created. God does not need a cause to exist. And WTH is the 'why does the universe need a cause?' thing about?

Science does not say everything had to have been created. And if it did, why is god exempt?

God does not need a cause because he does not. There's just no arguing that point.

The universe does not need a cause because it does not. There's just no arguing that point.

In short, yes, there is arguing that point.

So? It could be a day in heaven.

Which is relevant to the story how?

God could have told him what to do.

Still doesn't help the two prime issues.

Are you one of these 'if I don't see it it can't exist' people? Because they annoy me. Anyway, a God is the only sane reason for the universe to exist. Don't even get me started on the 'big bang' theory.

Don't get me started on people who believe in bronze age skydaddies.
Please. Do get started on the big bang theory. I'd like to see how well you understand it.

I'm not anti-science. Scientific results are excellent? What results?

And yet you were decrying it above...

I'm merely remembering that scientists, throughout all of history, have always been wrong. 'The Earth is flat'... no. 'The atom is the smallest thing'...no.

Religion, not science, said the earth was flat. Philosophers, not scientists declared the atom was the smallest unit. It was SCIENCE which showed both of these things wrong. Science called Atoms the smallest particle known, yes, but this is definitely different than 'the smallest ever nothing possibly smaller'
But if we want to get into a 'getting it wrong' competition...

Also religion never needs to be proved. That's what science needs to be... proved. Religion has never, does not and will never need proving.

Yes. Yes it does. It gets no special pass for any reason. It is subject to just as much scrutiny as anything else.

i would like to say that i am withdrawing from this discussion until someone makes an intelligent argument with cited sources and that i am going to do some more research on historical records from the time of the bible

Oh, have fun with that. Save the Romans you're not likely to find a whole hell of a lot in the 'official' records that isn't a gross exaggeration, but fortunately the preserved correspondences are by dint of necessity much more accurate.

Argor- there's a reason I also spoke of the unlikelyness of their escape- given the outposts that extended well into the desert, and the complete and utter lack of a trace of a nomadic society of any reasonable size in the sinai desert.

And Argor, the egyptians, like the romans, are one of the few societies for whom we have a rather sizable amount of correspondence available for. So yes, it's always possible it simply was lost to time, but it's a lot less likely than with other societies.

 

[phantasmor]

oh yes thank you for saving me the trouble of searching you reminded me that history is written by the victors not the losers but also the bible never said that the world was flat although there are some verses that can be misinterpreted as such but then again it never says otherwise except in the verse

22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

but that also can be interpreted either way but at the same time i do not see any cited references so i will just stay out of it

 

[Ryushikaze]

No, there are others passages, but the exact citation of them eludes me and I don't feel like searching. I do know that the word used to describe the earth in the original text hebrew for 'circle' (Chwub, IIRC), which is a distinctly different word from sphere or ball.

There's also an NT text that has the devil showing Jesus the whole of the world from a single mountain top (IIRC, all four corners of the earth is used as well) to tempt him. Such a thing is only possible with a flat earth.

And speaking outside of the book for a minute, Flat earthers- geocentricists too- use the bible, not science, to justify their beliefs.

 

[Shu]

oh yes thank you for saving me the trouble of searching you reminded me that history is written by the victors not the losers but also the bible never said that the world was flat although there are some verses that can be misinterpreted as such but then again it never says otherwise except in the verse

22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

but that also can be interpreted either way but at the same time i do not see any cited references so i will just stay out of it

He meant the church, the roman catholic church. Skeptics such as Aristotle and Galileo and such were shunned at first by the Church's because in their opinion "the church's intelligence is always right." In reality we all know it just looked bad for the Church to be disproven.. such as the Bible could be disproven so much as of today.

Hince why when someone tells me they grew up in a catholic family, I tend to grimace a little. (I don't mean to) I know how bad they have it with their vows to St. Mary and their catholic Guilt (confessionals and tradition) and how sheltered of a relgion they have..

 

[Ang]

Science does not say everything had to have been created. And if it did, why is god exempt?

Because God is part of religion, not science.

The universe does not need a cause because it does not. There's just no arguing that point.

I never said that the universe needed a cause. I think you misunderstood my point.

Which is relevant to the story how?

God is in heaven...

Still doesn't help the two prime issues.

Well then, God caused the boat to stay afloat etc.

Yes. Yes it does. It gets no special pass for any reason. It is subject to just as much scrutiny as anything else.

Religion does not need to prove itself. I don't mean that others don't want it proved, just that the religious people see no need to prove that God exists. End of... unless you come up with another fun argument.

Religion, not science, said the earth was flat. Philosophers, not scientists declared the atom was the smallest unit. It was SCIENCE which showed both of these things wrong. Science called Atoms the smallest particle known, yes, but this is definitely different than 'the smallest ever nothing possibly smaller'
But if we want to get into a 'getting it wrong' competition...

Oh please, scientists change theories on a daily basis.

Don't get me started on people who believe in bronze age skydaddies.
Please. Do get started on the big bang theory. I'd like to see how well you understand it

First of all I'm not living in the past. I do believe in progression through science and I want to make that perfectly clear. I believe that technology is a very good thing. I would also like to point out that religion is not Bronze-age and anyone who says it is, quite frankly, is an idiot. Seriously, if you think religious people are all "bronze age skydaddies", you really need to get a life.

Now, to the big bang theory. Leaving personal feelings out for this bit and explain in a nutshell. I will assume here, that the big bang did occur.

Due to red shift, scientists have established, through reasoning, that the universe began in an infinately small space. There was an explosion (hence big bang), causing quarks and antiquarks to be released, energy and matter to be spread out (as all energy and matter of the universe, when added together, equal zero of their respective units). There were more quarks than antiquarks and so protons, neutrons, electrons etc began forming. These joined into atoms. These formed elements of hydrogen, helium and some lithium.
When the explosion occurred, there was a lot of radiation released. We can see the remnants of it in the old TVs where the screen goes black and white. The universe was extremely hot after the explosion and has cooled tremendously.

There. I'm going to remember something else important as soon as my computer's off!

Anyhoo, I don't believe in this. My main problem is the cause of the explosion and there being more quarks (I know there's another thing like a quark that was released but I forgot the name. I also think that there was more of the positive of that thing then there was the negative... if you know what I mean). Also, the structure of the universal atom is so complicated that, if one thing were different, the universe would not exist. That is just too complicated to be a chance.

There was an argument used once. The universe is like a perfectly built watch. If you came across a watch, lying on the floor, far from civilization, you would not think that it just formed there. A person made the watch. The same is true for the universe.

As a little ending, I'd like to thank everyone for targetting my beliefs for their arguments, rather than my age. Some people would say something like "what do you know? You're only 15" to which I would usually reply either "STFU" or "Your an idiot". So thanks guys. Much appreciated.

 

[Ang]

The thing is, you can never really disprove the Bible for Christians as they could just say that God changed X or hid Y etc.

 

[Dionysos]

Argor- there's a reason I also spoke of the unlikelyness of their escape- given the outposts that extended well into the desert, and the complete and utter lack of a trace of a nomadic society of any reasonable size in the sinai desert.

Outposts that could stop a horde of thousands of travelling Israelites? Or outposts that just sat there and recorded the exact number that passed through, and sent it almost as an insult to the furious Pharoah, without making an effort to stop them?

Anyway, all I was getting at is that there is no certainty that because no records spoke of it, and that there were outposts, that the event couldn't happen. Anything could have happened and easily been lost from history and all records lost, until rediscovered later, or lost forever.
It may not have happened, but it may well have happened, to some extent.

And Argor, the egyptians, like the romans, are one of the few societies for whom we have a rather sizable amount of correspondence available for. So yes, it's always possible it simply was lost to time, but it's a lot less likely than with other societies.

Well seperate the Egyptians and Romans. With the OT Egyptians we are talking about a late Bronze Age society, a lot earlier than the Romans, and not as much was recorded at the time of the New Kingdom as far as actual "history" goes.

But yes, most societies of the Bronze Age leave little trace (aside a few monumental inscriptions and records of number of sheep etc), and Egypt is one where we have the most, but it would be a lie to say that we have a lot. We are still in the dark in a lot of Egyptian history, and most of the history that was written was for propaganda, to legitimise kings leadership, not to record the actual factual stage events.

Say the Israelites escaped in great number... The outposts spotted it, recorded it, but there would be little point as the Pharaoh would, tradition has it, already know of their escape. They would feel little need to properly record the number passing through.. I mean this is a catastrophe! Inscribing tools down! Take a look! Stop them! Sort of event... And would the Pharaoh then decide to erect a monument detailing their escape? Or a stelae commemorating how they got away? No. They make such things after resolving issues. The Pharoah wouldn't want his legitimacy as king questioned.

Not saying this all happened, mind you.. I'm just stating that we can't deny that it is possible. Any matter of circumstances could arise for this to happen, and pass through history. That is if you take it that the Mycenaean Greek's (among other Bronze Age cultures) were in collapse, and begining to enter their dark age (again, chronology issues and precise dating unknown), and that there would be, really, little need for other cultures to record such an event if it should not affect them.

As for no evidence of them at Sinai... I can't comment there, perhaps, again it is yet to be found. But that would be an uneducated guess, as I really have not looked into this much before.

 

[phantasmor]

i think it is interesting also that of the bronze age few books record history in fact I only know of one: the bible i wonder why the bible is so interested in recording history if no one else in that time was concerned with it i think it is because they wanted, or more likely god wanted, the bible to stand the test of time

 

[Ryushikaze]

Because God is part of religion, not science.

Which changes nothing.

I never said that the universe needed a cause. I think you misunderstood my point.

If the universe does not need a cause, then why insist it has one?

God is in heaven...

And the audience is on Earth. If I tell you it's nerx glorbles to gipppalltort, I have told you nothing, as there's no frame of reference for you, the audience, to comprehend.

Well then, God caused the boat to stay afloat etc.

Then why bother with the boat in the first place? For that matter, why bother with the flood? Why not just blink the unwashed out of existence and save the animals all the trouble?

Religion does not need to prove itself. I don't mean that others don't want it proved, just that the religious people see no need to prove that God exists. End of... unless you come up with another fun argument.

Religion DOES need to be proved. If you wish to state that your version of religion is how reality happened, you better be DAMNED ready to prove your case, because all the other religions out there will just say theirs is too.

Oh please, scientists change theories on a daily basis.

Ad Hominem. Also completely misunderstands the meaning of theory and the scientific method.

First of all I'm not living in the past. I do believe in progression through science and I want to make that perfectly clear. I believe that technology is a very good thing. I would also like to point out that religion is not Bronze-age and anyone who says it is, quite frankly, is an idiot.

Your Religion Originates In The Bronze Age. It IS a Bronze Age religion.

Seriously, if you think religious people are all "bronze age skydaddies", you really need to get a life.

No, YHWH is the bronze age skydaddy. He is the big scary man in the sky who tells you what not to do, and threatens to punish you for doing them. He is a mythical parent figure intended to keep the populace in line. And the religion surrounding him was of either a bronze age or pre-bronze origin.

Now, to the big bang theory. Leaving personal feelings out for this bit and explain in a nutshell. I will assume here, that the big bang did occur.

Due to red shift, scientists have established, through reasoning, that the universe began in an infinately small space. There was an explosion (hence big bang),

No. There was not 'an explosion'. The name 'Big Bang' was a sarcastic appellation given to the theory that stuck. The Big Bang speaks of an expansion of reality out of the infenitesimal speck. No 'explosion' involved, unless you consider reality itself to be 'exploding', but that's semantics more than anything else.

causing quarks and antiquarks to be released, energy and matter to be spread out (as all energy and matter of the universe, when added together, equal zero of their respective units). There were more quarks than antiquarks and so protons, neutrons, electrons etc began forming. These joined into atoms. These formed elements of hydrogen, helium and some lithium.
When the explosion occurred, there was a lot of radiation released. We can see the remnants of it in the old TVs where the screen goes black and white. The universe was extremely hot after the explosion and has cooled tremendously.

There. I'm going to remember something else important as soon as my computer's off!

Close enough, in brief. Now how is this more absurd than the existence of a figure who has always existed, can do everything, and knows everything? Especially when said entity in his own PR is demonstrated not to be all knowing and limited in his power?

Anyhoo, I don't believe in this. My main problem is the cause of the explosion and there being more quarks (I know there's another thing like a quark that was released but I forgot the name. I also think that there was more of the positive of that thing then there was the negative... if you know what I mean). Also, the structure of the universal atom is so complicated that, if one thing were different, the universe would not exist. That is just too complicated to be a chance.

But natural laws are not subject to chance. That's the entire reason we can have an empirical process to begin with.
But let me state this. No matter how complicated you think the universe is, a being that can create that universe must be more complicated by default, and therefore more 'ridiculous'

There was an argument used once. The universe is like a perfectly built watch. If you came across a watch, lying on the floor, far from civilization, you would not think that it just formed there. A person made the watch. The same is true for the universe.

Oh, not the fekakte watchmaker argument again... The thing is, there is no reason to expect the watch could just form on its own, this is because it is not subject to any sort of self correction. If something goes wrong, the entire process just halts. In the universe, however, if something goes wrong, something different happens instead. In the universe, when matter clumps instead of floating about, the mechanism doesn't cock up, a new one gets involved.

As a little ending, I'd like to thank everyone for targetting my beliefs for their arguments, rather than my age. Some people would say something like "what do you know? You're only 15" to which I would usually reply either "STFU" or "Your an idiot". So thanks guys. Much appreciated.

Age is largely irrelevant, though being old enough to have gotten sufficient instruction is definitely a boon.

The thing is, you can never really disprove the Bible for Christians as they could just say that God changed X or hid Y etc.

In which case it is entirely unfalsifiable, and it might as well be Sagan's Dragon.

 

[phantasmor]

which has what to do with the bible being historically accurate? I mean this is how we get off topic

 

[Ang]

Religion is as much alive today as it was in the past and, yes I am a Roman Catholic(and not liable to change) and so it is reasonable but not really clever to call us Bronze age. Technology moves on... we use it. We live as much in the 21st century as you.

The chance of there being a God is, in my eyes, much more than the chance of a big bang and you don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of convincing me otherwise.

God is NOT, I repeat NOT mythical.

To be honest, I really don't care if you don't believe what I believe. After all, it's only human nature. Therefore, I care not for proving that God exists as no living human ever will. Pountless trying. It is also, I would love to point out, impossible to prove scientific theories unless you travel back in time and find that they are right... good luck if you plan to.

But since you seem to be fairly good at science, a topic that I find interesting, what are we expanding in to?

And can you really believe in the big bang?

 

[Ang]

And we got off-topic because a question like this is bound to end in religious debate. Either religion vs religion or, in most cases, religion vs science.

 

[Ryushikaze]

Religion is as much alive today as it was in the past and, yes I am a Roman Catholic(and not liable to change) and so it is reasonable but not really clever to call us Bronze age. Technology moves on... we use it. We live as much in the 21st century as you.

Um... you seem to be missing the point where I'm not calling you Bronze Age. I'm saying that the bible comes from the Bronze Age.

The chance of there being a God is, in my eyes, much more than the chance of a big bang and you don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of convincing me otherwise.

Good for you. But belief does not make it so. The chances of a being more complex than the universe arising period are more remote than the chances of the universe itself.

God is NOT, I repeat NOT mythical.

Saying doesn't make it so. Shivites insist that Shiva is not mythical. Do you believe them? Of course you don't. Because to you, Shiva is nothing but a myth. Why should YHWH be given a pass just because you believe in him?

To be honest, I really don't care if you don't believe what I believe. After all, it's only human nature. Therefore, I care not for proving that God exists as no living human ever will. Pountless trying. It is also, I would love to point out, impossible to prove scientific theories unless you travel back in time and find that they are right... good luck if you plan to.

You, my friend, have just renderred the entire science of Forensics utterly moot.

But since you seem to be fairly good at science, a topic that I find interesting, what are we expanding in to?

I do not have enough information as to say.

And can you really believe in the big bang?

Yes. I have no faith in it, but I believe that such an event happened, same as I believe that the earth was struck by a number of supermassive asteroids in its history, because the physical record indicates it happened. Same as the physical record indicates the Big Bang happened.

Same- to bring us back onto subject- as the physical record indicates there was no worldwide flood at any time in which humanity was in existence.

 

[Dionysos]

Okay... As about 3 people have stated now. This is hugely off topic! There's another thread for belief debate, this is actually a rather interesting seperate debate. The Big Bang, whether God does or does not exist doesn't come into it, unless as a side point (which, for the former example I can't see how it can).

Most of this page has been off topic, which is a shame.

Anyway, I think I stated this a while back though, but I believe that, flawed though it may be (it is an old book, its message even older, and things can be misinterpreted) there is a good historical background to some parts of the Bible at least. But we shouldn't use it as a source on its own...
But for the OT, which sadly as stated lacks a lot of historical records, the OT of the Bible is quite important, though not often is it actually used as a source for facts, but is sometimes used to guide us in the right direction, to confirm knowledge of etc.

 

[phantasmor]

you can not say, though that the old testament is wrong because there were no accurate historical records taken by anyone else in the area where the old testament takes place so is the bible historically accurate? i believe so but then again history is written by those that rule but those don't exist so you can not say that it is not historically accurate like i have stated before the bible is a book about people and it keeps very good records of those people