Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
I agree with the gist of what you are saying though using words like sheepherder and your estimate of 50 or 60 is a bit biased. Additionally, each translation is a translation from the original language not from other translations as you indicated and how many languages it is translated into is irrelevant. In the end we can test the validity of what is written and the bible has proven itself to be the most valid of all ancient text. Aside from a transcription error here or there to date no fact has been proven to be wrong and the only fault people find with it is that it contradicts their biased notion that miracles don't happen.So does science ever rely on hearsay evidence? Has there ever been an observation that was not repeated that was then repeated? Absolutely.Do I prefer newer evidence over old? Yes, but that does not mean that older is wrong. The original statement you are commenting on is that criticism of testimony should apply equally to science and the bible. So the lesson to be learned here is that old scientific testimony would have the same pitfalls as old biblical testimony. When a sky observer from a long long time ago records that he witnessed a comet that only returns every 10,000 years (Comet Elenin) his testimony is old and it is of a rare event so we have no way to confirm it until we wait a long long time.Does science ever contradict the bible? No, sometimes one man's interpretation of science contradicts one man's interpretation of the bible but that is different. The bible and science are wholly compatible.Openmind, I am curious, since you are new here. Do you hold the belief that there is no God?
I agree with the gist of what you are saying though using words like sheepherder and your estimate of 50 or 60 is a bit biased. Additionally, each translation is a translation from the original language not from other translations as you indicated and how many languages it is translated into is irrelevant. In the end we can test the validity of what is written and the bible has proven itself to be the most valid of all ancient text. Aside from a transcription error here or there to date no fact has been proven to be wrong and the only fault people find with it is that it contradicts their biased notion that miracles don't happen.
So does science ever rely on hearsay evidence? Has there ever been an observation that was not repeated that was then repeated? Absolutely.
Do I prefer newer evidence over old? Yes, but that does not mean that older is wrong. The original statement you are commenting on is that criticism of testimony should apply equally to science and the bible. So the lesson to be learned here is that old scientific testimony would have the same pitfalls as old biblical testimony. When a sky observer from a long long time ago records that he witnessed a comet that only returns every 10,000 years (Comet Elenin) his testimony is old and it is of a rare event so we have no way to confirm it until we wait a long long time.
Does science ever contradict the bible? No, sometimes one man's interpretation of science contradicts one man's interpretation of the bible but that is different. The bible and science are wholly compatible.
Openmind, I am curious, since you are new here. Do you hold the belief that there is no God?
