Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I have a theory... (Score 1) 385

While your comment is pretty spot on, the science of earth in the Bible does describe something different than what we know it to be today. Flat Earth.

Admittedly, I only scanned the wikipedia article, but I didn't see any scriptural references.

Additionally, in the bible, the blue we see when we look up is water, kept out by a dome over the earth. (Genesis 1:7, Genesis 8:2)

What we do see is water. Water droplets. Or possibly a water canopy.

The bible also contradicts itself in several places. In the first two chapters of the bible, there are two accounts of Creation. Most people only think of the first, the 6 days of creation. In the second, God makes man, then the animals, followed finally by the woman. Each creation account is supposed to tell us how we as humans relate to the world around us, and the second, also about how men and women relate to one another.

Thats not a second creation account, that was allowing Adam to name the previously existing creation.

In the New Testament, three of the gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke (which are merely rewritten copies of one another), say that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus. John explicitly denies this saying "Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)."

So if three different newspapers are covering the same event, and three different articles are written, are they merely rewritten copies of each other? Also, John says that Jesus went out carrying it. He didn't say he carried it all the way there. This is easy to reconcile. He started off carrying it, but the exhaustion got to him eventually, and they impressed Simon of Cyrene to carry it the rest of the way.

Some gospels include details that other gospels do not. It depends on what the author felt was most important.

There is no way to reconcile these differences and say that each and every word of the bible is literally and historically true.

Of course its not going to all literally and historically true. Did the parable of the good Samaritan actually happen? No, it was a story that Jesus said to prove a point. But I would argue that more of it is literaly and historically true than you seem to believe.

The only way these can be handled properly is to admit that the bible was never intended to be a history or science text, but instead is to be a book that is a spiritual and religious guide,

I agree that its not supposed to be a science text, but I would argue the times where it touches upon science and history it is accurate.

Slashdot Top Deals

Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do the work. -- John G. Pollard