"If the bible says that the earth is round and floats in space, why did the pope convict galileo for saying these same things?"

The Bible makes no comment on the shape of the earth, although the description of the sky as a bowl or dome suggests the thought that it is flat. Galileo's problem was not saying that the Earth floated in space, but saying that it revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around.

All of that said, the Pope at the time was a moron. :)

That's "millennia," not "milleniums"

Wow that was the mighty argument, a supposed spelling error? He can use Milleniums btw. Meriam says so:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=millenniums

sorry to be an inconvenience..im just surprised that i can spell things right most of the time, forget about proper grammar lol ...

gotta love the new spell check function in firefox eh *winks*

if i could edit the title (or the body of text) i would, but i cant...maybe if the admins are reading this, they can put that on the to-do list for board improvements. until then bear with me :-)

THe Bible also posits a three dimensional universe where there is a physical heaven just a little bit above the EArth and a physical underworld just underground.

Given that we can not see this physical heaven even though we have sent spacecraft to the ends of the solar system (which makes the stories of the ascension of Elijah and Jesus hard to follow as historical truth) and we can now describe the Earth's different layers with some certainty this picture loses credibility.

THe Bible is not a science text as you mention. Maybe we should look to it for something other than science then?

Dude... there's a logical fallacy staring us in the face right now.

Writing a POETIC cosmology that later turns out to be largely accurate does not PROVE the bible to be authoritative in scientific fields.

What about the bit where Joshua stopped the sun from moving across the sky (as though the Earth was stationary and only the sun moved)?

What about the bit where there was clearly a three-tiered universe and if you could only travel to a high enough altitude you would find the firmament that held the waters in the sky? (Hey Gordo, we were typing at the same time when I first wrote this, I guess!)

What are you trying to achieve? You're grasping at straws and, frankly, making an ass of yourself. Sorry to be so blunt about it.

Once again, nobody (at least, nobody I know who is any sort of authority of ANY kind) is saying that the people who wrote the Bible were stupid or careless. They took it VERY seriously, and so should we. But they weren't trying to write a definitive text of science or history, so we shouldn't be trying to read it that way.

At best, the people who wrote the poetry you've quoted were insightful and wise. At worst, they were lucky that the words that came to them matched the later discoveries of science. Neither of which should be particularly surprising or disturbing for us.

The answer to your initial question is "no." Deal with it.

So then why did the church freak out and holler "Blasphemy" when Copernicus tried telling the workd that the earth went around the sun and that the earth is not the center of the universe, as was the popular, or should i say enforced, christian beleif at the time. No one in the civilized world dared question wether the earth was the center of the universe or not. Everyone knew it was - the church said so.

Scientifically speaking, it makes no sense to take the Bible literally in any context. If I were to reverse your argument, I could claim the earth is flat based on the way I choose to interpret scripture. It all depends on the point you're trying to make.

In the Old Testament, you'll find the phrases "four corners of the earth" and "the ends of the earth" a number of times (Isaiah 11:12, Job 38:13, etc). In Job, the Bible says the earth has pillars and a foundation. (9:6 & 38:4) Is it flat, or is it round? 400 years ago we might continue this debate. So the question is raised: Scientifically speaking, when should we take the Bible literally and when should we take it metaphorically?

Let's go one further. Many Christians take the Genesis story of creation as a literal account of the beginnings of our tiny planet. So how scientifically accurate is the Bible in this case? If Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are taken literally, you might believe that the Sun was created after the Earth, and after plants and trees. Or, you might even believe that man was created from a lump of dirt. As a metaphorical account, it's a beautiful story. However, scientifically it completely breaks down and therefore cannot be considered 100% accurate. Unless you decide what is metaphor and what is not.

If we need to question the scientific reliability of the Bible (regardless that it was written before the scientific method was resurrected during the Renaissance), how can we consider any of it verifiable evidence of scientific fact? You can take the Bible as scientifically accurate when it happens to factually align with modern scientific findings - but this is because the Bible is widely open to interpretation. Fact is, you can use it to support virtually any argument you choose to uphold. As for science, we'll find more concrete answers about the nature of our universe from books written a little more recently than the Bible.

To address your point, I do like your question concerning "˜facts' that we take for granted today, which may one day be proven incorrect. I believe scientific discoveries over the next 50 years will have a profound impact on the way we view our world and our personal spirituality. But you're right, only time will tell.

The bible is inherently unreliable.

There are at least four MAJOR problems:

* Authorial intention:

It is never possible to know with any certainty or to say with any authority what an author intended. The only way to do this is with verifiable, specific comment by the author. The bible lacks this totally and unless god decides to go on Barbara Walters will always lack it.

Also, authors don't always mean what they write, they are not always truthful (even when they purport to be), and they certainly don't always intend things the way that their readers interpret them.

* Authorship

For anything to be reliable you have to know who produced it. I'm aware that some people believe that the bible is the word of god, and that he caused men to write it, but the fact remains that it was compiled over many years having been written by untold numbers of people, and then copied out by hand by untold numbers of other people.

* Language

It is impossible to fully understand anything unless you can read it in the original language(s). There are many problems with translations and various versions of the bible.

* Historicity and historical knowledge

It is impossible to understand something fully without having adequate historical knowledge of the period in which it is written or purports to be written about. The bible is full of contradictions and outright falsehoods in this regard, Genesis being only one example.

* Narration

The bible essentially has a third person limited omnicient narrator. Who is s/he? How does s/he know what s/he's telling us? How reliable is s/he?

The only reasonable way to understand the bible is as a series of allegories, myths, and fables, and there can never be one correct interpretation.

If the bible says that the earth is round and floats in space, why did the pope convict galileo for saying these same things?

"Once again, nobody (at least, nobody I know who is any sort of authority of ANY kind) is saying that the people who wrote the Bible were stupid or careless. They took it VERY seriously, and so should we. But they weren't trying to write a definitive text of science or history, so we shouldn't be trying to read it that way."

maybe not AUTHORITIES, but some people on here have said some pretty nasty things bout the bible writers, insinuating they were all just loopy sheep herders.

the bible is not a science book but when it DOES touch on science its accurate. thats all i was saying.

----

something to address those ppl who think the bible is TOTALLY literal [ i dont believe that].. they get the word LITERAL mixed up with true or REAL.

the bible is TRUE, yet sometimes it says things at face value aka LITERAL, sometimes things are FIGURATIVE such as revelation. if you cant figure that out no one can help you, it takes an honest heart when reading scriptures correctly as to if they are to be taken literal or figurative for something ELSE.

-------------

"Or, you might even believe that man was created from a lump of dirt. As a metaphorical account, it's a beautiful story. However, scientifically it completely breaks down and therefore cannot be considered 100% accurate."

well when we die we decompose into dirt, so if we end in dirt, why is it so hard to believe we were made out of it?

there is equal energy now as there was at the beginning of the life on this planet, energy transfers it doesnt disappear.... god can recompose the atoms...from dirt, into the parts of the human body, is that not possible?

people have shown the possibility of turning non-precious metals into precious metals in some laboratory tests. theres a lot of stuff we are just beginning to understand

-----------

"If the bible says that the earth is round and floats in space, why did the pope convict galileo for saying these same things?"

because the pope is OBVIOUSLY doesnt have anything to do with the true god :-p people who belief the pope is the mouthpiece of god are in a whole different category, one that im NOT in.

i dont believe "The church" speaks for god either..considering there are more false churches and christians then true ones... and obviously they are the ones making a bad name for the good true ones, and the ones that make the headlines.
----------

i just wanted to say i appricate the tactful conversation going on here, i dont think i speak for god, and i dont think im better then anyone else...so thanks for attacking the issues and not me.

"If the bible says that the earth is round and floats in space, why did the pope convict galileo for saying these same things?"

OBVIOUSLY he was a moron and not really appointed by God as a succession of Apostles. ;-)

"The bible is inherently unreliable."--Blah

Yeah, just like your own incoherent attack at ky1e regarding his SUPPOSED grammatical error in using "Milleniums". And no reply to my rebuttal to you. OWND.:-)

Well, at least I can post some valid reasons why the bible is inherently unreliable. Unlike BRor who can only scoff at the first line of my post.

And for the record, "milleniums" is still spelled incorrectly:

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=millenniums

So what if it typoed? You implied he wasnt even using the right word.

He's not. Millennia is preferable. Nevertheless, you haven't responded to my post about the inherent unreliability of the bible.

"responded to my post about the inherent unreliability of the bible."

Unreliable? Is that why it has been found correct about certain kings, locations, cities, and other historical figures? So unreliable like when archaeologists used to think Belshazzar did not exist? "Bible is wrong." Then they found the cuniform cylinders with his name on it? LOL. Oh yeah, I can really see the benefit of getting into a debate of such things. Do your own research, its all over the internet why should I have to do all the work?

Typical. This is exactly why you can't argue with religious nuts.

Should I cross-post? I don't think so.

Look here ( http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion_view.php?loadedFrom=Index&type=discu... ) for my reply regarding the "true" nature of Biblical accounts.

Summarized: Lies are believed when there are truths hidden in them.

ky1e:

"the bible is not a science book but when it DOES touch on science its accurate."

This is an inaccurate statement. re: above

**

"well when we die we decompose into dirt, so if we end in dirt, why is it so hard to believe we were made out of it?"

Yes, you are right. We are made out of dirt. We're mostly carbon and water. Every atom in your body came from the same place mine did: from inside of a star. It's not hard at all for me to believe I am made of 'dirt'. I just don't believe the first human being was suddenly created from a lump of it. The process took billions of years.

**

"there is equal energy now as there was at the beginning of the life on this planet, energy transfers it doesnt disappear...."

This is another inaccurate statement. We are bombarded daily by energy from the sun. Nuclear reactions within the sun release massive amounts of energy which pours over the Earth. I think you're referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which only applies to a closed system. The Earth does not exist within a closed system.

**

"god can recompose the atoms...from dirt, into the parts of the human body, is that not possible?"

Of course it is possible. This happens every day in the bellies of pregnant women. Food is turned into a living being. Genetics is staggering in its beauty and complexity.

**

"people have shown the possibility of turning non-precious metals into precious metals in some laboratory tests. theres a lot of stuff we are just beginning to understand"

You are correct. This is where chemistry meets nuclear physics; scientists can bombard the nuclei of smaller atoms to combine them to make larger ones. We are just scratching the surface of nuclear physics. Check out quantum theory, it will blow your mind.