Originally posted by RJHinds
Proving the bible says things that are true does not make everything in the bible true.
Also claiming you had an idea or made a discovery first, while potentially laudable does
not mean that other claims you make are true.
The problem for theologian as opposed to a historian, is that you have to prove the existence
of the divine, of the supernatural, of god. Showing that people a few thousand years ago
had a very basic understanding of the world around them does not prove the existence of a
supernatural entity, it proves they had a limited understanding of the world around them.
I could point out a list of things the Bible gets wrong, except I and others have already done
this and you have ignored it as not fitting into your world view.
Also a lot of the claims are subjective. The claim the bible knew the world was a sphere for
example, as I understand it the word used could mean both sphere or circle (which is flat)
and given the common use at the time, plus the repeated statements that you can see the
entire earth from a high enough standpoint (possible on a disc, not on a sphere) the likely
most period accurate interpretation is that they believed the world was flat.
However even if you are right and that they said that it was a sphere, that still puts them
behind the Greeks who had already worked it out, and even if it didn't, it is a really simple
and obvious observation to make. And even come up with a first order approximation of the
What you are demonstrating is not proof that the bible is the word of god, or that god exists.
What you are demonstrating is that the bible didn't get everything wrong, depending on what
translation you chose to interpret.
If it was really the word of god, why does it get Anything wrong?
Plus some of those facts those sites are claiming the bible "proves" are not actually true.
basically what's the point of your post?
What do you think it demonstrates?