Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Science validates the Bible, which is God's word

Forums Forums Religion and Secularism Science validates the Bible, which is God's word

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 47 total)
  • Author
  • #299067

    “Actually we were created in the image of our ancestors.”   (love it!)

    But it was a long and winding road.  😉



    Yep, good ol’ granpappy Ukha.  He sure loved him some bugs.  Them was the good ol’ days, 64.6 Million yrs ago.  No fancy shmancy MacDonald’s, Burger King’s, fast food.  Yer fast food was the ones you had to snap out of the air.  And more often you had to root around for what you et, or have deadly combat with a cockroach twice the size of your head.

    Patrick D

    First post, and I’ll jump in with my two cents. Please don’t bite my head off.:

    My position is that of agnostic atheist; that means I don’t believe in god(s), but do not claim to know.. Reason for  lack of belief; No proof.

    Before making a claim  about the bible  as the word of God,  the claimant needs first to prove the existence of  god. Slight problem there; as metaphysical questions tend to be, the existence of god is an unfalsifiable  claim. IE God cannot be argued into or out of existence.

    The Bible as word of god has a different, pragmatic issue. The New Testament  accepted today (each sect with its favourite translation)   bears little resemblance to what  was  first written down  between one and two human generations after the putative death of Jesus.  The problem; the printing press was  not invented  until the fifteenth century. Before that, all books had to be copied by hand.  A great many errors snuck in.

    I do not claim to be an erudite biblical scholar.  I depend on experts. In this case, it’s  the highly respected former  Christian Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman. The Book is called “Misquoting Jesus”,and I recommend it to anyone with an open mind. In my experience that precludes Christian apologists. I have alway found such people to have one agenda; confirmation of existing beliefs. They will  reject anything which contradicts doctrine. Prof Ehrman’s  book falls into that category.

    Below are  two passages from Wikipedia, which seem about right. Imo the full article is worth reading for a broad idea of the book’s contents:


    Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (published as Whose Word Is It? in United Kingdom) is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book made it to The New York Times Best Seller List.[2]

    Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to de-emphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism).







    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Patrick D.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Patrick D.

    I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church. I recall one sermon that was all about a verse in the Bible that said not a “jot or tittle” could be changed from God’s Word.  In retrospect that was complete and total BS.  The Bible was hacked together over the centuries, with certain powers deciding what could be part of it and what couldn’t.  Also many many translations have no doubt changed meanings in all sorts of ways.  Of course the faithful might just say that all of those edits were directed by God, so that not one jot or tittle of meaning varies from His Word.  Bullcrap.

    But then, all of the stories were pretty much fiction to begin with, tho some may have had some factual bases. e.g., A person named Jesus who carried on with a group of men and had religious followers may have existed.   But the supernatural stuff is for sure fiction, and who knows about all the other details? Probably also heavily fictionalized.  And then as the centuries passed from the first century, the stories were no doubt edited more and more.  And those who wanted some stories told, and others to be considered heresies, effectively changed what would come down to us today.

    The history of the Koran is pristine in comparison to that of the Bible.   Science would have a better shot at validating that load of dogma.

    Patrick D



    Bart has a real talent for weaving his textual criticism into a good story. He doesn’t just show you the misspelling of the Greek word or the differences between two manuscripts, he tells you the story of how those manuscripts were found and how they almost ended up as fire starter out in some remote monastery somewhere, then he comes back and gives you some technical information. That way he keeps the learning interesting.

    Patrick D



    Science and the Q’uran, would be fascinating.Perhaps they could start off with the Prophet’s flying horse.


    Patrick D wrote: “Before making a claim  about the bible  as the word of God,  the claimant needs first to prove the existence of  god. Slight problem there; as metaphysical questions tend to be, the existence of god is an unfalsifiable  claim. IE God cannot be argued into or out of existence.”

    In PGardner’s defense, I think what he was attempting to do was prove that science does validate the Bible, and therefore if the Bible is accurate, then God does exist.  You could also argue whether that itself was a valid argument, but for most of us he never even managed to get past the first premise, i.e., that science validates the Bible.

    Patrick D

    Ok.  Probably no harder than any other method  of proving the existence of God.. I suspect such a  validating the claim via science would have almost certainly been proved during the enlightenment.

    I guess it’s possible some anonymous Christian apologist on a minor internet forum could accomplish the task . One can always hope.

    I’ll  be thrilled if God turns out to be real. Not even worried if he’s the Christian God, as I’ve satisfied myself that the notion of an eternal hell was invented by the early church. A means or obtaining power and control  over its appropriately  named followers; flock of sheep.


    A relevant joke, true story. Recounted to me by my mother;

    At age 4,  I was at kindergarten.

    Finger painting. Little Patrick was working away, furrowed brow.

    Teacher: Patrick, you’re very busy, what are you painting?

    Patrick: I’m painting a picture of God.

    Teacher; Patrick, no one knows what  God looks like

    Patrick: They will in a minute.




    I would like to commission 4 yr old Patrick to do a painting of Muhammed. The painting of Muhammed would then be reproduced in giant form on the wailing wall.  This would represent an outreach of peace from the Jews to the Muslims, and Muhammed could be depicted as drinking a Pepsi, so that there would be sponsor money for doing the large painting.

    Can you imagine?  peace in the middle east

    Jared, no need to thank me for the idea.


    Great idea! Can you make that a Bud instead of Pepsi?

    Patrick D

    Budweiser? Really?  Don’t they have real beer where you live?

    Do you know why American beer is compared with making love in a canoe?




    Because it’s f—-g  close to water


    I’m not going to argue with an Aussie about beer, except to say that f—ing close to water has never been a bad thing in my experience.


    “But more and more, I’m hearing an answer to the “what if you’re wrong” question…”

    Pascal’s Wager is the stupidest justification for anything ever put to paper.

    Some people seem to think that pretending you believe is good enough- don’t sweat actually believing, just say you do and the god you pretend to believe in will be happy to invite you into heaven (or at least let you stay on earth after Jesus comes back, if you’re a JW.)

    The saddest part is when I answer by saying that any moral god would see how I lived my life and how I think, reason and decide what’s right and wrong, and they respond by saying that their “loving” god is still sending me to hell simply because I don’t believe in their god. It really saddens me to see otherwise good people literally throw away their moral compass and blindly accept as righteous, the most hideous fate imaginable for a fellow human.

    I fu&!^& hate religion for lots of reasons, but the fact it takes good people and turns them into monsters is right near the top of the list.


    The bible is a science book?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 47 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.