Secularly Verifiable Evidence for Biblical Inerrancy

I was wondering what everyone thought about portions in the Bible which can be used as objective evidence for its inerrancy. There are many instances in the Bible where scientific fact is spoken before science discovered them to be fact.......for instance, the first thing God created was light. The Bible makes it clear that when God said "Let there be light", he was not speaking of the sun or moon or any luminous body. It's now known to be scientific fact that light is what governs the flow of spacetime and that the first thing that existed after the Big Bang, from an anthropological point of view, was light. On that note, the Bible is also the first source in history (to my knowledge) to present time as a subjective experience, I.E. "a day to God is like a thousand years, and a thousand years a day". The Bible also records that God "hanged the world on nothing" at a time when the thought of something be hung on nothing was absurd. The Bible also suggests that the world is round when it states that "God sits on the circumference of the Earth", though this may have already been guessed by ancient cultures. The Bible also agrees with the majority of scientists who now believe that man first arose in Africa. Finally, at no point in time does the Bible make a blatantly scientifically inaccurate statement or assertion, as many other sources of mythology do.This message has been edited by SirPimpsalot, 10-22-2004 10:29 AM

Thanks for the welcome. Thing is, this isn't a topic just about prophecy fulfillment. It's about SECULARLY VERIFIABLE prophecy fulfillment, I.E., prophecys that are historically verified to have been written before the events that they prophecy.......which most prophecies aren't.I'm guessing you guys don't already have a topic about secularly verifiable prophecy specifically, so I'd appreciate it if you could go ahead and post the topic as is.

Yeah, yeah, check it out now........will you post it now?

But the SUN isn't created until the third day......so, clearly, this is not sunlight we're speaking of. This is clearly not what the Bible meant..........and what about "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Begining and the End"? God makes the statement that he is presently the begining and the end of time. And what about "In the begining was the Word", in which Jesus, who is defined as the Incarnation of God, is stated to have been with God before his own Incarnation?Clearly, the Bible suggests in many places, and straight out states in the "a day to God is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day" passage that God is outside of time. But that's exactly what the Earth is doing, from an anthropological point of view. Spheres are circles....... Every time I've heard the location of Eden referenced based on the Biblical location of it, it's been in north Africa........I've heard this claim from many varying sources, none of whom were using it as anything more as an FYI point (so they had no reason to distort facts). The Bible never makes the claim that the Earth is young.........in fact, considering that the SUN isn't created until the third day, you could say it even outright suggests that the seven days of creation shouldn't be taken literally........as far as Noah's flood, see the glacial meltings........

Also, though the admin made me edit it from the first post, there are certain instances in which Biblical propechy is fulfilled which can be secularly verified........such as with the crucifixtion and the "70 Days" prophecies in Jeremiah and Daniel.

No, I'm making the claim that the Bible speaks scientific truth from an anthropological point of view.......as EVERYTHING in the Bible is from an anthropological point of view...... So does English, but you ask the average guy on the street what shape the Earth is, he'll say "round" (which can define many non-spherical shapes) or "a circle". Yes, let's just ignore half the rivers mentioned because it's more convenient........not to mention that I'm sure aspects of those rivers have changed over the last several thousands of years. Um, yeah, world wide floodings occured during the glacial meltings............ Riiiiight, no one ever built a boat........ I'd say a lake turning into the black sea would fit ANYONE'S definition of "flood"......... This is valid with some of the points I raised........but not others, such as "And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light." How many different ways can that be interpretted?Which you, ever so coincidentally, I'm sure, didn't comment on........This message has been edited by SirPimpsalot, 10-23-2004 06:47 AM

BTW, another couple of things I remembered.........man is stated to have been made in God's image. Man is the only animal on Earth for which there aren't a multitude of cousins and closely related species.Also, I read in a Stephen Baxter book that the human brain could theoretically contain 1000 years of memories, before it filled up like a hard drive.........if man once lived to almost a 1000 years, that would explain why we'd need 90% of our brains free for storing info. Such long life spans could also account for how the world became populated in just a few thousand years (now, I don't believe in YEC, but I believe that maybe human beings were only created a few thousand years ago).

Ummmm, there's more than one definition for light?As for light and the flow of space time, I don't really understand special relativity.......all I know is that light and the flow of space time are closely correlated.

Distant relatives, removed by more than 4 million years of evolution.

There have been instances in which over half of a person's brain has been removed and they retained full memory and mental capacity........and, given enough time, it's believed they can regain all motor function as well, and be a perfectly normal person with only half a brain.

I'm not attempting to change the subject.......I'm just adding additional info which I would have included in the first post had I remembered. I'll respond to the people who "discredited" my points in time, but I don't have all day to sit in here and post, ya know? Stephen Baxter is an accomplised scientist, who just happens to write sci-fi.........his exclusive genre is hard sci-fi, and hard sci-fi is based exclusively or almost exclusively on hard science.If you read it in a Stephen Baxter book, it's probably at least theoretically possible.

Charles, have you seriously never heard of this proceedure? It's been around for a few years now......they use it as a cure for severe epilepsy.

You do realize that ancient Hebrew didn't even have quotation marks, don't you? These weren't scientists........they were holy men, to whom "sphere" and "circle" were synonyms.

Knight, I can't find my copy of Manifold Time, but at least the latter is present there..........he use to work for NASA, if I'm not mistaken, and has multiple degrees.Also present in Manifold Time (where I got the 1000 year thing from) is a list of citations where all of the science that various ideas in the book are based off of can be found.......

No need, Admin, as Charles says he's familiar with the proceedure.........I'm suprised you aren't.