Ancient texts in discussions of science?

Good bloody question woodsy! Even more to the point are holy texts useful as means of scientific discovery in general?There are people who consider certain ancient texts, such as the bible, as authoritative concerning scientific truth. For example, some believe that the bible statement of "facts" are the final arbitrator in determining rather a scientific hypothesis should even be considered, let alone valid. Since vocabulary is key to communication, I suggest we use the term "faith-facts" when referring to sacred text derived facts or evidence.Consider the track record of "faith-facts" based scientific discovery.Can anyone list the discoveries of the physical nature of the universe that have been derived from someone reading scripture?In other words has anyone, even inspired readers or faithful ardent adherents, ever read the bible and exclaimed:"Eurika! the world is round, my inspired reading proves it right here!Or "by god if I read this correctly, the sun is the center of the universe".Or "Wait fella's by a new translation of this key scripture I think space is warped by matter and time is dependent on the observer."It is a very short list - unless of course you consider the concept of "zero" as a discovery and useful mathematical construct

The bible in particular implies that the earth is the center of the universe. It says nothing about orbiting and certaintly nothing about "for a long time".For example, the earth was created before the sun. You would think that if you were to constuct a solar system you would start with center.Or suppossedly the sun was stopped in the sky. Hmmmmm. Would that cause some significant tides? Take a spinning mass like the earth and stop it. This thought proves that the ancients did not realize they were sitting on a spinning mass orbiting a sun. The is much more but not worth time listing.

Well I dunno there was a mention of talking donkey. You don't see that today.

Only difference is that scientist with differing opinions (in most cases) understand their fallibility.However in reference to the bible we are talking about the supposed direct inerrant infallible "word of god". Mighty hefty claim indeed!As I noted in below, no time as any inspired reader ever made a discovery based on his reading of the supposed inspired word of god. Therefore I agree heartly with you that it is not a Science Text.I think in most ancient texts such as the Koran or Hindu scripts you can read them and find amazing correlations to known science. Similarly, one can read the sunday horoscopes or chinese cookies and find amazing insight to your personal life.

Not at all. In fact Google is not familiar with them either - A misspelling perhaps?But if this has something to do with biblical inerrency please provide more information. This is maybe even something for another topic?As far as what part of the bible is fallible - well, that is easy. Do you want me to narrow it down to a particular book?If I start on my own and start listing things that qualify the bible being fallible I would be starting a discussion that some would consider off topic. As such i will resist the temptation. i recommend you start a new topic - it maybe informative for both of us.But let me comment once again - I do not believe the bible contains any significant information about the nature of universe other than what the writers knew about the universe at the time of writing. No inspiration is evident. This is essentially woodsy statement. I will claim emphatically:

There is no inspired scientific revelations inserted by God to "wow" later readers.

​

There is no inspired scientific revelations inserted by God that a later inspired reader could use to develop a scientific hypothesis that would extend our understand of creation. Proof of this statement, is that no one has done this to date.

​

Given this, why do some (I am not saying you do) want to use the bible as a scientific textbook and constrain the advancement of science?

​

There are people that believe all scientific hypothesis should flow from the bible.

​

For example, a user here has stated that geologist should not even question "if" the flood happened but "how" it happened!!!!!!

​

It is because of such dark age inspired claims like the above that some, including myself, take on a slightly aggressive stance to this notion that the bible is authoritative with respect to science.

​

Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

Are you sure of this spelling. Google is blank on that term.I have heard of Gin Tawnics, but it is bit late in the seasons for those.