Ancient texts in discussions of science?

Ancient texts are sometimes referenced during discussions of scientific matters. I would like to ask if this is proper.The ancients, naturally, knew and understood less than we moderns. Some ancient writings are accurate, some are not. Is the antiquity of a text a valid reason to reference it in a discussion?In some cases, a text has been declared holy by some religion or other, and its adherents accord the text authority. Adherents of other religions, or none, however, are under no obligation to accord the text any authority. Are holy texts useful when discussions include non-adherents?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Can well be. For example, if we were discussing what people of the early bronze age thought about a subject then texts from that period certainly would be appropriate. Again, it depends on the discussion and on the content of the text. The content may well be useful regardless of whether or not someone accords them some religious status.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The bible, and other ancient texts, provide evidence that the earth has been in stable orbit for a long time. That supports the idea that gravitation fields are conservative, and is part of the background that supports the principle of conservation of energy.Sure, this is informal background support for scientific theories, rather than formal explicit data. However, for a lot of our science, the informal background support can be quite substantial.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

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.

Ignore what the bible says about astronomy (or about creation). The bible describes people living in a climate not too different from what we see today for that part of the world. It mentions plants and animals not too different from what we would see today. This is good evidence that the earth, at the time those ancient texts were written, was in essentially the same orbit then that it is in now.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

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

Either that or it is evidence that someone was talking through his ...

There was Francis and also Mr. Ed. Granted they were not donkeys.But that was not nwrs point. How his very reasonable point devolved into talking critters I will never understand.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We also have evidence of comets from ancient chinese astronomers that show the same orbits back then (BC) as now.We also have the evidence of Troy being found by the study of the Greek myth.The validity of ancient text can be treated like any other text -- if you can validate it by other sources then you can assume that the information contained that is validated is correct.This essentially takes what we know today and extends it into the past.Taking anything that is not independently validated is risky.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

it depends on what you are arguing, biology,geology, archaelogy?
i wouldn't use anything old to understand the first one, unless its on maybe a history of the science. the second only say to get an understanding of the world back then. and the last because it helps us understand the cultures and objects we have, writings are best for the study of civilaztion well somethings, a common thing is knowledge comes in cycles it seems, found, lost, found again.
remember it depends on the discussion, history is good, if you have other evidence as well, or about the beliefs of older peoples, and its great to understand why we have things the way we do now in our own culture
personally other than history i wouldn't use old texts for biology or physics or anything that gets revised
sad to say creationists can't seem to grasp this yes indeed it does, well for the most part, it gives you an understanding of the beliefs people hold to, sometimes it really doesn't eg:YEC,flatearth,ID,etc
its when the person you are debating has decided that this or that verse has this meaning, though the text really doesn't show it unless you use some other text that claims this
its only when you have those that are so stone set aganst hearing any other view of the same text, that you really run into problemsotherwise its a great tool since you can have a debate on the same playing field (i hope)

Although several people have already provided good answers to this question, in a nutshell ancient texts can be completely valid in context, as long as there is external evidence (other sources) to clarify or support what the text indicates. However, using an ancient text as the sole source, especially if it's self-referential, is invalid. Of course. The Mahabarata is an excellent source of ancient Hindu history - as long as you can separate out the myth from the reality. It can be used to explain why certain cities were important, lists several historical figures (and some allegorical figures), etc. However, you are absolutely correct that no one is under any obligation to take the whole as the sole authority.

quote:

---

Either that or it is evidence that someone was talking through his ...

---

The Bible is NOT a science book, NOT EVER. Yet it often refers to the great number of stars in the heavens and other things one might use as stepping stones to 'real' science:Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars”which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”Each star differs from others:1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.Description of the precision of universe movement:Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”Suspension of earth in space:Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.Atmospheric circulation:Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.Fluid dynamics:Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measureA bit o' biology:Leviticus 17:11
”For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’A bit o' biogenesis:Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Flesh nature:Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.Mental and spiritual health:Proverbs 12:4
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.A bit o' anthropology:Job 30:5,6
They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.A bit o' hydrology:Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?Water recirceling:Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.Isaiah 55:10
For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,Conservation: Take a shower with your wife?How much water in clouds?Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.Hydrothermal vents?Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?A bit o' geology:Jeremiah 31:37
Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.A bit o' physics?2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtmlThat was loads of fun!"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Job 12:7-8 I know loads of people who talk through their ass. So what? Edited by DorfMan, : No reason given.

DorfMan: Thank you for sharing this sublime passage. It's worth pointing out, though, that it does not depict a modern idea of the cosmos as biblical literalists think it does.In ancient cosmogonies the earth was thought of as suspended in the middle of rotating spheres--a series of polished domes or 'heavens'--that carried the planets around the earth at different speeds.Ancient cultures postulated seven or nine of these heavens. How many heavens they thought there were depended on who you asked in what century. Why at least seven? Because that's the number you need to account for the different rotation speeds observed for these celestial objects:

Sun
Moon
Mercury
Venus
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn

A seven-heaven model put the realm of the fixed stars beyond these. Nine-heaven models placed the fixed stars in Heaven #8 and conceived of Heaven #9 as the Prime Mover--the main gear, as it were, driving the rest. Angels had the task of keeping this one in motion. God's realm lay beyond this, surrounding it all and eternal is scope.The earth logically had to be 'suspended on nothing' because celestial bodies were observed to set in the west and subsequently rise in the east. The timing corresponded precisely with their speed as observed during the times they were seen overhead. There had to be space for these bodies to move freely underneath the earth--ergo, a world suspended on nothing in the center of this series of rotating spheres. Eventually the celestial objects themselves were understood to be 'suspended on nothing' as well. The existence of revolving spheres was no longer necessary to the model.This paradigm stood for centuries. Before the telescope was invented it really did a good job of explaining things. The model appears--with medieval refinements--in Dante's Divine Comedy. Understanding the ancient paradigm enables clearer understanding of ancient phrases such as 'enthroned above the highest heaven,' being in 'seventh heaven' and the like.Yes, the passage from Job is beautiful. But from a scientific standpoint the picture demsontrates, as it were, nothing cosmic. It's a picture that reflects ideas that prevailed at the time of its writing, as all the Bible's pictures do.Most of the rest of the passages you cite are beautiful contemplations of nature. All wise books and all wise poetry extol the wisdom of contemplating the universe around us. All invite a sense of wonder. The Bible is a great book, so it is not suprising to find that it shares this quality with other great books.Passages like these invite wonder, but they do not give the books of the Bible unique relevance for natural science. These texts are neither more nor less relevant to science than any other ancient documents.What you demonstrate when you cite such passages is that sublime images are to be be found in ancient texts. These images retain their power to move us. You are not demonstrating that the Bible has special relevance for science.And that's okay..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added detail.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.