Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[flaja]

Living things are born to die. Its the cycle of life.

Shows how much you know:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If physical death is not punishment for sin and Christ was going to die anyway just because He was born, how can Christ’s physical death on the cross accomplish anything to give us eternal life?

 

[glockmail]

Shows how much you know:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If physical death is not punishment for sin and Christ was going to die anyway just because He was born, how can Christ’s physical death on the cross accomplish anything to give us eternal life?

Eternal life- just not here on Earth.

 

[Nienna]

Shows how much you know:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If physical death is not punishment for sin and Christ was going to die anyway just because He was born, how can Christ’s physical death on the cross accomplish anything to give us eternal life?

Sin DOES cause death, both physically and spiritually. THere was no death of "nephesh" before sin. After Adam and Eve sinned, they and the Creation under their care were cursed and began to die.

Christ's didn't HAVE to die because He was human; he was sinless. But His death (and resurrection!) made a way for us to be saved from eternal damnation.

 

[flaja]

But, will we EVER have all the facts? In that example, when the vaccine was administered, the shots did not cure the flu.

If I remember what I have read correctly, the vaccine was given to people who had not yet had the flu rather than people who were already sick. That Pfeiffer’s Bacillus was not the cause of the flu was proven after the fact. The vaccines were developed on the assumption that the bacillus was the cause because doctors at the time had nothing else to go on. The Pfeiffer’s hypothesis was the most logical one possible based on what was known at the time.

Like, how the flu really WAS caused by Pfeiffer's Bacillus, it's just that Pfeiffer's Bacillus isn't REALLY Pfeiffer's Bacillus. The phrase "Pfeiffer's Bacillus" can actually mean a variety of microscopic organisms, including viruses.

Can you document this? I have a bachelor’s degree in biology (and the 1918 pandemic holds special interest for me) and I’ve never heard this claimed. However, while doing a quick internet search I found that some people claim that Pfeiffer’s Bacillus is the cause of influenza (under the name Haemophilus influenzae, while other people claim influenza is caused by a virus (which is what I have always heard). Biologically speaking a bacillus is a certain type of bacterium (classified by its shape, although the term is often applied to all shapes of bacteria) and bacteria and viruses are not the same thing. Furthermore, during the 1918 pandemic Pfeiffer’s Bacillus was not found in the lungs of everyone who died of the flu so it may be the cause of the pneumonia that most people who died from the flu likely ended up with, but it was not likely the underlying cause of the flu that made people susceptible to pneumonia.

The true cause of the Spanish flu (and all other strains) came when researchers began researching distemper in dogs. Researchers didn’t figure they’d ever get funding to study the flu in humans, but the upper-class would gladly pay to find a cure for their dogs’ distemper, a disease whose symptoms mimic the flu in humans. The researchers used ferrets instead of dogs because they also get distemper and are easier to breed and care for in a lab setting. A researcher confirmed the link between distemper and the flu when a sick ferret sneezed in his face and he got the flu after a few days. When the pathogen was isolated it was a virus. All of today’s flu vaccines originated with the work on distemper in ferrets/dogs.

As for the discrepancy on the net, there’s always the possibility that people (especially people who design websites) may be thinking that the terms flu and pneumonia are interchangeable- which they are not from a biologist’s standpoint.

 

[dmp]

Humans can understand God only to the extent that He allows us to understand Him. The Bible has to be written from man’s point of view in order for us to understand it.

Not even close. The bible must have been 'written' for us to understand. Sure. Because we 'read'. However, the Bible is EXACTLY God-breathed words to show US who He is. Not man-breathed to show us who God is.

 

[Nienna]

If I remember what I have read correctly, the vaccine was given to people who had not yet had the flu rather than people who were already sick. That Pfeiffer’s Bacillus was not the cause of the flu was proven after the fact. The vaccines were developed on the assumption that the bacillus was the cause because doctors at the time had nothing else to go on. The Pfeiffer’s hypothesis was the most logical one possible based on what was known at the time.



Can you document this? I have a bachelor’s degree in biology (and the 1918 pandemic holds special interest for me) and I’ve never heard this claimed. However, while doing a quick internet search I found that some people claim that Pfeiffer’s Bacillus is the cause of influenza (under the name Haemophilus influenzae, while other people claim influenza is caused by a virus (which is what I have always heard). Biologically speaking a bacillus is a certain type of bacterium (classified by its shape, although the term is often applied to all shapes of bacteria) and bacteria and viruses are not the same thing. Furthermore, during the 1918 pandemic Pfeiffer’s Bacillus was not found in the lungs of everyone who died of the flu so it may be the cause of the pneumonia that most people who died from the flu likely ended up with, but it was not likely the underlying cause of the flu that made people susceptible to pneumonia.

The true cause of the Spanish flu (and all other strains) came when researchers began researching distemper in dogs. Researchers didn’t figure they’d ever get funding to study the flu in humans, but the upper-class would gladly pay to find a cure for their dogs’ distemper, a disease whose symptoms mimic the flu in humans. The researchers used ferrets instead of dogs because they also get distemper and are easier to breed and care for in a lab setting. A researcher confirmed the link between distemper and the flu when a sick ferret sneezed in his face and he got the flu after a few days. When the pathogen was isolated it was a virus. All of today’s flu vaccines originated with the work on distemper in ferrets/dogs.

As for the discrepancy on the net, there’s always the possibility that people (especially people who design websites) may be thinking that the terms flu and pneumonia are interchangeable- which they are not from a biologist’s standpoint.

Honey, I wasn't claiming that people actually used the phrase Pfeiffer's Bacillus indiscriminately... I wasn't really talking about the Spanish flu epidemic at all. I was just expanding on this example of Occam's Razor and comparing the phrase "Pfeiffer's Bacillus" to the way people talk about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis. The phrase and the word mean what they mean unless we are given info indicating otherwise.

 

[flaja]

Honey, I wasn't claiming that people actually used the phrase Pfeiffer's Bacillus indiscriminately... I wasn't really talking about the Spanish flu epidemic at all. I was just expanding on this example of Occam's Razor and comparing the phrase "Pfeiffer's Bacillus" to the way people talk about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis. The phrase and the word mean what they mean unless we are given info indicating otherwise.

Don't sneak up on a biologist like that :happy2: . I understand the various ways how people explain the term day in Genesis. You have to consider both figurative and literal language and then try to understand the usages based on what science, linguistics and history tell us.

I can understand multiple meanings of day in Genesis, but the option of identifying Pfeiffer’s Bacillus as the cause of the flu threw me. As a scientist I have to think in absolute terms. And now I have to figure out how and why the term bacillus came to be used for the cause of the flu- which I have always been told by science is caused by a virus.

 

[glockmail]

.... As a scientist I have to think in absolute terms. ....

As an experienced scientist I understand that most things are not absolute.

 

[flaja]

As an experienced scientist I understand that most things are not absolute.

You have scientific training? What is it? What science degree do you have?

 

[mattskramer]

Actually I found 7 translations. But whose counting when you are blind to logic?

What this actually proves is that you are so blind to reason that I have to hit you over the head with the truth, literally pointing out specific words that you have dismissed several times previous, for you to then figure out another excuse not to see. This fully explains your undying commitment to atheism.

So, which translations are correct and which translations are incorrect. I guess that you don’t like the DR1899.

 

[Gunny]

So, which translations are correct and which translations are incorrect. I guess that you don’t like the DR1899.

Some things are literal and specific, while others are vague and general. I realize for a literalist like you that's killer since intent and/or context are beyond your grasp. It's the flaw in your every argument.

 

[glockmail]

You have scientific training? What is it? What science degree do you have?

BS Civil Engineering, Cum Laude, University of Massachusetts; Master's program in Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University; Professional Engineer licensed in three states; 25 years of practice including regional waste disposal and recycling programs. I've been around the block once or twice.

 

[glockmail]

So, which translations are correct and which translations are incorrect. I guess that you don’t like the DR1899.

They are all correct. The Greek original is most correct. Perhaps you can go to it for further study.

 

[flaja]

BS Civil Engineering, Cum Laude, University of Massachusetts; Master's program in Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University; Professional Engineer licensed in three states; 25 years of practice including regional waste disposal and recycling programs. I've been around the block once or twice.

And I guess you’re going to give me that “science cannot prove anything” garbage I get from the Darwinists.

 

[flaja]

They are all correct. The Greek original is most correct. Perhaps you can go to it for further study.

Which Greek original? Multiple copies exist and they don’t always same the same thing.

 

[glockmail]

And I guess you’re going to give me that “science cannot prove anything” garbage I get from the Darwinists.

Use all the science you want. It can only help your understanding of the Bible.

 

[glockmail]

Which Greek original? Multiple copies exist and they don’t always same the same thing.

Multiple copies dating back to the 1st and 2nd centuries have been found at various locations- all the exact same text, proving the validity.

 

[-Cp]

There is nothing I can say to anyone to "prove" to them that the Scriptures are in fact truth... Why is that? Because only God's mercy is able to take off each person's "blinder of sin" to the truth... Only he is able to convict that person of their sins ..... Not I.... Not anyone else......

Until that happens for some of you, there's no use for me to sit here and argue anything in this thread because youre presupposition is skewed by sin...

 

[flaja]

Multiple copies dating back to the 1st and 2nd centuries have been found at various locations- all the exact same text, proving the validity.

In my experience of conducting extensive research in this area I’ve learned that individual manuscript copies usually have a name based on things like they were found, who found them or where the manuscripts are now kept.

Can you tell me which 1st and 2nd century manuscripts you are talking about?

The NT in the AKJ translation is based on a set of manuscripts that are collectively known as the Textus Receptus. Modern translations (such as the NIV and NASB) have NTs that are usually based on manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus[/]. The TR and these other manuscripts are not identical.

The manuscripts for the TR out-number all other manuscripts. Modern translation advocates insist that non-TR manuscripts are older than TR manuscripts and thus are more reliable. However, the TR manuscripts are closely similar (when they are not identical) to manuscripts that modern translation advocates reject even though they are just as old as the manuscripts that modern translation advocates do accept.

 

[dmp]

In my experience of conducting extensive research in this area I’ve learned that individual manuscript copies usually have a name based on things like they were found, who found them or where the manuscripts are now kept.

And in my experience conducting extensive research in this area I've learned that you're wrong. See how easy it is to 'conduct research'? Unless you cite specifics, your claims of 'having done research' aren't going to add to your credibility.