The Bible's scientific accuracies.

"My opponent offered a source that does not provide one, not one, citation. The author, Jeffrey Fall is a writer for "Tomorrow's World" a magazine dedicated to the New Church of God and is apparently a Dr., but no where can I find what, exactly, he studied for his Doctorate." You are misguiding the voters, attempting to discredit the source. No where in his article does he say that he is a Dr. "As much as I enjoy translation arguments, my opponent offered little to rebut. Translations are not done in a word to word fashion ignoring the full content of the phrase needed for translation, and when speaking of tenses one must understand that present tense occurs in many forms." You misunderstood the argument. The argument is that the Hebrew verb which was translated "STRETCHES" is in the present tense. The argument is that was that the English word it self is in the present tense. I realize that it was worded kind of funny but if you read closely it means that the word "stretches" is in the present tense. " Several are offered but which one works here? The text clearly states "like a tent" so the use of natah is in reference to this tent, and must mean "pitch". In other words, God pitched a tent. The use of this verb throughout Isaiah [5] is listed here. [5] Please note every use is either in the past or the present perfect (as close as we can get to present perfect concepts with Hebrew). 'Stretched' or 'stretched out still' " I am sorry but your entire argument is based off of the word "tent" that supposedly means "dome". But here is the FACT, the word used describing the stretching of the universe is in the present tense. Just that one single word in the verse describing a presently expanding universe questions your whole "dome" idea. Dome's don't expand. Even the old KJV translates the Hebrew verb into the old English "stretcheth".(which is still in the present tense) This was written in that version hundreds of years before proven scientifically in 1929. It is either a solid dome or a ever expanding universe, it cannot be both. http://webster.commnet.edu... http://www.shpltd.co.uk... " Translations are not done in a word to word fashion ignoring the full content of the phrase needed for translation" Exactly, that is why the English word is in the present tense. They translated the word from the original context and came up with "stretches". "My opponent wishes to refute a similar reference in Psalms by examining the Book as a whole, claiming Psalms is poetic, but when confronted with the whole of Isaiah he dismisses it as irrelevant! Which is it, Pro? Both Psalms and Isaiah are using imagery to convey a message. Does my opponent really wish to take the "grasshopper" reference literally? I am not familiar with 6 legged humans so I conclude this phrase is meant to be a simile, and the verse itself is a metaphor" The book of Psalms is very poetic. Isaiah does have it's moments of poetry but isn't nearly as poetic as Psalms is. The fact is that when a word is used like "tent" or "tabernacle" for the sun it gives you some room to see it as poetry but when there is something as specific as "the circle of the earth" there really is no way you can interpret that as something anything else other then a circle. If it was meant to be literal why didn't he just say it was a dome? You say it is a metaphor for "dome" but the translation as shown above certainly does not suggest that. "The reason, of course, is that wind patterns were known at the time, the writers of the Bible did not discover them, and certainly did not do so thousands of years before anyone else." Actually your wrong. George Hadley was the first to explain the Global wind pattern in 1753. He basically described (except longer) what I said about the north to south wind movements from the pole to the equator. http://www.scienceclarified.com... http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov... "Ancient sailors made use of the winds and were able to determine the consistent nature of the trade winds" The ancient sailors knew how to sail their ships in the general location but the ancient sailors did not know the Global wind patterns. "opponent has abandoned the jet stream argument." I never supported it. "I see no reference to the Hadley Cell or the Coriolis Effect in the Bible either." Hmm.. Hadley suggests North to south wind movement.. sooo does the bible? "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course." Ecclesiastes 1:6 "My opponent did not address my rebuttal to the water cycle" Unfortunately you had no rebuttal. I would have loved to address it though. The bible implies that the water recycles it self. What does the water do? It RECYCLES it self.. Scientifically accurate? Yes. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. -Ecclesiastes 1:7 It is clear that this verse is talking about a recycling motion of water. Of course the Bible didn't get into specific details. The Bible was NOT written as a science book. But you can see it gives a basic understanding of the recycling motion of water. "nor did he address the cosmologies at the time of Isaiah concerning the flat circle of the earth." No need to when I have already disproved your interpretation of the verse. The bible does speak of a spherical earth. There is no other alternative. It is either flat or circle, you tried to show that the metaphor that the bible is speaking of a flat circle using the word "tent" representing a "dome" I showed that the word "Stretches" implies that the universe was always expanding. Therefore your interpretation of the word "tent" fails.