Amazon.com Widgets

Is Biblical literalism a solid foundation for "historical science"?

  • The Bible is right.

    Yes, Biblical literalism is a solid foundation for historical science, because the science in the Bible has turned out to be true. Sadam and Gammorah was destroyed by fire. That turned out to be credible. There are credible reports for how the Red Sea was parted. The Bible gives us clues as to the weather and science behind the things that happened in the Bible.

  • Biblical literalism is a solid foundation for "historical science".

    It is important to study the historical background of the Bible. Even for people who do not believe it is a holy book, it is undeniable that it is influential. The book was written very long ago and in a different historical context. We should understand the historical truths of the Bible.

  • Historical science is just a thing Ken Ham made up

    Historical science is not a thing. By definition science is questionable and testable, whereas history by definition is a recounting of definitive facts of what occurred in the past. Historical science cannot thus exist. As for the bible being interpreted literally as historical fact, that would be like me using DC comics to put together an accurate history of Gotham City. The bible is a collection of sometimes morally useful parables and fables and was never intended to be interpreted as a literal history. I mean, really, that history would begin with two nudists taking bad dietary advice from a talking snake. Does that sound like it was intended to be taken literally to you?

  • Biblical lieteralism is not a solid foundation for "historical science".

    Biblical literalism is the literal belief in the bible as an historical text and is in conflict with what is currently accepted as scientific account of the history of the Universe, Earth, and Man. Biblical literalism says that the Earth is flat and sitting on pillars that do not move. Modern science has disproved the theory that the earth is flat and it is common knowledge that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun. The knowledge about how the solar system works differs greatly from the bible explanation of how the world works.

  • No, geological formations tell the story. Unless you don't believe in real science.

    When it comes to science, we are looking at theories that can be applied to all of space-time. Biblical literalism must assume that the theories of science today are not relevant to the way things happened in the past. Otherwise, when god created the heavens and the earth in seven days, and time passed through the 7,000 years or so that have passed since then, only 4,000 or so since the flood (which is how most geological formations are said to have been created according to Biblical literalism), the theories accepted in science today would have to be thrown out of the window to explain things that just happened 4,000 years ago.

  • No, Biblical literalism is not a founation for anything.

    It is not clear what exactly historical science would be, but if it is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible then it would have to be faulty. Biblical literalism is a misreading of the true intentions of the Scriptures. Biblical stories should be understood as symbolism that gives a context for life's meaning.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.