Why doesn't the Bible mention.............

[Gharib]

I don't think that's really what we're talking about here. The issue is that nothing that is identifiable to us as having been invented in the last 2000 years, even in passing.

For a better analogy, if that tribe was diligently writing down whatever we told them and I handed them a photo and said that I got it from my computer, they probably wouldn't understand fully (maybe they'd think that "My Computer" is the name of a town or something), but they'd write it down anyway. Later on, other people who read it would understand that I was talking about a computer even if the scribe who wrote it didn't.

But the Biblie had nothing like this. No explicit instructions, of course, but not even any passing mentions.

i don't know the bible very well so i can't go looking up verses to present to you, however, i think what Idea posted just below you should answer your question.

 

[9Westy9]

you are going back to the start.

No, I'm correcting your last post.

i proved the outcome of what would happen.

You proved nothing. I also proved nothing, only gave you an example of what could happen if I described to the tribe about computers

this is where i depart, sorry but i don't like to go in circles or to debate for the sake of debating. enjoy your day.

We're not going in circles just yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

there is a ton of stuff like this:

as the wings of a dove covered with silver...(Old Testament | Psalms 68:13)

The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.(Old Testament | Nahum 2:4)

They did not have the vocabulary to describe what they saw of coarse.

"... wings covered with silver and feathers of gold" Doesn't sound like any aircraft I've ever seen.

And reading that passage from Nehum in context, it sounds like it's just saying that the red-clad charioteers wearing metal riding around the city would look like torches. Nothing about future technology that I can see at all.

 

[Gharib]

"... wings covered with silver and feathers of gold" Doesn't sound like any aircraft I've ever seen.

And reading that passage from Nehum in context, it sounds like it's just saying that the red-clad charioteers wearing metal riding around the city would look like torches. Nothing about future technology that I can see at all.

silver and gold might just be metaphors of metal. they probably didn't have aluminium at that time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

silver and gold might just be metaphors of metal. they probably didn't have aluminium at that time.

I can understand someone thinking an aluminum airplane was "silver", but what sort of airplane has golden feathers?

 

[Gharib]

I can understand someone thinking an aluminum airplane was "silver", but what sort of airplane has golden feathers?

don't planes come with luxury too? if it really refers to a plane then think of both silver and gold as metaphors like i said before.

 

[idea]

I can understand someone thinking an aluminum airplane was "silver", but what sort of airplane has golden feathers?

you are getting bogged down in the details, I think you get the point - they did not have the vocabulary to describe what they saw - and the point of what they saw was not the technology anyways. The point is about character / how to react / inter-personal relationships. It's about mindsets - which has nothing to do with the color/design of the chariot that people were driving around in.

look at the 10 commandments:
don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't be jealous, don't kill one another - the point of all of it is how to treat one another...

you might as well ask "Why doesn't the Bible give a recipe for apple pie? there's no apple pie recipe in it, so it must be false... by that logic, all books that do not include a recipe for apple pie are false...

 

[Gharib]

by that logic, all books that do not include a recipe for apple pie are false...

or better yet they are not cook books however, they are something else, which is what religious books are. they aren't recipes for technology, but guidance and laws for humanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

don't planes come with luxury too? if it really refers to a plane then think of both silver and gold as metaphors like i said before.

If the dove with silver wings and golden feathers was a metaphor, then why should we assume that it has anything to do with airplanes in the first place?

 

[Caladan]

Why doesn't the bible mention, aeroplanes, electricity, gunpowder, Nuclear fission, Space Shuttle. Space Stations, motorcars, aircraft carriers, vaccines, skyscrapers, cruiseliners, mosques, machine guns, nuclear weapons or billions of other things that have occurred since it was written, if it has so many prophecies in it and god knows all? Why didn't god mention any of this stuff when telling the authors what to write? Is it because god didn't know all this stuff, or he didn't tell anyone what to write, or he just doesn't exist and these are really the stories of bronze age goatherds?

Ignoring the fact that this post is an insult to any intelligent member, and is a lame attempt for a flame bait. I'll answer it clearly.
simply because the bible was written by men, by scribes. and one basic correction. it was not written during the bronze age, but during the iron age, so please do try to educate yourself on this matter.
it doesn't say anything about these things, just like Egyptian literature or Roman literature doesn't say anything about these things. but both Egyptian and Roman texts are considered essential in many fields of study or to the better educated lay person.

 

[Gharib]

If the dove with silver wings and golden feathers was a metaphor, then why should we assume that it has anything to do with airplanes in the first place?

come on now, please don't go to that level. if you want to accept it then that fine if you don't then maybe that answers your questions about why planes, and cars, and nuclear reactors etc etc are not mentioned in the bible.

 

[Gharib]

Ignoring the fact that this post is an insult to any intelligent member, and is a lame attempt for a flame bait. I'll answer it clearly.
simply because the bible was written by men, by scribes. and one basic correction. it was not written during the bronze age, but during the iron age, so please do try to educate yourself on this matter.
it doesn't say anything about these things, just like Egyptian literature or Roman literature doesn't say anything about these things. but both Egyptian and Roman texts are considered essential in many fields of study or to the better educated lay person.

well that answers that.

just as a side note, all religions which teach of God sending them a book agree that it was men who wrote it. no religion claims that God wrote their book. Moses wrote the stone plates, the followers of Jesus wrote the bible and the scholars of the first generation of the nation of Muhammed wrote the Qur'an. however, it was God who composed the 3 originals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you are getting bogged down in the details, I think you get the point - they did not have the vocabulary to describe what they saw - and the point of what they saw was not the technology anyways. The point is about character / how to react / inter-personal relationships. It's about mindsets - which has nothing to do with the color/design of the chariot that people were driving around in.

look at the 10 commandments:
don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't be jealous, don't kill one another - the point of all of it is how to treat one another...

you might as well ask "Why doesn't the Bible give a recipe for apple pie? there's no apple pie recipe in it, so it must be false... by that logic, all books that do not include a recipe for apple pie are false...

The details are very much the point when you're using those details to argue that the author saw things from the future.

And it's not that all books that don't mention ______ are false, it's that we have a situation that, IMO, demands an explanation: this book was quite happy to talk at length about technology in existence up to about the first century, but is mysteriously silent about technology that arose since then. What possible explanations are there for this?

IMO, the most reasonable explanation is that the author(s) did not have knowledge of the events of the last 2000 years. IOW, the author of the Bible is not omniscient. This doesn't mean it's necessarily false, just that it isn't the product of the God often claimed to be its author.

 

[Caladan]

however, it was God who composed the 3 originals.

This is a personal belief. or a popular religious Muslim belief. so a subjective belief.
to the objective and academically educated person believing in such is not a decent option.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

come on now, please don't go to that level. if you want to accept it then that fine if you don't then maybe that answers your questions about why planes, and cars, and nuclear reactors etc etc are not mentioned in the bible.

What level? I'm sticking with what we've been discusding so far:

- Why doesn't the Bible mention modern technology?
- It does. This passage is a description if an airplane by someone who had never seen one before.
- But that doesn't work. The description doesn't match an airplane. It has a bunch of problems.
- Oh... those are all metaphor. They're not meant to be taken literally.
- Then how do you know he meant the part that maybe kinda sorta sounds like an airplane a bit (if you ignore the problems) as a literal description?

It's ridiculous.

 

[4consideration]

The details are very much the point when you're using those details to argue that the author saw things from the future.

I would mainly like to address the second paragraph, but first want to mention that I do not take to Bible literally, nor do I think it could possibly contain all there is to know about God or life. Nor, do I put much weight in prophecy, even if some prophecy can be shown to have been accurate. But I see a lot to value in the Bible.

And it's not that all books that don't mention ______ are false, it's that we have a situation that, IMO, demands an explanation: this book was quite happy to talk at length about technology in existence up to about the first century, but is mysteriously silent about technology that arose since then. What possible explanations are there for this?

Why does some reference to some technology justify demand for inclusion of reference to all subsequent technology?

Here's a possible explanation:

It occurs to me that much of the modern technology discussed in this thread was developed and/or greatly altered by western thinking. It also is apparent that western thinking over the last 2000 years has been greatly influenced by the Bible. Instead of saying, "Why doesn't the Bible talk about the technology we see today?" I am wondering if we can say with any degree of certainty that the technology we see today would even exist as it is if not for the influence in our thinking of all the influences, including the Bible (and any other sacred texts that have greatly influenced thinking.)

While it is obvious that the Bible does not seem to contain plans for building any of the technology that we see today, how do we know that some of the principles that are contained in the Bible may not have been first accessed by scientific minds from their understanding of the Bible and then applied to scientific endeavors. Perhaps the Bible led to a gradual increase of consciousness -- which in turn led to an increase of technological advancement.

For example, in the design and building of steam engines, I understand that at some point there was a big problem with danger -- like they kept blowing up. So, a relief valve was invented. The principles of forgiveness taught by Jesus in the Bible is the same principle for a release/relief valve -- let it go -- when pressure builds up, let it go before it causes a really big problem. It may have been presented as a "spiritual" truth, but it is also a principle that works in machinery.

I am not suggesting that scientific understanding came directly from the Bible, but we do know that many, many people's thinking have been directly influenced by it. I think it is an error to consider that the Bible, which is a component of our history and influence of our thought -- an ingredient in where we are today -- that that one ingredient ought to contain the sum total of the experience. (It not the pie. It's just the sugar. OK, let's make it the apple -- just for fun.)

IMO, the most reasonable explanation is that the author(s) did not have knowledge of the events of the last 2000 years. IOW, the author of the Bible is not omniscient. This doesn't mean it's necessarily false, just that it isn't the product of the God often claimed to be its author.

I agree that the author(s) did not have the knowledge of the events of the last 2000 years. Andl, in no way would I consider that the Bible could be omniscient. But, I think that it could be inspired by God just as much as anything else, to the degree that it contains truth and we are able to see it -- like a beautiful painting, a poem, a new scientific discovery -- anything that makes life better.

(Even if there are some people that may choose to use things for harm instead of good, that does not remove the potential for good contained within it.)

 

[McBell]

yeah it's the explaining stuff thats the big issue, it's easy to just say computer, it's the explaining of what it is and how it works thats the hard part.

and the answer is no. please be honest about it. don't tell me you honestly believe such people can understand how a small piece of plastic and metal stores information or that through some glass you can see people thousands of km away in europe. seriously you believe that?

Really?
Are you saying they are to stupid to learn?
I mean, do you know any of it?

If someone took the time and explained it to them you think they have no chance of learning it?

Or are you merely making this claim because you think it helps your argument?

 

[McBell]

i proved the outcome of what would happen.

You will have to point that post out, cause I am unable to find it...

 

[McBell]

What level? I'm sticking with what we've been discusding so far:

- Why doesn't the Bible mention modern technology?
- It does. This passage is a description if an airplane by someone who had never seen one before.
- But that doesn't work. The description doesn't match an airplane. It has a bunch of problems.
- Oh... those are all metaphor. They're not meant to be taken literally.
- Then how do you know he meant the part that maybe kinda sorta sounds like an airplane a bit (if you ignore the problems) as a literal description?

It's ridiculous.

Pssst...

Forer Effect

 

[JacobEzra.]

I get that some (many ) parts of the Bible deal with religious and "spiritual" things, but what I was getting at is if it's all just the opinion of the human authors, in what sense does it have "spiritual value"?

I understand that it would give us a glimpse into their practices, but are you saying that this translates somehow into a guide for our practices?

You ask a great question.

Unfortunatly, I have to admit, I have no idea.