Talk:Scientific foreknowledge in Sacred Texts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific foreknowledge in Sacred Texts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

What a complete disaster this entry is. There is no point to the discussions, because the entry as it stands is so poor that it should be deleted. A new entry should be created, by individuals who possess the necessary scholarly knowledge.

Archived talk pages

  1. Talk:Biblical scientific foresight/Archive 1 up to September 5, 2005
  2. Talk:Biblical scientific foresight/Archive 2 up to September 9, 2005
  3. Talk:Biblical scientific foresight/Archiveadd up to September 18, 2005
  4. Talk:Biblical scientific foresight/Archive 3 up to September 21, 2005
  5. Talk:Biblical scientific foresight/Archive 4 up to November 22, 2005

Contents

[edit] New grand scheme

I've reverted to Clinkophonist's version [1], as -- after some hesitation -- I am in favour of his grand restructuring scheme, see also [2]. Note that the only seemingly deleted parts of this article are now at Science and the Bible.

The overall idea of this restructuring, as far as I grok it, is to avoid an excess of "pro" and "con" articles about all these Bible-related topics.

So, all POVs about compatibility of Bible and Science can be presented in Science and the Bible, whereas here in Biblical scientific foresight we can focus to present the proponents and the history of this POV.

Pjacobi 18:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The revised article is POV. The "Print References" don't match up either.

ken 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


What's your opinion of the new approach to re-structuring, leaving aside temporary problems in its implementation? --Pjacobi 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
clinkphonist has very little knowledge of the subject matter and so his approach was poor. He turned the article into a stub of an article that was POV. For example, clinkphonist said that Bible scientific foresight (BSF) people find the translation of the word Tzaraath (or tzaraat) to be problematic by BSF people in regards to mold. He gave no citations to BSF people regarding this alleged "problematicalness". Actually I found it easy to find scholars (Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia and a medical journal for example) who say the word can describe mold. [3] Second, clinkphonist said there is no medical reason for there to be male cicumcisions on the 8th day and he cited no sources. I did find a medical authority saying this was the optimal time. [4]

ken 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Much of the text regarding circumcision and medicine comes largely straight out of Medical evaluation of circumcision (or similarly titled); that article appears to be a bit volatile, so the text may not be quite as neutral as it could be. However, the lack of medical reason is specified in that article; non-religious circumcision is usually carried out, medically, on day 5, i.e. modern medicine mostly considers day 5 to be more suitable than day 8. Clinkophonist 22:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

clinkophonist, day 5? according to who? and for what reasons? I gave a medical authority and reason. You continue to give no sources.

Also, Schaller did lots of observation and autopsies. [5] The Bible was right about lions and strangulation. You on the other hand, give no sources.

00:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


[edit] clinkophonist non- attribution must stop

Clinkophonist is not giving sources for his claims. This is against Wiki policy. The article will be a trashy errant article if this is allowed to continue. ken 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

They are not my claims, the circumcision thing is straight out of Medical analysis of circumcision. Take it up with that article (there seem to be a lot of editors working on it, so you will probably get a quick response).

Also, you don't need to cite just to say that it is totally obvious you won't get foreskin problems without a foreskin. In much the same way that a good way to avoid penis cancer is to have your penis cut off.

Oh, and lions do NOT strangle their victims, they bite them. Maybe you'd appreciate that if you got BBC2 and David Attenborough. Clinkophonist 05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia says references must be easily accessible. Saying well watch BBC2 and David Attenborough is not enough. Still not well supported. I have no problem if pro and con circumcision sides are given. Schaller showed that lions strangle their prey. [6] I also cite this and see footnote for details: "Nowadays wildlife documentaries often show lions closing their jaws over the prey’s windpipe or nose and killing by throttling/strangling. Until the 1970s naturalists did not know this — they got it wrong." [7]

ken 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

This is one isolated reference versus the consensus in the field. --Pjacobi 08:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ken, do you now accept (c/o the article Medical analysis of circumcision), that most non-religious medical circumcision of newborns is carried out on day 5, rather than 8, and that it is factual and NPOV to mention this? Clinkophonist 12:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturnal Emission

We have been over nocturnal emission before. It has been claimed in previous articles that the bible prescribes treatment for nocturnal emission, which I think we all agree. If this is an example of scientific foresight, you must support it by providing a scientific source that agrees with the bible on this point. If you cannot find any modern medical source that says nocturnal emission must be "treated" then we must regard this information as errant, just as we have done with certain errant Egyptian practices. The Crow 15:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No source given for the exegesis for the nocturnal emmission. Probably because they used the non-academic and non footnoted Skeptic's Annotated Bible). Deleted. 24.75.30.114 16:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo\
Very well, then it seems we are in agreement that the Levitical passages on male semen discharges do not support BSF and have no place here. I am not interested in listing each of the many examples of biblical scientific errancy. Thus, no need to disprove it. (But should it become necessary again, exegesis is available [8] The Crow 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I recommend these viewers read [9], as it has some useful insight. Dmar198 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Dmar198

[edit] Removal of certain claims

  • Tzaarath/Mold/Leprosy - This should not be mentioned because it is not a good example of foresight. The fact that they used the same name for both mold and leprosy does not suggest that there was any awareness of what they were dealing with. Also, the biblical passages do not deal in any information that was beyond the technology of the times (if there is, please correct me). And you cannot simply say "Whatever Tzaarath is meant to be." If it's scientific, then we know what it's meant to be. This is bending the evidence to a POV.
  • Day of rest - No scientific claims made in the bible, only that a day of rest shall be taken. Scientific studies show that rest is important, but this was easily knowable by observers in ancient times. As for the specific day of rest, there is no scientific study that says a day of rest is superior to any other mode of rest (for example, two days of rest, or a half day of rest, etc).
  • Ecology - Bible says that these shall remained undisturbed yet does not really make any claims as to why.

[edit] Egyptian comments

It is true that parts of ancient Egyptian medicine have been demonstrated suspect or incorrect, which can also be said of biblical medicine and also modern scientific medicine. An encyclopedic view will compare the parts of both that are accurate. We should not re-fight the battle over which one is more inaccurate. The Crow 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken insists on re-inserting a large anti-Egyptian section, without respecting any discussion on the talk page (unsurprising given his total disregard of Wikipedia norms). I have said my piece here; if he will not engage discussion then this merits nothing more than a simple deletion. The Crow 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial rewrite of "instances in question"

I rewrote this section to be as direct as possible about what is believed by the pro- and anti- side. My concern is that people keep putting in cases where science agrees with the bible without really addressing how these things were unknowable by the science of the time. I don't mind putting in a couple of the more popular beliefs just to give a general sense, but if we are going to get detailed then there are going to be discussions about why these things couldn't have been known in biblical times. The Crow 18:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversal of massive deletions

Recently, 24.75.30.114 has erased or hacked down large sections of the article. While I'm all for tightening text and removing bias, these changes have made the text less clear and have, if anything, introduced bias. Frankly, I'm just not happy about someone coming in here and erasing a lot of hard work without talking about it in here and getting some consensus. Sure, they're encouraged to be bold, but so am I in my response. Alienus 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention here, the recent deletions by 24.75.30.144 (aka Ken) were mostly of some material I just added regarding the history of BSF. Your reversions also erased all of my additions [10]. I wonder if you could look over the recent changes and see if anything I added might be spared the cut. I particularly thought the reference to William Harvey's early invocation of a kind of BSF in 1628 was useful, as it gives some validity to the subject (qua subject). MickWest 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've restored valuable contributions from MickWest. The Crow 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does Darwin and Copernicus have to do with Bible scientific foreknowledge?

What does Darwin and Copernicus have to do with a ancient near eastern book, the Bible, having scientific foreknowledge? This whole section is POV and unneeded.

If you want to say Bible scientific foreknowledge is an invention rather than discovered then use some sources. Do not go off on some original research and poorly supported fishing expedition. 24.75.30.114 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The section was "Origins of Bible scientific foresight". BSF as a subject cannot have existed before the actual scientific discoveries that the Bible supposedly has knowledge of. In addition, there was historically no need to seek examples of scientific veracity in the Bible before science developed theories that seemed to challenge the Bible (such as Darwin's theories). Thus the section provides a historical context. I certainly do not classify BSF as an "invention", as this imples some dishonesty in those who believe in it, which I am sure is not the case.
Perhaps you could phrase something about the origins of BSF in a way that is more acceptable?
MickWest 17:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You didn't cite any sources saying this had anything to do with origins of Bible scientific foresight. It is all original research. Deleting. 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I extended the section a bit to explain how Biblical Inerrancy (and to some degree Creation Science), were the natural precursors of BSF, as seen in the "Advocates and Critics" section (Science leads to Geology & Darwin which leads to Price and then Morris, etc). There is nothing contentious in there, and I think it's proper to have both historical context and origins in the article. MickWest 22:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice you've removed the "origins" section six times in the past 24 hours. It has be re-inserted by five different people. Perhaps you should consider proposing some point-by-point criticism, rather than continually removing the entire section? MickWest 22:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Show me your sources this was the origins of BSF or it is original research. ken 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Well, we could change it to something like "The origins of BSF are open to speculation, however the earliest examples date back to the time commonly refered to as the scientific revolution, for unknown reasons"MickWest 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, what do the quotes of David I. Macht have to do with BSF? Nowhere in his quotes does he ever use the phrase "Biblical Scientific Foresight". Therefore it must be original research and we should remove all mention of Macht. (Note - the previous is a satirical comment, of course Macht is clearly directly related to BSF as is everything that MickWest mentions. Both bodies of work try to reconcile science and the bible.) Ken, take care of the arguments that you raised in support of your position, because they cut both ways. The Crow 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The name of this article seems a bit off. I notice that it used to be "Biblical" something or other, and I think that now it should at least be "Biblical", as in "Having to do with the bible". The way it is now makes me expect it to be a very POV fundamentalist propaganda, although I can see that various editors are working very hard to make it something else. (n.b. Biblical canon, Biblical Hebrew language, etc.) Makemi 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On errancy of Egyptian medicine

If Ken insists on highlighting the fact of Egyptian medical inerrancy, we are obligated also to mention the errancy of biblical "medicine". I hoped this could be avoided and we could have a neutral, non-contentious article without spoon-feeding points of view to the reader, but it seems he will not let it be. Nocturnal emission is not a health or sanitation hazard [11] and "waiting until evening" is not a requirement of cleaning a semen spill, neither is immersing in a mikvah. Women who menstruate are not unclean and do not contaminate everything they touch [12]. These are scholarly Torah translations taken from "The Living Torah" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan Hebrew Torah. Really if you look at these levitical laws, a number of them don't match with science _at all_, they are clearly ritual purity guidelines. And that is fine, I have no problem with that. But if you're going to say Biblical medicine is inerrant and Egyptian medicine is errant, then I'm sorry, the Biblical errancy has to be pointed out. Personally I think this article doesn't need mention of errancy on either side. We should be documenting people's beliefs and the debates around them, not re-fighting them. But since Ken is determined to include errancy of ancient medicine, include it we shall. The Crow 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There are diseases that can be tranferred during menstruation. [13] [14] Obviously if you cannot touch a menstruating women there is less temptation to have sex with her. Plus some women have problems during this time (PMS). I think the Levetical law was fine for these reasons. Secondly, purity laws (nocturnal immission) are not said to be health laws and there is certainly nothing wrong with purity laws. Lastly, I believe I clearly showed cases where Egyptian medicine is errant and ineffective and they were not isolated incidences but extremely common. [15] ken 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
How do you know which Levitical laws are health laws and which ones are only purity laws? This is the core problem in BSF. The ones that seem to coincide with health benefits, you claim medical foreknowledge and inerrancy. The ones that do not, you say they are only supposed to be purity laws. This is why everyone keeps telling you that your argument is "specious", which means it depends on your choosing evidence that supports you while excluding other evidence. The Crow 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the section on nocturnal emission. It is true that this is Levitical law, that it appears in the bible, and does not have any known medical benefit. There is no part of this that can be disputed. If you want to strike this section, then you would have to provide a source demonstrating that your favored examples are intended to be health benefits, and that the nocturnal emission is not. Also, CreationWiki is not a neutral or reputed scientific source on this matter; it is inappropriate to use it as if it were a scientific reference. However if you want to put it under "see also" then that would be acceptable. The Crow 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can show the nocturnal emission passage promises a medical benefit and is not merely a purity law then you have a case. As it is, you have no case. ken 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
First, my claim is entirely verifiable, because I did not say that the nocturnal emission passage promises a medical benefit. I merely pointed out that it has no health benefit. Nonetheless, I'll accept your conditions if you agree to follow them yourself... can you provide evidence that levitical laws concerning kosher food and circumcision were intended as medical benefit, and are not merely purity laws? The Crow 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No citation/support given

I deleted the below statement because no citation or support was given:

Some anthropologists further consider that the biblical cleanliness passages reflect cultural norms of the time rather than considerations of medicine, science or technology. ken 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

This can be added back; it was Mary Douglas who wrote in her book "Purity and Danger" that the biblical cleanliness passages were cultural concepts of boundary integrity. [16] I'll add it in a bit. The Crow 01:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

I'm going to attempt a compromise here. Criticism has a place in the article. However, this formula of a point-by-point refutation of "supporters say X, but critics say Y" just makes the article read like one long argument. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. So, let me propose the following:

  • This article is about a philosophical belief. We should say what the belief is, and who believes it. We should not be expending a lot of effort trying to prove or disprove a belief.
  • Sources given as scientific proof should come from scientific primary sources. (i.e. CreationWiki is not a scientific primary source. However, it can be an external link for those who want to learn more).
  • Support and criticism should not be interleaved throughout the article. It makes the article unreadable. The beginning section can stand alone, as Ken wishes. We will change the "Critics" part to "Criticism". Factual statements will be allowed in "criticism", such as pointing out that:
    • Some Levitical admonitions concerning personal cleaning have no demonstrated health benefit (this is verifiable)
    • It is not clear which admonitions were intended as ritual purity laws and which were intended as medical benefits (this is also verifiable)
  • Wikipedia policies shall in all cases be respected. Of particular concern are undue weight, verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research.

Questions? Comments? The Crow 12:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable guidelines! --Pjacobi 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with these definitions for finding a compromise and solution for the edits. Thank you, Crow. ju66l3r 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, apparently Kdbuffalo isn't interested in talking compromise. I'm dismayed to see that he has reverted yet again, removing factual statements, rejecting compromise and violating 3RR. Per policy, 3RR violations must be reported, which I have done. Where to go from here? The Crow 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's clear by his actions (both with this article and his user talk page) that Kdbuffalo is having problems understanding good editorial practice on this website. I would suggest others work on a good write-up taking into account your ideals listed above to refurbish the page and hopefully the end result will be acceptable to Kdbuffalo. If not, the policies in place will keep the article in good shape. ju66l3r 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and try some cleanup in a way where everything has due weight but the article doesn't look like one long argument. The Crow 00:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I have left out the nocturnal emission statement, in the spirit of compromise. I still consider it is obvious, verifiable, and sourced, but there is sufficient weight on the criticism side that the article can survive without it. The Crow 01:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturnal emissions as supposed failed BSF not sourced

What source says a nocturnal emmission passage in the Bible is failed Bible scientific foreknowledge. Wikipedia says a reputable source has to be given. ken 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I do not claim it is failed Bible scientific foreknowledge. That is just your interpretation. I only claim that it is a biblical admonition (primary source, Deuteronomy 23:10) concerning a natural process (obviously nocturnal emission is a natural process) and that it has no known health benefit (a correct statement, unless you can disprove it). It is sourced and logically sound. The Crow 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are using poor Bible exegesis and that is why you cannot find a source. ken 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I presume you can provide exegesis that says kosher laws and circumcision were for medical purposes? Why do you demand exegesis that you cannot provide yourself? The Crow 01:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Egyptian medicine deeply ineffective and sometimes dangerous

I wish to make it very clear that ancient Egyptian medicine was deeply ineffective and sometimes dangerous.

I cite the following:

ken 01:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

You also removed an entire section that has nothing to do with Egyptian medicine. I'm restoring it, minus the medicine part. The Crow 01:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of references?

And now you have removed all the print references. I presume it is accidental and I am reverting it. Please take a breath and count to 10 before editing. The Crow 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see from your mesage [17] that you had a reason for doing this. It would be nice if you are going to make major changes like this to say something first; removing references is a big red alarm flag. Whatever references are not being used can be removed, however I suggest we start referencing using the <ref> tag so that we can tell the difference between external links of interest and actual references. The Crow 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farrell Till

And now you have removed all reference to Farrell Till. He is a notable critic of BSF and has written extensively on the subject. Wikipedia only demands that critics are notable, not that they be credentialed. This is not appropriate. The Crow 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored Farrell Till info. This content meets WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY, and adds due balance. To Ken specifically: Additionally this section was uncontested by you for many months, I do not know why you are restarting the contention over it. Keep in mind that the "Advocates" section has 6 names, most non-recent, and of dubious notability. Keep in mind I have agreed to leave out your most contentious issues (nocturnal emission and Egyptian medicine) in the spirit of compromise and to avoid your repeated edits. Please do not take this as an invitation to remove everything that displeases you. A gesture of good faith on your part would be appreciated and appropriate at this point. The Crow 03:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you object to Farrell Till, the following individuals in your list of "Advocates" should also be objectionable to you:

None of these individuals have credentials in relevant fields, but we allow them because they are notable. Likewise this is why we include Farrell Till as well. The Crow 17:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link references converted to auto-footnotes

If you have other references to quoted material, please put them in <ref>Source</ref> tags as I have done. While you are editing, please take care not to break the ref tags.

[edit] BSF topheavy notice

(copied from my talk page, and abridged by me. Clinkophonist 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Hi, I notice that you put a "topheavy" notice on BSF. I find a couple of issues with this ... you should ... at least note on the talk page what you think should be done about it. Personally, I don't find the BSF article in a particularly topheavy state. I do find it to be of dubious notability ... I and a few others have taken pains to keep it balanced, which is what I consider the article now to be (at least compared to ... last september). One thing, however, that I've recently noticed is that the article had become laced with what I call contention-cruft, or remnants of heated contention that resulted in the article reading like one long debate. ... would you state the concerns on the talk page and begin to address them, ... The Crow 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about 7 people in the support- section, and 2 in the anti-section. 77% pro and 22% against seems unbalanced to me, especially as the real world is more the opposite. Clinkophonist 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons I think the simple ratio is no cause for alarm. First and foremost, Wikipedia concerns itself with the verifiable world, not the "real" world. Second, science deals with falsifiable and predictive phenomena, which BSF is not. Thus it is unsurprising to find a lack of scientific treatment of the subject - there's simply nothing scientific about it. Third, there may be 7 "advocates", but they neither carry nor attempt to present any serious scientific credibility. That section honestly reads more like a history and background section. For these reasons, I'm not concerned about the 7:2 ratio. However, if you are aware of other notable critics, please add them. Just as long as they're notable and verifiable - we do have a responsibility to be as honest as we're asking Ken to be. The Crow 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
But WP:NPOV emphasises that giving undue weight to a position is inappropriate. Clinkophonist 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV also does not define what percentage of content represents undue weight. What makes an article about a religious belief notable is the people who believe it, not the people who disbelieve it. There is no serious controversy of fact around BSF; it is a fringe belief. Contrast this with science and the Bible which is an ongoing controversy of fact, and which requires something close to a 50/50 balance. Also I have gone ahead and removed the topheavy template because I have a fundamental problem with it because it inserts an argument directly into the article rather than describing it neutrally. The Crow 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the credentials of the various advocates to this article. I think this should sufficiently answer your concerns while improving the article. The Crow 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Farrell Till

Farrell Till is the most notable critic of BSF and he belongs in the article. The Crow 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Farrell Till strikes me as notable enough as well. Clinkophonist 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability again removed without discussion. Reverted again. Editor is welcome to discuss changes here. The Crow 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Farrell Till merely has a Masters in English and was editor of a now defunct journal. I know of no major work that he ever published but if anyone could tell me of a book he published they are free to do so. 136.183.153.123 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Google returns 1,110,000 hits on Farrell Till's work concerning Christian apologetics. 1.1 million hits is certainly enough to establish notability. As far as notability of Skeptical Review, it was published for 13 years. It is an established primary source. As for his masters degree in English, that has no bearing on how well-known the man's work is. Likewise with Harry Rimmer. Restoring both. The Crow 01:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This notable, sourced material has now been anonymously deleted 5 times without good reason. Notability has been established. Requested semi-protection. If that certain someone is not willing to refrain from edit-warring without at least having a discussion, he will at least log in so that a history of his activity will be apparent. The Crow 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection expired and the vandalising has continued... invoking semi-protection again. When editor chooses to stop hiding behind anon IP and discuss concerns, then maybe we can unprotect. The Crow 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Farrell Till is not a relevant scholar in regards to material. Farrell Till merely has English degrees.makes this much note of Till's criticisms, then Wikipedia likewise should do the same. 136.183.154.37 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat, notability means well-known and published. 1.1 million google hits, editor of Skeptical Review for 13 years... notability is established. He doesn't have to be a scientific expert (much like the list of uneducated people listed in the "advocates" section. They are notable because they are well-known). As to their credentials... we just list them out and let the reader decide whether they're right or not. You need to understand the difference between "notability" and "expert". The Crow 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting again. WP:Notability is the policy that applies here, this is not whether you think the person is "relevent" or "competent" or "only has an English degree." Farrell Till is a well-known critic. He meets WP:Notability. Since he was editor of Skeptical Review for 13 years and gets 1.1 million google hits... notability is not in question. Several pro-Christian individuals listed as "advocates" in this article have nonexistent academic backgrounds except for made-up "Doctor of Science" degrees, yet we allow them because they are notable. Likewise with Till. The Crow 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The publication Skeptical Review published by Farrell Till no longer is in publication and when it was in publication I doubt it ever had a large subscription base. Furthermore I did a google search on "Farrell Till" and received nowhere near 1.1 million google hits. 136.183.154.76 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Skeptical Review was published for 13 years and only ceased publication in 2002. Regardless of what you "doubt" about the subscription base, the number of hits in the google search results indicate that it is quite a well-known publication. Just because it isn't published anymore doesn't mean it isn't well-known, there are advocates sources in this article from "scientists" from the 1500's. They are scientifically irrelevant at this point but again, allowed because they are notable. The Crow 01:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest putting " around your google searches so they don't pull up irrelevant results. Try doing a google search on "Farrell Till". Here are the google results you will get which is greatly below 1.1 million hits. I also suggest doing the same with your search on "Skeptical Review". [User:129.44.254.184|129.44.254.184]] 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The google results show that Farrell Till comes up overwhelmingly in Christian apologetics pages, which expend quite amount of energy in trying to debunk Till's statements, in particular his debate with Hovind. Even Tektonics Apologetics Ministries alone has no less than 8 articles devoted to Till. If Farrell Till gets this much press from his adversaries, he qualifies as a notable critic. The Crow 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What books has Farrell Till published? What journals besides Farrell Till's self published Skeptical Review has ever published a Farrell Till article? I know of no books published by Farrell Till and not a single journal that has published his material. He is simply a man with English degrees who has made no contribution to Bible exegesis and his lack of publishing in print is a testimony to this. 136.183.154.76 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That he is "simply a man with English degrees" is accurate, and not in question. That's why we say in the article that he is a man with English degrees. Again, his credentials are not a question here, you're confusing credentials with notability. The question is notability is: how well-known is Farrell Till as a critic of Christian apologetics? Look at how many credentialed theologians and ministers (Ken Hovind, Norman Geisler, Mac Deaver, etc) have gone out of their way to debate him. In particular the Hovind debate is considered so notable that it is carried in audio format on Christian websites [18]. Till is cited in great detail on many Christian apologetics websites including Tektonics.org [[19]. Perhaps the apologetics community does not have much complimentary to say about him, but they do have quite a lot of things to say about him, and that's what makes him notable. If it helps you understand him better, think of him like a celebrity instead of a scholar... you don't have to agree with his conclusions, you don't have to consider him a credible authority on the subject, but you can't deny that he is well known as a critic. The Crow 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Farrell Till is not "simply" a man with English degrees: he is a former Church-Of-Christ pastor and missionary who was educated at two of their colleges (that's where he got his degrees). --Robert Stevens 12:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that. It makes him not only more notable but relevant. But do you have a source for that? It needs to be sourced. The Crow 13:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's from Till's own autobiography at the Skeptical Review[20]. As it's so pertinent, I've added this to his Wikipedia page today (I'm somewhat suprised that it wasn't already there). --Robert Stevens 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quran

People keep on removing the reference to the Quran, on grounds such as "not an article on koran". But it does belong here. It is a verifiable fact that Muslims make arguments about the Quran which are similar to the arguments that Christians make about the Bible, and it is relevant to this page. Now, this is not the place to go into great detail about those Muslim arguments -- that belongs in another article, e.g. Quran scientific foreknowledge. However, this is the place to note briefly that Muslims do make such arguments (which is what the present article does) -- equally, the Quranic article would be a place to note briefly that Christians make similar claims about the Bible.

I have put it back, and if you want to remove it again, please post a response here before doing so. --SJK 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a section at the end of the article about "foreknowledge in other sacred texts" mentioning the Jewish and Quranic perspectives (with appropriate citations)? The Crow 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC0
I don't see the Koran sentence as being very relevant to the article. I am removing it. ken 07:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
It is relevant because it is typical of how beievers regard sacred texts. It's also true of Indian commentators on the Vedas. Paul B 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am going to rename this article, "Scientific Foreknowledge in Sacred Texts" because I added stuff about the Quran and now it is more about Sacred Texts in general than about just the Bible. Plus, having two articles for "Bible" and "Qur'an" would be pointless because they would be so similar and easily merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.50.250.185 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
I just realized I don't know how to change an article's title. Please help. 71.50.250.185 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Dmar198

[edit] Ancient Egyptian medicine and not a good argument against Bible scientific foreknowledge

I don't think this is a good argument against Bible scientific foreknowledge:

For example, scientists of Ancient Egypt documented knowledge of engineering and anatomy that were unknown to medieval Europe thousands of years later, such as the existence of cerebrospinal fluid.

I say that because the following is also true of Egyptian medicine and Mosaic Medicine according to an article on Bible scientific foreknowledge in CreationWiki:

While ancient medicine had some effective practices, such as many of the surgical procedures given in the Edwin Smith papyrus, it was not without its ineffective and sometimes harmful practices. For example, Homer's Odyssey declared regarding the ancient Egyptians that "the Egyptians were skilled in medicine more than any other art". [21] However, medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology was largely ineffective. [22] For example, according to a paper published in the 10th Annual Proceedings of the History of Medicine Days by Michael D. Parkins, 72% of 260 medical prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no curative elements. [23] Also, according to Michael D. Parkins, sewage pharmacology first began in ancient Egypt and was continued through the middle ages.[24] While the use of animal dung has curative properties [25] it is not without its risk. For example, Mamtani, Malhotra, Gupta, and Jain found in their comparative study of urban and rural tetanus in adults that practices such as applying cow dung to wounds, ear piercing and tattooing, and chronic ear infections were important factors in developing tetanus. [26] In addition, it has been found that Pakistani caregivers who use topical antibiotics for their babies' circumcision wounds instead of using dung, ghee, urine etc, prevent those babies from getting neonatal tetanus. [27] Frank J. Snoek, PhD wrote that Egyptian medicine used fly specks, lizard blood, swine teeth, and other such remedies, which he believes could have been harmful. [28]

Many of the health practices of the Mosaic code can be taken as evidence of Bible scientific foreknowledge because of the remarkable foresight demonstrated in its various practices. When one compares the medical information in the Mosaic code with similar information in literature contemporary to it, one can quickly see that the Mosaic code practises sound preventative medicine, but the medical documents of its neighbors, such as Egypt, reflect a mix of sound and errant medicine. [29][30]

(for further details see CreationWiki's article on Bible scientific foreknowledge [31] ) ken 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Irrelevant, as Hebrew medicine was also largely ineffective. This is an article about Biblical scientific knowledge: it is sufficient to mention that others in the region had some fairly advanced medical knowledge, but nobody is arguing that the Egyptians had knowldge comparable to modern medicine in all respects. A long digression about the limitations of Egyptian medicine is unwarranted. --Robert Stevens 09:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Then there's the fact that whenever we press on the medical errancy of certain Levitical passages, the inevitable response is "you can't prove those passages were intended as medical advice." Let's not go down this specious rathole again. However, I wouldn't be opposed to making a very brief mention of Egyptian medicine and including a link to Ancient Egyptian medicine and placing all the errant the information there. The Crow 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian medicine by in large was a joke and filled with ineffective and harmful practices. I think the record is clear as I demonstrated. To date, nobody has given a clear example of a medical practice in the Torah which was harmful or ineffective. All they have done is given poor commentary due to poor Bible exegesis. On the other hand, the Bible is filled with sound preventative medicine. [32] By leaving out the relevant information showing how unsound ancient Egyptian medicine was, I believe the critics of Bible scientific foreknowledge are practising the exclusion fallacy. [33] ken 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
As the criticism is now on Ancient Egyptian medicine, I've replaced it with a link to that page. --Robert Stevens 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"To date, nobody has given a clear example of a medical practice in the Torah which was harmful or ineffective": Treating mental illness as "demonic possession"? A crude "virginity test" (bloodied sheets) which many virgins would fail, leading to their deaths? But probably the reason the ancient Hebrews didn't have many more medically useless or harmful practices is because they generally didn't have much medical lore. In any case, this page is about stuff that ancient peoples allegedly got right: not all the additional stuff they got wrong. Do we really want to start discussing Biblical flat-Earth/sky-dome cosmology, literal-Genesis creationism, and all the other scientific failings of the Bible here? --Robert Stevens 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I see you failed to show that demonic possession is not real. Second, your Bible exegesis and commentary regarding the virginity test was poor as can be seen at a TWEB debate thread. [34] ken 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Interesting that you present a thread that contradicts your own position! Did you even read it? The Bible is clear on this, the vote on the thread (excluding the "I'd rather not answer" option) unanimously agreed that innocent people would die, and the only defense offered was "that rule wasn't rigidly enforced"! And as for demonic possession: there's as much evidence for that as there is for Egyptian "dung therapy". It's not real, and treating it as real results in child abuse. Your religious beliefs might prevent you from seeing the harm, but the same would apply to a "dung therapist" too. --Robert Stevens 09:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe you misrepresented the TheologyWeb debate thread. Secondly, I think you put to much relevance on a 11 person poll in which over half the people responded "I'd rather be in the arcade than answer this dilemma." ken 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


Why are you continuing to put this stuff back in? It's already on the Ancient Egyptian medicine, which I'm linking to. The section is all about criticism of "Biblical scientific foreknowledge", NOT criticism of "Ancient Egyptian medicine": yet you're filling most of that section with stuff about Egyptian medicine! How does the use of some unsafe procedures by Egyptian doctors demonstrate a lack of Biblical scientific foreknowledge? --Robert Stevens 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested move + change of focus

I would suggest moving this article to "Claims of scientific foreknowledge in ancient texts" and then deal with the Koran and the Vedas and other texts as well. JoshuaZ 19:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As they are one in the same conceptually, it might make for a more comprehensive article. •Jim62sch• 20:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the number of ancient texts, such an article would become overwhelmingly large and confusing. SWoods 08:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the very small number of ancient texts for which scientific foreknowledge is claimed, I don't see that as being any kind of issue at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I. •Jim62sch• 13:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea to me. The Bible is not unique in having such claims made about it, and we need to reflect that fact. --Robert Stevens 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, keeping it Bible-only a violation of an old policy that went off and evolved into a project - anyone else here old-time enough to remember WP:BIAS? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScientific_foreknowledge_in_Sacred_Texts_f3c8.html"