Science Babble vs Truth

nPeace said:

Getting back to this matter of faith, so that I know I have made it triply clear.
In Luke 8:43-48

Spoiler: Read

43 Now there was a woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years, and she had not been able to get a cure from anyone. 44 She approached from behind and touched the fringe of his outer garment, and immediately her flow of blood stopped. 45 So Jesus said: “Who touched me?” When they were all denying it, Peter said: “Instructor, the crowds are hemming you in and pressing against you.” 46 But Jesus said: “Someone touched me, for I know that power went out of me.” 47 Seeing that she had not escaped notice, the woman came trembling and fell down before him and declared before all the people why she touched him and how she was healed immediately. 48 But he said to her: “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”

This woman had faith - real faith. She was certain she would be healed. There was not one ounce of uncertainty. There was no doubt. She was sure, because of the evidence she had seen and gathered.
We know this from the corroborating witness of Matthew and Mark.
Matthew says, she "approached from behind and touched the fringe of his outer garment, for she kept saying to herself: “If I only touch his outer garment, I will get well.” Matthew 9:20-22
Mark says, "When she heard the reports about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his outer garment, for she kept saying: “If I touch just his outer garments, I will get well.” Mark 5:25-29

Did this woman have proof? Depends on what you mean by proof, and you have not till now made that clear with any explanation. So until you are able to...
The woman had evidence . Proof, according to one definition, is "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
So if that's what you mean by proof, yes, the woman had proof, and it was further proven, by her experience.

I used this example, since I was reading this account this morning, but there are many more that can explain in the same way.
Remember that faith, as described in the Bibe, does not allow for doubt. (James 1:6-8)
You also must remember that you cannot change what is in the Bible to suite what you believe, and then tell those who believe the Bible, that they must accept and live by what you believe.
That's madness.

Even Darwin acknowledged that scientists have faith in their principles.
"I am bound to confess, that, with all my faith in this principle, I should never have anticipated that natural selection could have been efficient in so high a degree" - On the Origin of Species p. 219
I think you just want to argue against anything you don't want to hear, because you deem it a threat to your arguments against religion.

Click to expand...

Having reasonable expectations based on solid, objective, verifiable evidence is hardly the same as having "faith".

False, and intellectually dishonest, equivocation.

Jose Fly said:

One of the main reasons I rarely participate in these debates anymore is because of the mind-numbing repetitiveness of it all. And telling creationists "that's how science works" and/or "that's not how science works" is probably the top item on the repetitiveness list.

But no matter how many times, or how many ways, countless people try and explain it to them, they never get it. This thread is testament to that.

Click to expand...

I believe this meme is appropriate here:

nPeace said:

"nothing of what we know"? That's real funny Nimos. Real funny.
What do we know? You mean after admitting how science works... knowing the fact that it doesn't always get things right... knowing the fact that it's ongoing, and isn't sure it has it right, but can change what it thinks it knows currently...
You mean after I went through that with you, and showed how the Bible gets it right, and it is then discovered, you put that in a sentence! Come on Nimos. Seriously?

Click to expand...

It took people a long time figuring these things out, often having do to it with the church breathing down their neck, because it didn't match with what they wanted it to be.

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Later as we know now, the church have funny enough accepted that Earth is not in fact the center of the universe. This is just one example, then you can go through early history and see how many things the church have fought against, exactly as with evolution. And then later on, once it can't be denied anymore, they either ignore it or pretend like the bible always said it, or the bible didn't refer to that or that it was meant to be understood exactly as the scientist have figured it out after they did it.

But the Genesis account simply doesn't fit with science, which is also why many will hold the belief that it is just a poetic description of the creation. Or that God were the author of evolution etc.

nPeace said:

We have been through this before, and yes I did demonstrate we have evidence supporting the Bible's moral standards do work, and they are not limited to one culture or society. It was demonstrated, and yes, you dd disagree with it, and will continue to... I have nio idea if that will be till death.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that these were specifically from the bible and that it weren't normally like that. Most societies if not all at the time, didn't allow people to go around and murder and rob each other. It is nothing unique about the Israelites.

nPeace said:

I've been there, and done that.
If I thought you were open minded on that, I would bury you in an avalanche of solid evidence, but I have things to do, and using up precious time right now is out of the question.
We have been here before. I had the time back then. Not now. Unfortunately because this is a subject I love to discuss.
Watching you guys desperately grab at straws makes it an even more delightful experience.

Click to expand...

If you had solid evidence, I would strongly advice you to spend the time to present them here, because not only would you convince me, but you could change the whole world, not only when it comes to atheists, but believers as well. So I don't really see what could be more important than that and getting famous in the whole world as the first and so far only person ever to presented solid evidence for God.

nPeace said:

Anybody is free to consider themselves right Nimos. Even you.
What does that have to do with the fact that there is truth and there is error?
Because error exists, doesn't mean truth doesn't.

Science okay in what case? Making assumption about the age of the earth, and saying that they are going by the evidence?
Of course there is evidence the earth has been around quite a long time. However, are you sure scientists' estimates are correct? I'm not.
Why? They are based on many assumptions, which leads to thinking wrong conclusions must be correct.
The Bible does not say how old the earth is, in case you are wondering.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand me.

Person A claim that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Person B claim that it is 200000 years old.
Person C claim that it is 4.7 billion years old.

You and me have to judge which of them is more likely to be correct. Person A say that he got this number because he added together some ages in the bible. Person B say that, he think its that old, because that seems like a lot. And Person C tells you:
One problem with this approach to dating rocks and minerals on Earth is the presence of the rock cycle. During the rock cycle, rocks are constantly changing between forms, going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary. Old rocks may even be destroyed as they slide back into Earth’s mantle, to be replaced by newer rocks formed by solidified lava. This makes finding an exact age for Earth difficult, because the original rocks that formed on the planet at the earliest stages of its creation are no longer here. The oldest rocks that have been found are about 3.8-billion years old, though some tiny minerals have been dated at 4.2 billion years.

To get around the difficulty presented by the rock cycle, scientists have looked elsewhere in the solar system for even older rock samples. They have examined rocks from the moon and from meteorites, neither of which have been altered by the rock cycle. The same techniques of radiometric dating have been used on those rocks. All the data from Earth and beyond has led to the estimated age of 4.5 billion years for our planet.

Wouldn't you agree that it is more likely that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old than any of the other options? And even if it turns out its only 4.3 billion years old, then its still far more accurate than 6000 years.

I know the bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, but you can add all the ages together and you get to around 6000 when we get to Adam, but despite that we also know that homo sapiens are way older than 6000 years anyway. But as mentioned above, most believers will argue that a day in Genesis can be millions or even billions of years. Because that is how they get around the 6000 years. Despite, that the bible clearly state that it is talking about a day.

But when all that is said, you and me as of the example above, still have to make up our mind about which of these claims are more likely to be correct. I assume we both agree that Person C is likely to be correct. But if we don't believe or trust in the method they have used for getting to the 4.5 billion, then why should we believe them over Person A?

And obviously my argument as mentioned here, is that we have fossils that are older and that the measurement of rocks etc. shows that the Earth must be older than 200000 years and therefore Person A and B must be wrong. And we have no reliable people claiming that our dating methods are wrong to the point where science is not the best answer we have when it comes to measuring the age of Earth.
So we have a good reason to believe Person C over Person A and B.

nPeace said:

The Bible is not wrong in anything, in my opinion.
I have not come across anything that was ever demonstrated to be wrong.
What's wrong with it in your opinion?

Click to expand...

The point with this list of names is that you can add all the ages and get to the roughly the 6000 years. Which is why I highlighted Adam, as that is from the Genesis account. So if you believe the bible is correct in this naming of people, but don't agree that the Earth is 6000 years old, then surely the bible must have gotten something wrong here, because the ages will never add up to 4.5 billion. Which is why I said that a lot of people get around this issue, by saying that either Genesis is meant as just poetry (Which causes some issue with this timeline, because then who is Adam that is mentioned here?) or that a day in Genesis can be millions/billions of years. But regardless of how you twist and turn it, this puzzle will never add up, so something in the bible must be wrong here.

Hockeycowboy said:

Yesi I have. How they orbit is due to gravity, but the explanations as to how they formed is ridiculous!

Why should it? It’s not a science book! But when it does touch on science, it’s accurate. Example: Job 26:7

Who would have known that back then?!!

Or Job 38:16…. “vents of the sea”, and “trenches of the deep”
Completely unknown by humans back then, yet modern tech has proven it Completely accurate!

Click to expand...

First.

I don’t know where you got the translations for Job 38:16 from, but the majority of translations I have come across (KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, etc), all used the word “springs”, not “vents”.

Likewise, I have seen (A) either just “depth” or “deep”, (B) or “recesses”, being used, but never “trenches”.

So whatever translation you are using, I am thinking that the translators are trying to put modern contexts into 38:16, where the original contexts are lost.

So basically the translators are changing what the Job (book) is saying, and have no interests in keeping the passage as close to the original as possible.

gnostic said:

First.

I don’t know where you got the translations for Job 38:16 from, but the majority of translations I have come across (KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, etc), all used the word “springs”, not “vents”.

Likewise, I have seen (A) either just “depth” or “deep”, (B) or “recesses”, being used, but never “trenches”.

So whatever translation you are using, I am thinking that the translators are trying to put modern contexts into 38:16, where the original contexts are lost.

So basically the translators are changing what the Job (book) is saying, and have no interests in keeping the passage as close to the original as possible.

Click to expand...

Use “springs”, no debate. It’s still accurate. In fact, it may even provide for a better understanding, since springs indicate water coming out. And that is Exactly what we’ve found.
Thank you for your help...

Hockeycowboy said:

Use “springs”, no debate. It’s still accurate. In fact, it may even provide for a better understanding, since springs indicate water coming out. And that is Exactly what we’ve found.
Thank you for your help...

Click to expand...

Water is very very minor component that comes out at the oceanic ridges. To say that they are "springs" because say 1% of what they put out is just nonsense. It is an extreme example of cherry picking. If you allow that sort of leeway to the Bible you would have to do the same for every holy book and they would all be just as "true".

Hockeycowboy said:

Use “springs”, no debate. It’s still accurate.

Click to expand...

Except these “vents” are not “springs” or “fountains”.

Yes, springs are water “coming out” from underground, but these springs only bring water to the SURFACES, and “oceans” and “seas” are not “springs”.

Like I said, springs are only those water that come to the surface. There are many types of springs, none of them exist underwater of seas and oceans.

The authors of job, don’t know what they are talking about.

So, no, Hockeycowboy, using the biblical springs or fountains of the deep, are not accurate in Earth’s hydrology, oceanography and geology.

Second.

Springs or fountains are also mentioned elsewhere, like in Genesis 7 & 8, where the “fountains of the deep” were partly responsible for the Flood (7:11).

“Genesis 7:11” said:

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Click to expand...

The problem with this, Genesis bursting forth of the fountains are unrealistic and unscientific.

Unscientific, because the hydrothermal vents don’t change the sea level, so it isn’t possible for vents to be cause of Genesis Flood.

So, again, Genesis talk of fountains of deep being the cause of flood, is inaccurate in science (oceanography & hydrology).

So, before you make more unsubstantiated claims about the Bible being accurate, perhaps you should read up on hydrothermal vents and about springs.

gnostic said:

Except these “vents” are not “springs” or “fountains”.

Yes, springs are water “coming out” from underground, but these springs only bring water to the SURFACES, and “oceans” and “seas” are not “springs”.

Like I said, springs are only those water that come to the surface. There are many types of springs, none of them exist underwater of seas and oceans.

The authors of job, don’t know what they are talking about.

So, no, Hockeycowboy, using the biblical springs or fountains of the deep, are not accurate in Earth’s hydrology, oceanography and geology.

Second.

Springs or fountains are also mentioned elsewhere, like in Genesis 7 & 8, where the “fountains of the deep” were partly responsible for the Flood (7:11).



The problem with this, Genesis bursting forth of the fountains are unrealistic and unscientific.

Unscientific, because the hydrothermal vents don’t change the sea level, so it isn’t possible for vents to be cause of Genesis Flood.

So, again, Genesis talk of fountains of deep being the cause of flood, is inaccurate in science (oceanography & hydrology).

So, before you make more unsubstantiated claims about the Bible being accurate, perhaps you should read up on hydrothermal vents and about springs.

Click to expand...

“Hydrothermal vents are like geysers, or hot springs, on the ocean floor.”

— Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents

I’m stating facts, while you’re arguing semantics.

Subduction Zone said:

Water is very very minor component that comes out at the oceanic ridges. To say that they are "springs" because say 1% of what they put out is just nonsense. It is an extreme example of cherry picking. If you allow that sort of leeway to the Bible you would have to do the same for every holy book and they would all be just as "true".

Click to expand...

I don’t care if it was 99% vinegar.
They are what they are: springs.
Ever hear of “acid sulfate springs”?

Hockeycowboy said:

I don’t care if it was 99% vinegar.
They are what they are: springs.
Ever hear of “acid sulfate springs”?

Click to expand...

This is called grasping at straws. It refutes your claim. The Bible does not even use the terms that you used unless you cherry pick to find a source. The problem for you is that you follow the KJV. Does it use those terms?

Hockeycowboy said:

“Hydrothermal vents are like geysers, or hot springs, on the ocean floor.”

— Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents

I’m stating facts, while you’re arguing semantics.

Click to expand...

Similar, but not the same things.

The principle are same. Water seep through porus rocks into the Earth's crusts, and when these bodies of water are near or deep enough to magma, heat and pressures build up, and you get geysers on the surface, or smokers via the vents at the bottom of the sea or ocean.

There are no springs or fountains in the bottom of oceans and seas, because the seas and oceans are not the surface.

Geysers are springs and even fountains, where as the hydrothermal vents on the sea floors are not.

As I said, fountain and spring push ground water to the surface, and can be the sources of the streams and rivers. But what come out of those vents in the sea beds are not the surfaces, so by definition, these vents are not springs or fountains.

And it is more than semantics, it is science. You would never come across oceanographers using words like "spring" or "fountain" for these underwater vents.

Subduction Zone said:

This is called grasping at straws. It refutes your claim. The Bible does not even use the terms that you used unless you cherry pick to find a source. The problem for you is that you follow the KJV. Does it use those terms?

Click to expand...

I “follow the KJV”?

Nope....despite some redeeming qualities, it’s one of my least favorite versions.

So, wrong again.

Hockeycowboy said:

I “follow the KJV”?

Nope....despite some redeeming qualities, it’s one of my least favorite versions.

So, wrong again.

Click to expand...

You mean for once. You keep forgetting who is constantly shown to be wrong here.

So many creationists for some odd reason adore the KJV. Probably because it is the easiest version to abuse. Poetic language lends itself to being reinterpreted as one wishes.

Hockeycowboy said:

I “follow the KJV”?

Nope....despite some redeeming qualities, it’s one of my least favorite versions.

So, wrong again.

Click to expand...

I did ask you which translation you used for Job 38:16, but you never said. I know it didn't come from KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, etc.

So I will ask again.

Which translation did you use?

gnostic said:

I did ask you which translation you used for Job 38:16, but you never said. I know it didn't come from KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, etc.

So I will ask again.

Which translation did you use?

Click to expand...

When people use obscure translations and they will not say where it came from Bible Hub can be a useful site. Simply search for the particular verse and click on the Bible Hub link. It shows many different interpretations of the verse in question. For example:

Job 38:16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

If you scroll down you will see that it appears that he used the Berean Bible Study translation. Ironically the Berean Bible Study version was published by Bible Hub:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Berean-Study-Bible-BSB.html

Nimos said:

It took people a long time figuring these things out, often having do to it with the church breathing down their neck, because it didn't match with what they wanted it to be.

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Later as we know now, the church have funny enough accepted that Earth is not in fact the center of the universe. This is just one example, then you can go through early history and see how many things the church have fought against, exactly as with evolution. And then later on, once it can't be denied anymore, they either ignore it or pretend like the bible always said it, or the bible didn't refer to that or that it was meant to be understood exactly as the scientist have figured it out after they did it.

But the Genesis account simply doesn't fit with science, which is also why many will hold the belief that it is just a poetic description of the creation. Or that God were the author of evolution etc.


Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that these were specifically from the bible and that it weren't normally like that. Most societies if not all at the time, didn't allow people to go around and murder and rob each other. It is nothing unique about the Israelites.


If you had solid evidence, I would strongly advice you to spend the time to present them here, because not only would you convince me, but you could change the whole world, not only when it comes to atheists, but believers as well. So I don't really see what could be more important than that and getting famous in the whole world as the first and so far only person ever to presented solid evidence for God.


I think you misunderstand me.

Person A claim that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Person B claim that it is 200000 years old.
Person C claim that it is 4.7 billion years old.

You and me have to judge which of them is more likely to be correct. Person A say that he got this number because he added together some ages in the bible. Person B say that, he think its that old, because that seems like a lot. And Person C tells you:
One problem with this approach to dating rocks and minerals on Earth is the presence of the rock cycle. During the rock cycle, rocks are constantly changing between forms, going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary. Old rocks may even be destroyed as they slide back into Earth’s mantle, to be replaced by newer rocks formed by solidified lava. This makes finding an exact age for Earth difficult, because the original rocks that formed on the planet at the earliest stages of its creation are no longer here. The oldest rocks that have been found are about 3.8-billion years old, though some tiny minerals have been dated at 4.2 billion years.

To get around the difficulty presented by the rock cycle, scientists have looked elsewhere in the solar system for even older rock samples. They have examined rocks from the moon and from meteorites, neither of which have been altered by the rock cycle. The same techniques of radiometric dating have been used on those rocks. All the data from Earth and beyond has led to the estimated age of 4.5 billion years for our planet.

Wouldn't you agree that it is more likely that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old than any of the other options? And even if it turns out its only 4.3 billion years old, then its still far more accurate than 6000 years.

I know the bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, but you can add all the ages together and you get to around 6000 when we get to Adam, but despite that we also know that homo sapiens are way older than 6000 years anyway. But as mentioned above, most believers will argue that a day in Genesis can be millions or even billions of years. Because that is how they get around the 6000 years. Despite, that the bible clearly state that it is talking about a day.

But when all that is said, you and me as of the example above, still have to make up our mind about which of these claims are more likely to be correct. I assume we both agree that Person C is likely to be correct. But if we don't believe or trust in the method they have used for getting to the 4.5 billion, then why should we believe them over Person A?

And obviously my argument as mentioned here, is that we have fossils that are older and that the measurement of rocks etc. shows that the Earth must be older than 200000 years and therefore Person A and B must be wrong. And we have no reliable people claiming that our dating methods are wrong to the point where science is not the best answer we have when it comes to measuring the age of Earth.
So we have a good reason to believe Person C over Person A and B.


The point with this list of names is that you can add all the ages and get to the roughly the 6000 years. Which is why I highlighted Adam, as that is from the Genesis account. So if you believe the bible is correct in this naming of people, but don't agree that the Earth is 6000 years old, then surely the bible must have gotten something wrong here, because the ages will never add up to 4.5 billion. Which is why I said that a lot of people get around this issue, by saying that either Genesis is meant as just poetry (Which causes some issue with this timeline, because then who is Adam that is mentioned here?) or that a day in Genesis can be millions/billions of years. But regardless of how you twist and turn it, this puzzle will never add up, so something in the bible must be wrong here.

Click to expand...

I would like to say something here. I've been reading a few of the posts.
This has nothing to do with science in particular vs. the Bible. It has to do with my belief now in the existence of God. As a Maker and Creator. As a younger person I was not drawn to science. Although I did well in my classes. I also did not believe in, or understand the Bible, even though I was raised in a somewhat religious family in comparison with others. I have come to respect the Bible. Because of the confusion and horror often associated with religion, I eventually claimed to not believe in God.
(Things changed.)
Frankly, as I read rhese boards I am more interested in certain things regarding science. By that I mean reality. Such as why is there sometimes a thunder clap when there is a storm. And I'd love to find out particularly some day exactly how Thomas Edison performed his experiments. I'm very curious. So if that's what is called science, I'm for it.
But now I'm older and have come to believe there is a God who is superior and supreme. It makes much sense to me. That is now based on my perception of reality. By that I mean in part the difference between humans and others such as gorillas, chimpanzees, chipmunks, birds and the like, as well as perceiving the world around me. I no longer can believe that what we know and see came about without a directing (intelligent) force. By that force I mean that which produced progeneration or regeneration, somerimes called life.

YoursTrue said:

I would like to say something here. I've been reading a few of the posts.
This has nothing to do with science in particular vs. the Bible. It has to do with my belief now in the existence of God. As a Maker and Creator. As a younger person I was not drawn to science. Although I did well in my classes. I also did not believe in, or understand the Bible, even though I was raised in a somewhat religious family in comparison with others. I have come to respect the Bible. Because of the confusion and horror often associated with religion, I eventually claimed to not believe in God.
(Things changed.)
Frankly, as I read rhese boards I am more interested in certain things regarding science. By that I mean reality. Such as why is there sometimes a thunder clap when there is a storm. And I'd love to find out particularly some day exactly how Thomas Edison performed his experiments. I'm very curious. So if that's what is called science, I'm for it.
But now I'm older and have come to believe there is a God who is superior and supreme. It makes much sense to me. That is now based on my perception of reality. By that I mean in part the difference between humans and others such as gorillas, chimpanzees, chipmunks, birds and the like, as well as perceiving the world around me. I no longer can believe that what we know and see came about without a directing (intelligent) force. By that force I mean that which produced progeneration or regeneration, somerimes called life.

Click to expand...

Creation vs. evolution should not be a theological debate. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute God. It only refutes ridiculous versions of God. In fact most Christians accept the fact of evolution so it does not even refute Christianity.

Subduction Zone said:

When people use obscure translations and they will not say where it came from Bible Hub can be a useful site. Simply search for the particular verse and click on the Bible Hub link. It shows many different interpretations of the verse in question. For example:

Job 38:16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

If you scroll down you will see that it appears that he used the Berean Bible Study translation. Ironically the Berean Bible Study version was published by Bible Hub:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Berean-Study-Bible-BSB.html

Click to expand...

I have not heard of Berean Bible Study, but I did read somewhere here about Bible Hub (though I can’t remember from whom), so it was more in passing, so didn’t pay much attention to BH, so I really know nothing about BH, just as I don’t anything about BSB.

And not knowing anything about, I can’t say how reliable this translation is, but judging by what Hockeycowboy have quoted, the BSB translators probably have the tendencies to put modern contexts in their translation.

So I don’t think Hockeycowboy’s claim about translation being true, eg “close to the original” or “accurate”.

gnostic said:

I did ask you which translation you used for Job 38:16, but you never said. I know it didn't come from KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, etc.

So I will ask again.

Which translation did you use?

Click to expand...

I just typed in Job 38:16, and scrolled down to the BibleHub link.

I like BibleHub’s variety.

Hockeycowboy said:

I just typed in Job 38:16, and scrolled down to the BibleHub link.

I like BibleHub’s variety.

Click to expand...

So you have no idea if the translation you have been using, “close to the original”?