Words written on paper count very well when we have a decent reason to expect that they are not utterly fabricated. The opposite is true in this case. Unless you claim this particular experiment is somehow distinct from all the other parts of the Bible which never happened.
Since the most popular book in the world contains this account, I’d say questioning its existence is pretty stupid.
The test given in the account that Elijah supposedly performed would, with only slight tweaking*, be a completely valid scientific experiment.
Now, whether the events in the account actually happened is an entirely different question (and I’d agree with you there). But you’d be foolish to say the account itself doesn’t exist, which is what you and ed have thus far said. Words on paper are extremely strong evidence the account exists (it exists on the paper). The fact that I’m talking about the account is pretty strong evidence that the account exists as well (it exists in my mind).
*As has been noted by others, he went over-board when setting up his side of the experiment. To get the most relevant results he should have kept both altars exactly the same instead of dousing his lambs with water. Of course, he was doing science accidentally, so he didn’t know better.
Was the downvote because I used the word stupid, or does someone actually believe the bible does not contain an account of Elijah performing an experiment?
If the former, don’t be so sensitive, I didn’t call anybody stupid, I was just pointing out the absurd notion that the account does not exist.
If the latter, well, I really can’t help you. The existence of the account is an absurdly easily provable fact. I certainly don’t believe the events described in the account ever took place, however.
No one’s claiming that the bible doesn’t contain an account of Elijah performing an experiment. I think you’ve misinterpreted ed (who, by “an account that you have evidence for”, surely meant “an account whose truth you have evidence for” rather than “an account whose existence you have evidence for”) and ndm25 (I’d try to pinpoint what you’ve misinterpreted, except that I can’t find anything in what he wrote that looks even slightly like a claim that the account in question doesn’t exist).
Which is the fundamental misunderstanding I was attempting to point out.
The original statement was that the bible contains an account of Elijah performing an experiment. This is absolutely true.
The original statement had nothing to do with whether or not Elijah actually performed any such experiment, and in fact the truth of the account itself was absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, but that’s what ed and ndm25 jumped on.
It’s silly.
Edit to point out that by “original statement” I mean the statement ed was responding to.
You accused both ed and ndm25 of “say[ing] the account itself doesn’t exist”. That is flatly false: neither of them has either said or implied any such thing.
ed’s original point was not that the truth of the account is important. It was that (in his opinion) the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal isn’t a good candidate for “earliest recorded scientific experiment” because depending on your criteria either it’s a problem that it probably didn’t happen or it’s a problem that there are earlier claims, of which ed gave an example that’s also from the Bible.
I think that’s a pretty nitpicky and unhelpful point, as it happens, but your response to it is simply unreasonable.
I think ndm25 really did miss the point in the way you’re now saying was always your point. But the way you responded to that, again, was to make an entirely baseless accusation: ndm25 didn’t say or imply that the account doesn’t exist, but that it’s probably false; the error was in thinking that that’s a big deal.
Incidentally, there’s absolutely no way that 1 Kings is “3000-4000 years” old. More like 2500 years, which of course is still pretty old.
The earliest account I know of a scientific experiment is, ironically, the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal.
What do you mean by “I know of”. Do you mean an account that you have evidence for? If yes, what >evidence is that? Or do you mean the earliest recorded? Surely there were early ones recorded. >Korach and the 250 men?
The OP mentioned the earliest account he knows of, and ed suggests he aught to know of earlier ones. This is, frankly, bizarre. The OP never suggested it was the earliest account in existence, or even that the account was true. The truth of the account was irrelevant to what the OP was talking about, and in fact the reason for pointing it out was almost certainly to show the irony that such a completely unreliable book could contain within one of its most famous stories the blueprint for dismantaling the veracity of the entire thing (or at least, all of its most questionable elements).
But ed wanted to take issue with it for some reason. It sounded like an attack on the OP for no reason other than that he mentioned something in the bible, which is lame, so I got snarky.
On the age, I was making a rough estimate—more a guess really—that was off by about 20% - not exactly something to get crazy over in my opinion. If you like, 1 Kings is probably between 2550 and 2570 years old. Better?
The events described in the account would be trivially easy to replicate if somebody managed to slip some calcium phosphide in among the altar stones. Don’t get so wrapped up in demonstrating your rational disbelief in the supernatural that you discount simple conjuring tricks. ;-)
Words written on paper count very well when we have a decent reason to expect that they are not utterly fabricated. The opposite is true in this case. Unless you claim this particular experiment is somehow distinct from all the other parts of the Bible which never happened.
Earliest “account”.
Since the most popular book in the world contains this account, I’d say questioning its existence is pretty stupid.
The test given in the account that Elijah supposedly performed would, with only slight tweaking*, be a completely valid scientific experiment.
Now, whether the events in the account actually happened is an entirely different question (and I’d agree with you there). But you’d be foolish to say the account itself doesn’t exist, which is what you and ed have thus far said. Words on paper are extremely strong evidence the account exists (it exists on the paper). The fact that I’m talking about the account is pretty strong evidence that the account exists as well (it exists in my mind).
*As has been noted by others, he went over-board when setting up his side of the experiment. To get the most relevant results he should have kept both altars exactly the same instead of dousing his lambs with water. Of course, he was doing science accidentally, so he didn’t know better.
Was the downvote because I used the word stupid, or does someone actually believe the bible does not contain an account of Elijah performing an experiment?
If the former, don’t be so sensitive, I didn’t call anybody stupid, I was just pointing out the absurd notion that the account does not exist.
If the latter, well, I really can’t help you. The existence of the account is an absurdly easily provable fact. I certainly don’t believe the events described in the account ever took place, however.
No one’s claiming that the bible doesn’t contain an account of Elijah performing an experiment. I think you’ve misinterpreted ed (who, by “an account that you have evidence for”, surely meant “an account whose truth you have evidence for” rather than “an account whose existence you have evidence for”) and ndm25 (I’d try to pinpoint what you’ve misinterpreted, except that I can’t find anything in what he wrote that looks even slightly like a claim that the account in question doesn’t exist).
Which is the fundamental misunderstanding I was attempting to point out.
The original statement was that the bible contains an account of Elijah performing an experiment. This is absolutely true.
The original statement had nothing to do with whether or not Elijah actually performed any such experiment, and in fact the truth of the account itself was absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, but that’s what ed and ndm25 jumped on.
It’s silly.
Edit to point out that by “original statement” I mean the statement ed was responding to.
You accused both ed and ndm25 of “say[ing] the account itself doesn’t exist”. That is flatly false: neither of them has either said or implied any such thing.
ed’s original point was not that the truth of the account is important. It was that (in his opinion) the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal isn’t a good candidate for “earliest recorded scientific experiment” because depending on your criteria either it’s a problem that it probably didn’t happen or it’s a problem that there are earlier claims, of which ed gave an example that’s also from the Bible.
I think that’s a pretty nitpicky and unhelpful point, as it happens, but your response to it is simply unreasonable.
I think ndm25 really did miss the point in the way you’re now saying was always your point. But the way you responded to that, again, was to make an entirely baseless accusation: ndm25 didn’t say or imply that the account doesn’t exist, but that it’s probably false; the error was in thinking that that’s a big deal.
Incidentally, there’s absolutely no way that 1 Kings is “3000-4000 years” old. More like 2500 years, which of course is still pretty old.
The OP mentioned the earliest account he knows of, and ed suggests he aught to know of earlier ones. This is, frankly, bizarre. The OP never suggested it was the earliest account in existence, or even that the account was true. The truth of the account was irrelevant to what the OP was talking about, and in fact the reason for pointing it out was almost certainly to show the irony that such a completely unreliable book could contain within one of its most famous stories the blueprint for dismantaling the veracity of the entire thing (or at least, all of its most questionable elements).
But ed wanted to take issue with it for some reason. It sounded like an attack on the OP for no reason other than that he mentioned something in the bible, which is lame, so I got snarky.
On the age, I was making a rough estimate—more a guess really—that was off by about 20% - not exactly something to get crazy over in my opinion. If you like, 1 Kings is probably between 2550 and 2570 years old. Better?
The events described in the account would be trivially easy to replicate if somebody managed to slip some calcium phosphide in among the altar stones. Don’t get so wrapped up in demonstrating your rational disbelief in the supernatural that you discount simple conjuring tricks. ;-)