Originally Posted by
Colonel
We have every reason to believe that their records of the formation of certain lakes are precise because they accurately reflect how science says that they were formed. For instance Lake Euramoo was formed 23,000 years ago, according to science.
Can they (and science) provide records (preferably written) that cover that period of time, with multiple dates of other events which can be verified to provide a reliable timeline back to that date.
See Wiki says Lake Euramoo was formed "about 23,000 years ago by two massive explosions from groundwater superheating" but its Facebook page says it was "formed about 10,000 years ago by two massive explosions from groundwater superheating". One figure is less than half the other Colonel.
Another site (ref) says that Aboriginal history says "Two men broke a taboo and angered the rainbow serpent, a major spirit of the area. The earth roared like thunder and the winds blew like a cyclone. The ground began to twist and crack and there were red clouds in the sky that had never been seen before. People ran from side to side but were swallowed by a crack which opened in the earth". This same site also says "it is though to be a little older than ten thousand years old".
"thought to be" isn't exactly a common scientific term. And personally, I don't see that as a precise description of how lakes form.
Originally Posted by
Colonel
There are numbers that you can add up, the question is if one should assume that it's all literal and exact. If we compare Samuel/Kings to Chronicles there are lots of discrepancies in terms of the numbers listed.
1 Chron 21:5 Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to David. All Israel had one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and Judah had four hundred and seventy thousand men who drew the sword.
6 But he did not count Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
2 Sam 24:9 Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king. And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
We know from Covid-19 that government stats aren't an exact science. But 1,100,000 not 1,099,999 and 800,000 not 800,001? Of course the numbers are rounded. Is there an explanation? One suggestion is that the 1Chron figure includes all the available men of a military age, whether battle seasoned or not, but 2Sam could be 800,000 battle seasoned with the additional 300,000 being of age but had never fought, or the 288,000 in the standing army (1 Chron 27:1-5) rounded off to 300,000.
So there are possible explanations.
Now the Jews accepted both books as part of their Sacred Books, and the Church accepted both into the Bible. And the Church knew that to be Scripture it must follow the rule that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". They still got in, even with their differences.
There are two directions we can take I believe:
1. We acknowledge that 1 Chron and 2 Sam are inspired by God, and although there may seem to be differences on the surface, there's a valid reason for the differences, even if we don't know what that reason is. Or
2. We go towards saying it's "wrong". It's "inexact". It's "not correct". So what do we do? Has God inspired a lie? Should we ignore 1 Chron, 2 Chron, 1 Sam and 2 Sam? Or do we ignore only Chron or Sam, not both? Which one? And what about everything in the Bible that we have only one account of? Can we believe any of them? How are we going to know what's right?
There are apparently differences in the description of the same event in the Gospels Colonel (ref). Are we not going to trust them too? Maybe the crucifixion never happened? Maybe we're all still destined for hell?