Schlussendlich ist das Wunder im ganzen Buch Jona erwähnt. Das Überleben Jonas in einem "großen Fisch" ist an sich ein Wunder, und so ist es vielleicht auch damit, dass Jona verschluckt wurde.<ref name=Miller/>
==Behutsamkeit in der Herangehensweise und Quellen, die biblisches Vorwissen bestätigen und leugnen==
Die Untersuchung von Quellen in Bezug auf biblisches Vorwissen verlangt Vorsicht und Sorgfältigkeit seitens der Gelehrten. Die Untersuchung von biblischem Vorwissen ist ein multidisziplinares Unterfangen, welches sowohl Wissenschaftskenntnisse und biblische [[Exegese]] (welche Wissen über biblische Sprachen, die frühe nahöstliche Kultur, etc.) benötigt. Dementsprechend ist bei der Sichtung der Quellen Vorsicht geboten. Wie Salomo schreibt:
{{Bible quote|Im Recht scheint, wer in seiner Streitsache als Erster auftritt, bis sein Nächster kommt und ihn ausforscht.|book=Sprüche|chap=18|verses=17}}
Eine exakte Analyse häufiger Missverständnisse über die exakte Natur der Wissenschaft und eine [[Analyse wissenschaftlicher Wahrheit]] würde allen Apologeten nützen.
==Common Knowledge Argument is Contra-evidence and Implausible==Both believers and skeptics believed that ancient cultures had accumulated a significant body of medical practices based on oral traditions and written manuscripts. The same could be said of other areas in regards to the natural world. Skeptics argue that the [[Pentateuch]] is a result of such processes and that Bible scientific foreknowledge is not the result of supernatural inspiration. In addition, some critics of [[Bible]] scientific foreknowledge attempt to show that the Pentateuch is a late-written book. They also argue for the earliest possible date for various Egyptian medical documents and claim that the Hebrew medicine is merely a refinement of Egyptian medicine. Critics of Bible scientific foreknowledge point to the Edwin Smith papyrus and the Ebers papyrus, which contain a certain degree of accurate medical knowledge. For example, the Ebers Papyrus gives a surprisingly accurate description of the circulatory system and refers to such things as diabetes mellitus.<ref name=Ebers>Author unknown. "[http://www.aldokkan.com/science/ebers.htm Ebers' papyrus]." Aldokkan, n.d. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> Setting aside the issue of document dating for now, supporters of Bible scientific foreknowledge believe that in order to evaluate the issue of Bible scientific foreknowledge one must examine '''all''' the evidence and not exclude any evidence. For example, when considering the Edwin Smith Papyrus, Ebers Papyrus and Hearst Papyrus, the aforementioned medical errors must be included as well as the more positive aspects. Homer's Odyssey states, as was noted above that,{{cquote|[T]he Egyptians were skilled in medicine more than any other art.<ref name=Allen/>}}Also added, was that the Egyptians used sewer pharmacology and other practices which the previously mentioned medical experts said could be harmful or were ineffective. As Bruce Allen wrote in his essay, ''4 Reasons Why You Should Read the Bible,'' {{cquote|Pretty disgusting stuff today, yet you would think that if these culture's medical practices were so respected by the rest of the world, the Bible would just mimic what they taught. But it doesn't! Of all the sacred writings of every major religion in the world, only the Bible sidesteps the errors that pervaded the medical sciences of its time. In fact, scholars are nearly unanimous in attributing the world's first system of sanitary laws to the precepts laid down in the first five books of the Bible.<ref name=Allen/>}}Ancient medicine is not alone in having errant practices. For example, in 17th and 18th century medicine the practice of bleeding patients was still used.<ref name=cent1718>Author unknown. "[http://library.thinkquest.org/15569/hist-8.html 17th and 18th Century Medicine]." ''A Short History of Medical Careers'', ThinkQuest.com, n.d. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> Also, according to the British Medical Journal, only 15% of medical procedures have been reported to be supported by any documentation.<ref name=SmithR>Smith R. ''Where is the wisdom: The poverty of medical evidence.'' British Medical Journal 1991; 303: 798-799</ref><ref name=rosner>Rosner, Anthony L. "[http://www.fcer.org/html/News/whccamp.htm White House Commission On Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy: Testimony for Meeting on Obstacles and Barriers to CAM Research]." Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, 2008. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> Given the existence of errant medicine throughout history up to the present day (medicine recalls, lack of documentation, etc.) and the apparent absence of errant medicine from the [[Pentateuch]] and an abundance of excellent, very advanced health and sanitation practices, the argument that the Bible contains common knowledge is implausible, even if one grants late dates for the Pentateuch and early dates for the Egyptians. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyus is thought by most scholars to date from 1600 BC. These scholars also believe that this ancient medical treatise is a copy of a work dating from c. 3000 BC.<ref name=SmithPapyrus>"[www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/179901/Edwin-Smith-papyrus Edwin Smith papyrus]." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> Dr. Carol Reeves argued that archaic words in the Edwin Smith Papyrus point to its being copied from an earlier text around 2,500 B.C.<ref name=Reeves>Carol Reeves, ''Egyptian Medicine'', Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications, 1992, page 51.</ref> The argument from word usage to date a text has failed before according to linguist and Bible scholar Robert Dick Wilson, a scholar who learned 45 ancient languages. In his essay, ''What is an expert?'', Dr. Wilson states that the attempts to date the Old Testament late via alleged anachronisms failed. Of course, word usage may be helpful but one must exercise due diligence and scholarly caution. With that in mind, if late dates for the Ebers Papyrus and Hearst Papyrus were granted, the Ebers Papyrus is commonly dated to about 1550 BC. and the Hearst Papyrus is to 1450 B.C.<ref name=EbersBrit>"[www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/177583/Ebers-papyrus Ebers papyrus]." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref><ref name=forsyth>Forsyth, Phyllis Young. "[http://www.arts.mun.ca/mouseion/2000/forsyth/index.html The Medicinal Use of Saffron in the Aegean Bronze Age]." ''Classical Views'' 44:19, 200. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> There are various issues and disagreements between scholars over Egyptian chronology and its reliability, as was mentioned above. The prominent 20th century Egyptologist Gardiner, noting the paucity of historical inscriptions and his apparent belief that Egyptologists have had a tendency to overstate their case, wrote,{{What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters.<ref name=GardinerA>Gardiner, A. ''Egypt of the Pharaohs. (Oxford 1961), page 46</ref>}}Other Egyptologists too have expressed reservations about Egyptian chronology. This may have repurcussions elsewhere, since many ancient chronologies are based on the chronolgy of Egypt.<ref name=Mackay>Mackey, Damien F. (MA. B PHIL.) "[http://www.specialtyinterests.net/sothic_star.html Sothic Dating Examined, The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar (A Critical Evaluation)]." SpecialtyInterests, October 1995. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> With that in mind, some scholars attempt to date the Pentateuch late and deny Mosaic authorship. They argue that the documentary hypothesis is correct. On the other hand conservative scholars believe it lacks external evidence and has unsound foundations.<ref name=Closson>Closson, Don. "[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/moses.html Did Moses Write the Pentateuch]?" Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref><ref name=Mitchell>Mitchell, Nigel B. "[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9092.htm Documentary Hypothesis: Fallacies Vitiating the Methods of Modern Criticism]." John Mark Ministries, June 1, 1999. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref>Biblical scholars Kenneth Kitchen (a notable Egyptologist and Bible scholar) and Gleason Archer have sharply criticized and rejected the documentary hypothesis using various lines of argument.<ref name=Archer>Archer, Gleason L., and Friedman, Richard E. "[http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DW035.pdf A Summary Critique: Who Wrote the Bible]?" Christian Research Institute, 1987. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref name=Miller2>Miller, Glenn. "[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/aec2.html The Making of the OT: Before Moses]." Christian Think Tank, n.d. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref><ref name=studyman>Author unknown. "[http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/moses.htm Moses: Is He the Author of the Pentateuch]?" Bible Study Manuals, n.d. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref><ref name=Ankerberg>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John. "[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0404W3.htm Biblical Archaeology - Silencing the Critics - Part 2]." Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, n.d. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref><ref name=islam>"[http://answering-islam.org.uk/Campbell/s3c1.html The Bible and the Qur'an, Two Books with Many Similarities in their collection Chapter I The Documentary Hypothesis --- Its Effect on the Torah and the Qur'an]." Answering Islam, n.d. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> Dr. Yohanan Aharoni, in his work ''Canaanite Israel during the Period of Israeli Occupation'' states that archaeological discoveries show that later authors or editors could not have put together or invented these stories hundreds of years after they happened.<ref name=Kaufman>Kaufman, Yechezkel. [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm Biblical Criticism]. (Excerpt from One People, Two Worlds, - pg. 183)</ref> Also, Roger N. Whybray, George W. Coats, and Claus Westermann contend that the Joseph story in Genesis 37-50 was a unity.<ref name=Wong>Wong, Fook Kong. "[http://www.hkbts.edu.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=193&Pid=16&Version=0&Cid=43&Charset=iso-8859-1&p=1 History of Pentateuchal Research]." Hong Kong Baptist School Seminary, April 3, 2008. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> In 1999, Josh McDowell wrote a work entitled ''New Evidence that Demands a Verdict'' in which he reviews the arguments of scholars who believe the Documentary hypothesis is invalid. McDowell cites the objections of early scholars such as Umberto Cassuto and cites newer scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen as well.<ref name=McDowell>McDowell, Josh. ''New Evidence that Demands a Verdict'' Thomas Nelson, Inc, Publishers, 1999.</ref> In addition, a team of Israeli and German Bible critics (reported in the ''Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentaliche Wissenschaft'') conducted a computer analysis of the style and language of the Bible. According to the computer analysis there appears to be no question that the Pentateuch is the product of a single author.<ref name=Kaufman/> Finally, Professor Yechezkel Kaufman, a secular Bible critic, sums it up very well in ''A History of the Jewish Faith'' (Hebrew): {{cquote|Biblical criticism finds itself today in a unique situation. There is a dominant theory, yet no one knows why it dominates. In the history of ideas, theories or concepts based on certain accepted principles often enjoy a disembodied existence long after those principles have been discredited. This is exactly what happened to the scientific study of the Bible in our times ... [In the nineteenth century,] Wellhausen ... based his theories on an interlocking system of proofs that seemed to complement each other, forming layers of solid intellectual foundations upon which he erected the definitive edifice of his ideas. In the meantime, however, these foundations disintegrated one by one. These proofs were refuted outright or at least seriously questioned. The scholars of the Wellhausen school were forced to admit that most of the proofs do not hold up under scrutiny. Nonetheless, they did not abandon the conclusions.<ref name=Kaufman/>}} ==Mary Douglas and Other Views==Mary Douglas argued the Mosaic dietary laws and ceremonial laws were designed as purity laws.<ref name=Hutt>Hutt, P. B. "[http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/52/dsilber.pdf Jewish Dietary Laws and Their Foundation]." Harvard University School of Law, 1994. Accessed September 13, 2008.</ref> Also, there are those who argue that some of the Mosaic laws such as the dietary laws were meant to set apart the Jewish people. The approaches are not mutually exclusive of Bible scientific foreknowledge as purity laws and laws to create separateness can have other reasons behind them such as sanitary and preventative health benefits. ==Scholarly Caution and Sources Affirming and Denying Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==The examination of sources regarding the affirming and denying of Bible scientific foreknowledge requires scholarly caution and due dilgence. The investigation of Bible scientific foreknowledge is very much a multidisciplinary endeavor involving both science and [[Biblical exegesis]] (which involves knowledge of the Biblical languages, ancient near eastern culture, etc.). Because some sources fail to do their due diligence or fail to reveal all the relevant information a buyer beware attitude is warranted regarding individual sources. As Solomon stated,{{Bible quote|The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.|book=Proverbs|chap=18|verses=17|version=NASB}} Analyzing the common misunderstanding about the exact nature of science and an [[analysis of scientific truth]] would benefit all apologists. ==ReferencesReferenzen==
{{reflist|2}}