>>>And, it seems to me, the great visionaries of science had similar revelations worthy of documenting in the same place.
>>
>>Documenting, yes. In the Bible? No.
>
>Why not?
>
>A revelation is a revelation.
But "the Bible" isn't a revelation, its a cultural history, a story of the founding event of a religion and a political document. It is first and formost not a book but a collection of documents voted in or out by a committee - the Council of Nicea - whose purpose was to define heresy, close the door to future revelation, and start empire building. That ship sailed almost 1700 years ago.
The Next Big Thing came along in a little less than 300 years - and promptly declared itself the Final Revelation as given to The Prophet Mohammed and as codified in the Koran.
Of course that doesn't stop the revelation - Joseph Smith certainly developed a following believing he'd received the Latter Day version. But that didn't make it into the Bible - just became an addendum and expansion for those who accepted the vision.
And there's nothing to stop one from starting from scratch - put "Science" in the title - come up with a religion that is the study of 'science' - hey- you could call it Scientology !
( but of course it still isn't part of the Bible ... )
Charles Hankey
Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened.
- Thomas Hardy
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
- Ben Franklin
Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
