Argument from foreknowledge
This time, let's talk about an aspect of the Argument from science anticipation.
To promote their religion, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are fond of claiming that their Scriptures contain many allusions to modern science (which is assumed to be impossible if these Book where human-made, considering the epoch of Revelation).
I noticed the verses they use for their thesis
are open to different interpretations (literal, compatible with science or not, allegorical) and choosing among them a meaning similar to recent scientific discoveries AFTER the very discovery, whereas these verses were understood more or less unscientifically before , looks nothing but cherry-picking to me.
However, these 'scientific verses' aren't written in the form: In X years, thou shalt discover "...." (fill the blank with a modern
discovery) but are reinterpretation of those where the supposed God speaks to the people of Revelation epoch, or when He narrates past events (Beginning of everything, prophets' life) or events in Last Days.
So, the question which arises is: if their Book really has such scientific merit, why isn't it clearer about modern scientific concept?
To this, these fundamentalists replied:
<< if the verses were crystal clear about Big Bang, nuclear physics, slightly flattened round Earth, ect...
then the people at the epoch of Revelation would have thought these verses are wrong (or would have been confused) and thus would have easily rejected God- because the Book would have contradicted their science.
So it's necessary for the God's Book to "hide" its modern scientific meanings from ancient people by having many different interpretations, so that both ancient and modern people can understand it according to their respective science.
Therefore, the unclearness of verses is a fallacious reason for denying the astonishing modern knowledge in our Scriptures.>>
How can I respond to their reply?