First of all, thanks for your honest and earnest inquiry. What a strange reaction though, not disputing whether the content is factual but questioning the motivation for discussing it.
Have I done something wrong? Did I need permission from you, or some regulatory board somewhere, to publish this article? Is there a particular motivation I might have in posting this information which would cause it to be false, just because of the intent in posting it? How does that work? Surely I don’t need a reason which satisfies you or anybody else to publish factual information, as that’s irrelevant to its credibility.
To me, truth is the highest ideal, and self-justifying. I would rather people not be deceived, or if that is unattainable, then to reduce the extent of their deception by as much as possible. It is my opinion that many potentially avoidable harms come from the confusion of mistaken beliefs about reality and that we all benefit from those around us having as clear and accurate understanding of the world as possible. Beliefs do not exist in a vacuum after all, but inform our decisions.
When you say “faith is not something that can be proven by facts” you presuppose that faith is a valid basis for knowledge. I don’t think that’s the case. No reliable skyscraper was built by an engineer who used a faith based methodology for calculating structural stresses. Faith was not employed at any stage in the design of any spacecraft, current or historical. Would you drive across a bridge designed using faith-based mathematics? Faith is not employed anywhere it actually matters, because it fails the minute you put it to any kind of test.
This is because faith is a euphamism for assumption. There is nothing virtuous about assumption. Describing assumption with flowery language and extolling its virtues still does not make it virtuous, or a valid basis for claims. Muslims have faith Islam is true. Presumably we agree it’s not, but they have strong faith that it is, and their faith keeps them trapped in a deceived state. Likewise with Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, etc. Is their faith virtuous, when the effect of that faith is to keep them devoutly believing in falsehoods? Almost as if that’s the real point of it.
>” Imagine trying to tell someone 200 years ago what kind of technology we have today and tell them to write it down. Wouldn’t be very accurate I presume?”
If I were all powerful, I could ensure the descriptions were accurate. If I was having them write it all down in what I considered to be the only valid manual for attaining salvation, where disbelief is punishable by eternal torment, I would have a responsibility to ensure it was accurate, otherwise people might reasonably conclude from the inaccuracies that it’s fraudulent, disbelieve, then suffer eternally.
I am curious about the example you chose however. So far as I’m aware, the Bible does not contain any verifiable information about nature, technology or any other topic which wasn’t known about at the time. It didn’t even include the formula for penicillin, despite how much human suffering that would’ve prevented. Rather than being vindicated by the passage of time and the expansion in the scope of human understanding, the opposite has occurred.