Science and the Bible

[Subduction Zone]

And yes. What has been accepted as "scientific knowledge" has been known to and is changing a lot. That's one of its endearing qualities, if you ask some scientists.

Scientific knowledge keeps getting closer and closer to the "right answer". We see that in all of the sciences. It is self correcting. The errors in the Bible are there forever. It does not have a self correcting mechanism.

It is rather odd that you find fault with one of the strengths of science and do not recognize the weakness in your own beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The etymology of the word: View attachment 22570

English.

And I am addressing the subjects and the things you claim are problems - I'm sorry you can't see that

It would be wiser to learn what science is and how it is done rather than relying on a faulty dictionary definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

The etymology of the word: View attachment 22570

English.

And I am addressing the subjects and the things you claim are problems - I'm sorry you can't see that

Too big and bold words does not help your case. Your previous statements were woefully incomplete for a definition of science. Not the definition provided referred to science as based on information and a branch of knowledge, and therefore does not refer to all knowledge, There are types of knowledge that are clearly not science.A more descriptive definition that defines the 'knowledge' of science.

From: science defined - Google Search

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   "the world of science and technology"
   synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
   "the science of criminology"
   • a particular area of this.
     plural noun: sciences
     "veterinary science"
   • a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
     "the science of criminology"
     synonyms: physics, chemistry, biology;

It is very tiresome to argue basic English definitions when you will not stick to the subject you choose for this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with your definition of "true religion" ... human-organized religion is what I was referring to in my above comment. But you probably understood that.

Careful how you choose to define religion. No one believes their beliefs are 'human organized religion,' and pretty much everyone believes their 'religion' is the 'true religion.' The classic argument by some that what they believe is not religion and what everybody else believes is religion is a very egocentric meaningless way to communicate.

This type of an attempt at a distinction is not meaningful between people who believe differently.

Again it would be helpful to get back to the subject of the thread you defined.

 

[CLee421]

Scientific knowledge keeps getting closer and closer to the "right answer". We see that in all of the sciences. It is self correcting. The errors in the Bible are there forever. It does not have a self correcting mechanism.

It is rather odd that you find fault with one of the strengths of science and do not recognize the weakness in your own beliefs.

What you claim are errors in the Bible probably are not errors. I fact all so called errors I've seen aren't. I see none.

It would be wiser to learn what science is and how it is done rather than relying on a faulty dictionary definition.

Oh my goodness - "look at this book not that book" and that website is etymology. The origin of words. It's extremely resourceful informative and accurate.

 

[exchemist]

I don't belong to any human organization.

Regardless it always seems extremely poor taste to degrade the intelligence of another. I am not sure what sects you are referencing or what they believe but you put it on this thread. I wonder if I would agree or disagree with those you are referring to.

Why do you persist in bringing intelligence into this?

 

[CLee421]

Sorry I had to edit a post. You may go back if at some point I didn't complete a sentence.

I did not say science changing was a bad thing. You assumed I meant that. I said it because @shunyadragon claimed it didn't change.

Obviously we should change our views once something is discovered.

 

[CLee421]

Why do you persist in bringing intelligence into this?

Dear you made the comment. And I am free to speak however regardless - you all seem to think when I bring up something bothering you or you don't like how I say it I should change. I'm sorry - who are you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry I had to edit a post. You may go back if at some point I didn't complete a sentence.

I did not say science changing was a bad thing. You assumed I meant that. I said it because @shunyadragon claimed it didn't change.

Obviously we should change our views once something is discovered.

Misrepresentation of my post. I said the contemporary definition of science does not change. The knowledge of science is constantly evolving and changing.

Now, PLEASE, let's get back to the subject at hand.

 

[exchemist]

Dear you made the comment. And I am free to speak however regardless - you all seem to think when I bring up something bothering you or you don't like how I say it I should change. I'm sorry - who are you?

I spoke of ignorance and poor education.

But I'm pleased you're sorry, anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you claim are errors in the Bible probably are not errors. I fact all so called errors I've seen aren't. I see none.

The events of Genesis and Exodus that never happened would be a good start.

Oh my goodness - "look at this book not that book" and that website is etymology. The origin of words. It's extremely resourceful informative and accurate.

Still not a wise source. Dictionaries only give a low level description at best. It is better to learn what science is by understanding how science is done rather than depending upon a poorly worded definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

The term "science" in its default modern usage is short for "natural science", i.e. knowledge of nature. It has also come to mean the method of studying nature that mankind has found to be most practically useful. (making theoretical models that can be checked by careful and objective observation of nature.)

As for the bible, yes there are plenty of people who think they see what the book is trying to convey, though, as with any significant work of literature, there is scope for alternative interpretations of individual parts of it. This is due to the style in which it is written, which includes metaphor, allegory, legend and myth. This was recognised by the early fathers of the church, as far back as 200AD, just after the start of Christianity.

Sadly, this basic insight became lost or ignored by some particularly silly sects that appeared in the course of the c.19th and which still mislead some naive and poorly educated people today.

Disagree on some important point here: Yes, the Church Fathers recognized metaphor and allegory in Genesis, but most Church Fathers clearly believed in a literal Genesis creation. I would gladly go into more detail with references if necessary. This belief carries over to the how the NT describes Adam and Eve and the flood of Genesis. The Church Fathers believed in a Biblical and Aristotle's view of the universe.

This is an important point that claims of the harmony of science and the Bible run into difficulty.

 

[exchemist]

Disagree on some important point here: Yes, the Church Fathers recognized metaphor and allegory in Genesis, but most Church Fathers clearly believed in a literal Genesis creation. I would gladly go into more detail with references if necessary. This belief carries over to the how the NT describes Adam and Eve and the flood of Genesis. The Church Fathers believed in a Biblical and Aristotle's view of the universe.

This is an important point that claims of the harmony of science and the Bible run into difficulty.

I had in mind Origen, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the early church, who said of the Garden of Eden story: " Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?"

Origen followed Clement, his predecessor, in reading parts of the Old Testament as allegory, a concept familiar from the way the Greeks read Homer. He taught that the story contained truth but should not be read as a historical event.

This is according to McCulloch's History Of Christianity. McCulloch even goes on to observe: "Origen might be saddened to learn that seventeen hundred years later, millions of Christians are that silly."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I felt the need to stop reading at "sound particles."

 

[exchemist]

I felt the need to stop reading at "sound particles."

Was it talking about phonons, then? Sounds very advanced!

 

[exchemist]

'THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE DON'T COINCIDE!'
Below are some reasons why I disagree with the statement above

Share thoughts - be kind.

EARTH'S SPHERICAL SHAPE
(Isaiah 40:22)“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth”

Discovery Claim: Pythagorus proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. though it was not accepted as a possibility until much later, and not confirmed until even later.

The verse in Isaiah was written: between 740-680 B.C. - about 240-180 years before the Greek had the thought, and declared it with boldness before anyone else was sure for centuries. Also, the translation of the Hebrew word used to describe the earth in this verse of Job ("chuwg") means, "to be made spherical" - our translations use the word 'circle' here. I underline 'made' to enhance the Hebrew emphasis on Creator God...who made it that way.)

----

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth at around 200BC, so it was clearly recognised at spherical by then. In fact any sailor in the ancient world would have known the surface of the sea is at least curved, equally in all directions, and might have guessed it was spherical.

The notion that some people hold, that the Earth was believed to be flat up to mediaeval times, is not correct.

 

[exchemist]

Dear you made the comment. And I am free to speak however regardless - you all seem to think when I bring up something bothering you or you don't like how I say it I should change. I'm sorry - who are you?

I spoke of ignorance and poor education, not intelligence.

As for my, or our, reactions to you "bringing something up", this is a discussion forum. If you say something controversial, you can't complain if it causes controversy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Was it talking about phonons, then? Sounds very advanced!

Haha... yeah... the biblical "support" for that whole section of the OP was just God's voice being "energy"... so I am not even entirely sure where the talk of energy-related particles came from. *STRRRRRETCH*

Phonons notwithstanding, without qualification I was convinced that what was being implied in the OP were actual particles of sound. Hence the reason I stopped reading.

 

[Susan Maneck]

That part of the book of Isaiah was written in the 6th century as most probably was the Book of Job.​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, I think many people just believe the earth is a sphere, because someone tells them that.

It's actually an oblate spheroid.

Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round