Science and the Bible

[CLee421]

Also the hydrologic cycle documentation is truly amazing. Knowing He "draws up" water - that the water is in its own cycle. Saying the sea isn't full is like a nod to the fact that water is continually going into it, yet it doesn't have to stop, because it'll never be "full" as the water will just go up into the sky and eventually fall all over the earth again

Solomon was said to be the wisest man who ever lived, he was filled with earthly knowledge (from God because that's what he asked for) and people came from all over to hear him talk.

 

[CLee421]

Source for this claim please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 22557 View attachment 22558

So the version in Isaiah 22 18 seems to be a much more accurate word for the shape of the Earth than "duhr".

 

[CLee421]

So the version in Isaiah 22 18 seems to be a much more accurate word for the shape of the Earth than "duhr".

I don't see why. Especially considering the nature of the word that is used, as being used as a verb as well to highlight the act of creation of that object in general.

 

[Cacotopia]

I really need you to stop asserting that we think the universe came from nothing. Because that is blatantly false. nothing is nothing, you cannot test nothing, nothing is non existence, something from nothing is magic. something from nothing is essentially your theory, We don't know where matter came from, I am of the mind that it was always there. IE no beginning of matter, but current beginning of universe is big bang, but prior unknown. I'm okay with not knowing but I'd like to learn.

But if I never know well okay then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see why. Especially considering the nature of the word that is used, as being used as a verb as well to highlight the act of creation of that object in general.

I saw no usage as a verb, but then I am not a linguist, and at any rate this verse does not support a spherical Earth since it can also be used to justify Flat Earth beliefs.

 

[CLee421]

I really need you to stop asserting that we think the universe came from nothing. Because that is blatantly false. nothing is nothing, you cannot test nothing, nothing is non existence, something from nothing is magic. something from nothing is essentially your theory, We don't know where matter came from, I am of the mind that it was always there. IE no beginning of matter, but current beginning of universe is big bang, but prior unknown. I'm okay with not knowing but I'd like to learn.

But if I never know well okay then.

Who's asserting? Scientists mostly agree there was a starting point to what we see based on the calculations of how the universe is behaving now.

Regardless the Hebrew bible provides an answer. And quite a plausible one.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's like, a roundish pile of firewood. Not really a ball you'd bounce or hold.

I believe the early view was a flat earth, but by Aristotle's time the dominant interpretation of Genesis was a round earth, but with the earth at the center of the universe. This is a problem with the Biblical view of the earth being the center of the universe. Even though the view of the world changed over time from flat to a sphere the OT scripture described a world at the center of the universe

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

 

[Cacotopia]

You are adding an agent to it, and assuming there was one. This is the problem I have with you people. It is okay to not know but you feel like you need the answers so bad you are just gonna make them up.

 

[siti]

Pythagorus proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C.

That's right - the earth was round back then - it became flat much later

For the record - here is what I said in an earlier discussion on the topic.

Perhaps, but chug means 'circle' and Isaiah was perfectly well aware that there was a much better word - dur - that he could have used to mean 'ball' or 'sphere' - see Isaiah 22:18.

Given that this error of interpretation is your opening gambit, I didn't hold out much hope for it to get better as I read further down your OP - it didn't - but at least you might like to look up the other Isaiah reference with your Hebrew knowledge and figure out for yourself why the writer was not inspired to use a much better word that he obviously knew?

 

[Cacotopia]

Science and religion don't work? Because you have an answer before you had the question, and science asks questions, tests questions gets answers asks more questions.

Religion operates backwards. Answers first and then manipulating questions to make answers work.

That is the bottom line of it. It dishonest and riddled with confirmation bias. And if there is a mistake in there you change the meaning to make it fit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Who's asserting? Scientists mostly agree there was a starting point to what we see based on the calculations of how the universe is behaving now.

Regardless the Hebrew bible provides an answer. And quite a plausible one.

Actually the present view of cosmology and physics is the current models whether Big Bang models, Cyclic models, Multiverse or Black Hole models none can go back closer then a few moment after a hypothetical beginning which cannot be determined by objective empirical evidence. At present math models and the indirect evidence of Quantum Mechanics are the basis for the nature of our physical existence prior to the moments after expansion of our universe began. Some models describe a possible infinite and eternal physical existence, but some interpret a finite and temporal universe possibly within a multiverse.

In other words the present knowledge of science cannot determine with any certainty whether our physical existence is eternal and infinite, nor finite and temporal.

 

[CLee421]

That's right - the earth was round back then - it became flat much later

For the record - here is what I said in an earlier discussion on the topic.



Given that this error of interpretation is your opening gambit, I didn't hold out much hope for it to get better as I read further down your OP - it didn't - but at least you might like to look up the other Isaiah reference with your Hebrew knowledge and figure out for yourself why the writer was not inspired to use a much better word that he obviously knew?

I discussed this already .. not that it matters

 

[CLee421]

Actually the present view of cosmology and physics is the current models whether Big Bang models, Cyclic models, Multiverse or Black Hole models none can go back closer then a few moment after a hypothetical beginning which cannot be determined by objective empirical evidence. At present math models and the indirect evidence of Quantum Mechanics are the basis for the nature of our physical existence prior to the moments after expansion of our universe began.

In other words the present knowledge of science cannot determine with any certainty whether our physical existence is eternal and infinite, nor finite and temporal.

Well we die. That's one point. Temporal.

You get into spirituality if you go further.

Everything being energy aligns with the biblical text as well. God spoke, there's the first creative energy. Sound waves can eventually become light waves. That all happened in the beginning.

 

[CLee421]

Science and religion don't work? Because you have an answer before you had the question, and science asks questions, tests questions gets answers asks more questions.

Religion operates backwards. Answers first and then manipulating questions to make answers work.

That is the bottom line of it. It dishonest and riddled with confirmation bias. And if there is a mistake in there you change the meaning to make it fit.

Maybe some operate like that. I went in open. Ready for anything. This after 20 years of believing all religion/spiritual teachings were fabricated.

It is not terrible to have an answer or "result" then going to find the cause. Isn't that what gets us looking in the first place?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well we die. That's one point. Temporal.

You get into spirituality if you go further.

Everything being energy aligns with the biblical text as well. God spoke, there's the first creative energy. Sound waves can eventually become light waves. That all happened in the beginning.

This is the Creation ex nihilo as a theological assumption

Not according to nor in harmony with science.

 

[CLee421]

You are adding an agent to it, and assuming there was one. This is the problem I have with you people. It is okay to not know but you feel like you need the answers so bad you are just gonna make them up.

I'm okay with not knowing something. Just because I'm discussing it in a certain way here doesn't reflect the entirety of my way of thinking.

 

[CLee421]

This is the Creation ex nihilo as a theological assumption

Not according to nor in harmony with science.

It really is. But okay

And if you say "science" can't know what happened before the beginning - how can you also say this account is "not according to nor in harmony" with something you don't know?

 

[Cacotopia]

Maybe some operate like that. I went in open. Ready for anything. This after 20 years of believing all religion/spiritual teachings were fabricated.

It is not terrible to have an answer or "result" then going to find the cause. Isn't that what gets us looking in the first place?

It's quite dishonest actually.

Why is the sky blue? is not making an answer up and then confirming the answer, you are physically observing a blue sky, and then figuring out why it is blue.

Now you got questions you ask like things you can't observe and say god did it. God is the +1 in this situation you don't need to add god to why things happen.

 

[siti]

I discussed this already .. not that it matters

Well there you go - just shows the importance of reading threads properly before responding...which I have now made a better attempt to do and find this in reference to the alternative word dur:

The word just doesn't work. It is used only 3 times also - once for ball - once for burn - and once for roundabout (to surround)

OK - so how many times is the word chug used? Oh yes - three as well - once its translated "vault" and another clearly indicating an "inscribed circle" - that leaves you with just one use of the word to mean "sphere" - which, According to Strong's Concordance, it doesn't, but rather means "circle" or "compass"...not that it matters.