Science and the Bible

[CLee421]

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.

I'm not sure where I've done that here.

It's not just an assumption. You can't ignore the Hebrew people and their history with God. The fact they exist at all is a testament to Him. The Hebrew Bible is full of things that can't be dismissed just because someone doesn't want to talk about or think about God.

 

[CLee421]

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:



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.

I was clear about the 3 uses of the word in question - and why it's still plausible - and that is the only thing people keep bringing up regarding the actual post at the moment. It doesn't disprove anything but I know it probably makes you guys feel a sense of satisfaction.

There are more examples applicable to the post. Just did not share.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Your misunderstanding my posts. You indicated that it was in harmony with science that there was a beginning of everything, The view of science is that the most likely scenario is an infinite and eternal physical existence. Yes, the present limits of the knowledge of science cannot absolutely determine the beginning of our physical existence one way or another.

The problem is science cannot definitively determine any sort of beginning of our physical existence, as ex nihilo proposes.

 

[CLee421]

Your misunderstanding my posts. You indicated that it was in harmony with science that there was a beginning of everything, The view of science is that the most likely scenario is an infinite and eternal physical existence. Yes, the present limits of the knowledge of science cannot absolutely determine the beginning of our physical existence one way or another.

The problem is science cannot definitively determine any sort of beginning of our physical existence, as ex nihilo proposes.

So you're saying you or others etc ... don't/can't believe in God because you can't prove Him on paper?

He's not meant to be understood. An eternal all powerful being outside our realm of existence - able to be fully understood? Nope.

We can understand His creation though. And a lot more than some think.

 

[CLee421]

I hadn't heard the reference to the day/night thing upon His return. I'll have to look into that. Interesting nonetheless.

 

[Desert Snake]

There's not a Hebrew word for sphere. That doesn't mean they didn't know spheres existed. I would love to figure out what old Jewish texts say on this.

Are you sure the earth is a sphere?

 

[Cacotopia]

It's a testament to any god that the people that invented them are still around. by your logic, but you don't seem concerned with anyone else's god.

 

[CLee421]

Are you sure the earth is a sphere?

A little silly I know but Yea I'm pretty sure.

 

[CLee421]

It's a testament to any god that the people that invented them are still around. by your logic, but you don't seem concerned with anyone else's god.

Most (all?) created Gods have flaws and aren't worked into the history of the people like the Jewish people. Created gods are crafted after men or women or animal hybrids, with wrong desires and who overall aren't interested in the well being of humans.

The Hebrew God is unique. I can understand your stance though. I truly can.

 

[Cacotopia]

How is it unique, have you studied all the other gods? Sounds like special pleeeading,

 

[CLee421]

How is it unique, have you studied all the other gods? Sounds like special pleeeading,

I've studied a lot. I'll probably always be looking into these things. But I have been changed by the Hebrew God. Believe it .. or not

 

[Desert Snake]

View attachment 22560

A little silly I know but Yea I'm pretty sure.

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

 

[siti]

It doesn't disprove anything but I know it probably makes you guys feel a sense of satisfaction.

Not at all. I bought into the old circle/sphere thing as evidence of the Bible's scientific credibility and divine inspiration for decades. Then I took a closer look - all I'm suggesting is that others might like to do the same. Of course Isaiah might have been writing about a sphere and couldn't come up with a more convincing word - or he could have simply been ignorant about the true shape of the earth. But if the Bible is "scientifically accurate" based on this it sure as hell is not "scientifically precise" - and if the scientific accuracy is down to divine inspiration then surely God could have given him a more convincing way of getting it across. It really doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe, but if you post inaccurate or potentially misleading claims in a debate forum, you'd better be ready to defend them with more than you have done in this case. The balance of evidence presented so far suggests that Isaiah didn't have a clue what he was talking about - but he at least has the excuse of having lived a couple of millennia before the scientific revolution started to give us a clearer picture of the universe around us.

 

[CLee421]

Not at all. I bought into the old circle/sphere thing as evidence of the Bible's scientific credibility and divine inspiration for decades. Then I took a closer look - all I'm suggesting is that others might like to do the same. Of course Isaiah might have been writing about a sphere and couldn't come up with a more convincing word - or he could have simply been ignorant about the true shape of the earth. But if the Bible is "scientifically accurate" based on this it sure as hell is not "scientifically precise" - and if the scientific accuracy is down to divine inspiration then surely God could have given him a more convincing way of getting it across. It really doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe, but if you post inaccurate or potentially misleading claims in a debate forum, you'd better be ready to defend them with more than you have done in this case. The balance of evidence presented so far suggests that Isaiah didn't have a clue what he was talking about - but he at least has the excuse of having lived a couple of millennia before the scientific revolution started to give us a clearer picture of the universe around us.

So it makes me want to talk to a true Jewish scholar on the matter. Not dismiss it. I said other things anyhow

 

[Desert Snake]

Why are Heliocentrists ok with the expression, 'sunrise', but they get all upset when the earth is described as circular?

 

[CLee421]

Just because God says He created earth for us does not mean He was trying to say we are the "center of the universe" ... in contrast I believe He made us so small and insignificant that we really should be more humble in our approach of all this.

The universe is inconceivably huge.

We may see "sunrise" in scripture sometimes, but that is what it looks like relative to us. It's described, that the earth turns and that's what causes the sunrise/set.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science and the Bible

Does science mention the word "Bible" or the Bible mentions the "Science", please?
If yes, kindly quote from a textbook of science for the former and the Bible for the later, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

So you're saying you or others etc ... don't/can't believe in God because you can't prove Him on paper?

He's not meant to be understood. An eternal all powerful being outside our realm of existence - able to be fully understood? Nope.

We can understand His creation though. And a lot more than some think.

You changing the subject. The subject is the harmony of science and religion in the Bible.

 

[siti]

I said other things anyhow

You did indeed: Ok - since you are inviting me to look at the rest of your evidence, here goes (briefly):

1. Hydrologic cycle - that there was a cycle that involved rain, rivers and the sea - was well known in antiquity (there are references in Hindu and Greek literature as well as the Bible). The idea that rain alone was insufficient and that other sources within the earth were required persisted in ancient Greek thought and well into the middle ages - Leonardo da Vinci, for example, believed that underground sources forcing water up from the oceans were the main suppliers of water to the river - (mis)understanding that also appears to have found its way into the Bible (Genesis 7:11 for example). That is what was cleared up in the 16th century and scientifically verified in the 17th. The Bible was no further ahead in its understanding that other ancient points of view.

2. Elementary particles - there is absolutely nothing about these in the Bible. Hebrews 11 is about faith - the verse you claim is about elementary particles is about God creating something where the was nothing before.

3. Blood - The importance of blood to life is a no brainer - its there when we are born and if we lose enough of it we die. You can't seriously imagine that ancient humans had not spotted this for themselves without a divine tip off.

4. Atmospheric circulation - this is just an observation that the wind seems to change - there is no mention of the ocean, the sun or the rotation the earth making any contribution to this. To suggest that this cursory observation is even close to being equivalent to Ferrel's contribution to our still evolving understanding of atmospheric circulation is quite silly to be honest.

5. Gravitational fields - again this verse says nothing about gravity - it is a puzzling verse though, but other verses suggest that the earth stood on 'foundations' or 'sockets' (Job 38:4, 6; Psalm 104:4)

 

[blü 2]

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

Nope. That means the disk of the earth. The bible thinks the earth is flat (sometimes like a table, sometimes like a plate), it's the center of the universe and rigidly fixed in place, the sun moon and stars go round it, the sky (firmament) is solid and the heavenly bodies are affixed to it so that if you unfix them they'll fall to earth ─ and so on.

I set out thirty of the bible quotes to this effect >here<. Nowhere does the bible say the earth is a sphere, nowhere is there a hint that the earth orbits the sun.

ELEMENTAL PARTICLES
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3 - written about 65 AD ... the elemental particles were not discovered until the 19th century (1800s) - this biblical declaration was made about 1700 years before it was realized.)

You joke, surely? Why on earth would you think Paul had a clue about modern atomic physics? This is about invisibility, 'unseen things' for which the breath, and the wind, are usual metaphors. It's about unseen spirits, not about the Standard Model.

"God spoke" is how the Bible describes the universe coming into existence, a simple explanation to humans how Almighty God creates - He speaks, it is so.

Altering reality just by wishing is called magic, not physics. The creation of the electromagnetic spectrum by saying

Let there be light!​

is a perfect example of magic words in action. It overlooks the fact that matter, already mentioned, could not exist if the EM spectrum hadn't pre-existed. Your story would be more credible if God had said,

'Having earlier created the EM spectrum omitting that part of it which will be visible to animals when I create them later this week, I now fix that omission: let light of wavelengths 380 to 710 nm be!'​

IMPORTANCE OF BLOOD IN LIFE PROCESSES
(Leviticus 17:13-14)“who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood.”

The idea that blood is directly connected to life is as old as killing animals for food, or as human combat, or as the observation that the dead don't bleed. I find nothing remarkable in your quote, not the slightest hint of an understanding of modern medicine.

ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION
(Ecclesiastes 1:6)“The wind goes toward the south,And turns around to the north;The wind whirls about continually,And comes again on its circuit.”

There's no general north-south circulation of air on earth. The tradewinds, for example, are overwhelming west to east. And your author is thinking of a flat earth, so either the winds blow off into the void or they turn back; and it looks to him like they turn back.

GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
(Job 26:7)“He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Re-read the list of quotes on Bronze Age cosmology linked at the start of this post. This is the idea of the earth as the fixed center of the universe, and our author has preferred to replace the pillars with God's magic; but perhaps we should give him credit for at least addressing the 'turtles all the way down' problem.


We have no reason to think that the ancients knew modern science and very sound reasons for thinking they did not. The claim usually arises in the context of an 'inerrant bible', but that carries its own trap: if the bible is accurately affirming science as it's understood in 2018, then the bible was wrong about science in 1000, 1600, 1700, 1800 and 1900, and will be wrong again in 2100, 2200, 2300 &c.