• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science and the Bible

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
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

I love how loosely the word science is used.

The word means knowledge.

It's not some fancy new thing. It's always changing. You can be unimpressed with the references that's okay I definitely have learned when to not keep trying. (Regarding pretty much everyone else thus far)

The Bible is ancient and basically unchanging (don't start with translation debates - there are some variations but they are easily identified and understood) and even though the oldest books are thousands of years old - whether you approve the wording or not - there are people who see what the book is trying to convey.

But seriously y'all - I wouldn't have believed it either. I didn't. And no one was going to convince me. And no "one" did.
 

Ishmael

Member
True religion is defined by James as, "Visiting widows & orphans in their affliction." So, for anyone who has lost their spouse or parents, you have my sincerest condolences.

LOVE this discussion! Great points for those whom actually had points and also points to those who tried to have a point but came up a bit dull.

BTW, The earth is flat. Deal with it. Google Jeranism and "Fake Moon Landings" etc. The proof is in the pudding.

Because I have recently rejected the "mark of the beast" I won't go into how the Chinese Zodiac perfectly described my personality as a "Water Tiger" but I will say that MANY years ago I read a very interesting series of books which showed how the Quran creation story was scientifically accurate.

Does it matter? Not to anyone but Apollyon the Destroyer I dare declare.

Doesn't faith come from hearing and hearing from the "Word of God?"

Aren't the Children (Seed) of Abraham called to bless this earth?

If you would be counted as one of their number then I recommend you show some LOVE for the sweet soul who went to such peculiar pains to show that the Bible may just have some scientific specifics in it after all. Imagine that.

And in this attitude of love, I invite all those who hunger and thirst after righteousness to read "Daniel & The Revelation" by Uriah Smith available as a FREE PDF on-line.

May the Spirit of Truth lead you all into understanding.

Peace be with you, even unto the end.
 

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
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.

However - flat earth? I've seen a lot of people subscribe to this recently. However our ability to view the sloping plane with our own two eyes, the flight patterns/analysis of pilots... lead me to believe otherwise. I'm not a big believer in the moon landing however I do know we have satellites that are photographing things. Why would "they" lie about that? What is to gain?

Can I ask what mark you turned down recently?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.

However - flat earth? I've seen a lot of people subscribe to this recently. However our ability to view the sloping plane with our own two eyes, the flight patterns/analysis of pilots... lead me to believe otherwise. I'm not a big believer in the moon landing however I do know we have satellites that are photographing things. Why would "they" lie about that? What is to gain?

Can I ask what mark you turned down recently?
Why reject the lunar landings? Or course a Flat Earth belief is only a small step away from creationism. They are both irrational beliefs where one must reject all sciences.
 

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
Why reject the lunar landings? Or course a Flat Earth belief is only a small step away from creationism. They are both irrational beliefs where one must reject all sciences.

The video is simply questionable. I have seen crosshairs in photos from it placed behind objects - can't remember what. NASA has also reportedly just, lost all that video / documentation etc.

I would like to think we did however it seems like it was a pissing contest with the Russians. I don't know.
 

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
I definitely don't hold onto that moon view very tightly. But it's something to think about.

It's really sad you truly believe all sciences must be rejected when you believe the Bible. I certainly don't. And I actually have a love of science and will study things in depth now whereas before my rebirth I could not have cared less about any of it. Spiritual, science, nada.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The video is simply questionable. I have seen crosshairs in photos from it placed behind objects - can't remember what. NASA has also reportedly just, lost all that video / documentation etc.

I would like to think we did however it seems like it was a pissing contest with the Russians. I don't know.
We went there. Those that deny it tend to be scientifically illiterate. The following is a very useful site. It refutes almost every claim of the conspiracy theory nut's:

Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I definitely don't hold onto that moon view very tightly. But it's something to think about.

It's really sad you truly believe all sciences must be rejected when you believe the Bible. I certainly don't. And I actually have a love of science and will study things in depth now whereas before my rebirth I could not have cared less about any of it. Spiritual, science, nada.
And yes, to believe the myths of Genesis one needs to reject all of the sciences.
 

Ishmael

Member
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now, since we lean unto our own understandings MUCH more than seems wise, let us delve into the most significant scientific proofs that FAITH (Conscious Belief) is at work in EVERY portion of our illusive reality and there MUST be a Great Watcher (And An Innumerable Heavenly Host) keeping that which He created EVER in view:

The Illusion of Matter: Our Physical Material World Isn’t Really Physical At All

Job 7:20 If I have sinned, what have I done to You, O Watcher of mankind? Why have You made me Your target, so that I am a burden to You?

Daniel 4:13 As I lay on my bed, I also saw in the visions of my mind a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven.

Daniel 4:23 And you, O king, saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, 'Cut down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump with its roots in the ground, with a band of iron and bronze around it, in the tender grass of the field. Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and graze with the beasts of the field till seven times pass him by.'

And if the following ancient text has ANY basis in fact, then we may all look forward to the judgements therein pronounced to soon be realized:

http://scriptural-truth.com/images/BookOfEnoch.pdf

For proofs that FAITH or Conscious BELIEF in something CAN and does change reality, we can look here:

Bible Search: Your faith has made you whole

And again here:

Bible Search: IF you have faith the size

And ask yourself, IF you are the ONLY being creating your reality then when you walk into your home and are inside your walls, since everything outside NOT being watched would become a wave of endless possibilities because you are not observing it anymore, are you the ONLY one creating your reality? We may find that this is NOT the case if we call our neighbor who is still outside on his cell phone and asked him to describe what HIS reality is and what he sees outside your home, it would most assuredly be what he and the Great Watcher believes it to be. So the JOY you may find from knowing that FACT is that "We are NOT alone!"

Nuff said?

Peace be unto us all, even unto the end.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
'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.)

----

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE
(Ecclesiastes 1:7)“All the rivers run into the sea,Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.”

(Job 36:27-29)"For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy?"
Discovery Claim: 16TH Century (1501 to 1600)

This verse was written: (Ecc) between the years 971 and 931 B.C. (Job) between 1900 and 1700 B.C. --- both thousands of years prior to our understanding of this process.


----


ELEMENTAL PARTICLES
Everything we see, is made up of things we can not see (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.)

"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. Energy was produced from the "sound" of God's "voice", we know sound creates waves (sound waves, hence sound particles) eventually these sound waves become light, on terms of a scale (below) interestingly enough the first WORDS God spoke were indeed, "Let there be LIGHT" ... both light and sound need time and distance to travel, in the first lines of Genesis, we can see the basic math of the physical universe come into existence. Any other theory would simply imply that something came from nothing, which is a scientific impossibility...without God. And His Word.


electromagnetic_spectrum.jpg



----

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.”



Discovery Claim: Late 19th century is when I have found more information was obtained as far as disease processes and the importance of blood, because: Until the late 19th century (1850-1900) bloodletting was a common practice in the medical field, intended to cure ailments of many kinds. In the majority of cases, the use of bloodletting was harmful to patients. Had they known "blood sustains life" as the Bible says (thousands of years before the practice of bloodletting was ceased) maybe some people might not have died from bloodletting - like our first president, George Washington.

This verse was written: between 1440 and 1400 B.C. --- over 3,000 years before we "knew" it.

----
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.”




Discovery Claim: meteorologist William Ferrell discovered them in 1856.

This verse was written: between the years 971 and 931 B.C. --- nearly 3,000 years before Mr. Ferrell's uncovering of the wind patterns.


----


GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
(Job 26:7)“He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.”
Discovery Claim: Sir Isaac Newton, in 1650
This verse was written: between 1900 to 1700 B.C. (many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Bible) so this was about 3500-4000 years prior to Sir Newton's apple.
For those who question why this verse represents the gravitational field, think about it - prior to the discovery of the gravitational field, theories formulated in regards to what held the earth up were not as definite as the Bible's explanation: "He hangs the earth on nothing" (which, obviously, is true - the earth IS on nothing) and Job was written thousands of years before this discovery.



Other theories include: Atlas - the Greeks believed the earth was held up by Atlas,

he held the earth on his shoulders. Hindu scriptures say a few different things


but here is a quick summary of their beliefs regarding what 'held the earth up':



"Arya (Indo-Aryan) texts repeatedly affirm that the Earth is supported by a serpent. The earths are seven in number, like 7 covers one above the other, the upper one is divided into 7 regions [ al-B. i.228 ]. There exists a serpent, Seshakhya, under the 7th lowest Earth, it has 1000 heads, so it feels no pain and bears the earths one above the other [ al-B. i.237 ]. Other texts say that the Earth is supported on a giant tortoise. Still others hold that this tortoise is in turn on top of a giant snake [ Kovoor 158 ]. Some other texts claim the Earth is held by 4 pillars, held by an elephant seated on a big tortoise [ Panda 69 ]. According to Balabhadra, the earth is in the midst of water, the lower part is immersed in water and the part above the water is round like the back of a tortoise [ al-B i.273 ]." (source:Create Websites with our Website Builder - Yahoo Small Business) ____________________________________________________________________

As we can see, the Bible had all these facts straight long before anything or anyone else ;)
This is a pointless exercise. The bible is not a science book. It is a work of literature, full of allegory and metaphor. The value of Its messages to humanity does not depend in the least on it describing nature accurately, which of course it does not do.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I love how loosely the word science is used.

The word means knowledge.

It's not some fancy new thing. It's always changing. You can be unimpressed with the references that's okay I definitely have learned when to not keep trying. (Regarding pretty much everyone else thus far)

The Bible is ancient and basically unchanging (don't start with translation debates - there are some variations but they are easily identified and understood) and even though the oldest books are thousands of years old - whether you approve the wording or not - there are people who see what the book is trying to convey.

But seriously y'all - I wouldn't have believed it either. I didn't. And no one was going to convince me. And no "one" did.
So, in other words one admits that there is nothing as such neither in the Bible nor in the Science, it is one's simple idea.

Right, please?
Regards
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I love how loosely the word science is used.

The word means knowledge.

It's not some fancy new thing. It's always changing. You can be unimpressed with the references that's okay I definitely have learned when to not keep trying. (Regarding pretty much everyone else thus far)

The Bible is ancient and basically unchanging (don't start with translation debates - there are some variations but they are easily identified and understood) and even though the oldest books are thousands of years old - whether you approve the wording or not - there are people who see what the book is trying to convey.

But seriously y'all - I wouldn't have believed it either. I didn't. And no one was going to convince me. And no "one" did.
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.
 

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
To say all these things about the Bible guys you are saying the nation of Israel and their written history is wrong, made up, fantasy.

I disagree. And calling me or anyone who believes the Bible poorly educated is just proof that you can only repeat what you think is right, then attack the intelligence of those who disagree with you. It's probably one of the more disgusting traits I see come out in people when they are behind the allmight my keyboard.

The Bible does contain some metaphors but the Old Testament is largely documented and comfirmed Jewish history. It also contains amazing poetry (based in truth) and yes, these and more facts that are relevant or applicable to life.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
To say all these things about the Bible guys you are saying the nation of Israel and their written history is wrong, made up, fantasy.

I disagree. And calling me or anyone who believes the Bible poorly educated is just proof that you can only repeat what you think is right, then attack the intelligence of those who disagree with you. It's probably one of the more disgusting traits I see come out in people when they are behind the allmight my keyboard.

The Bible does contain some metaphors but the Old Testament is largely documented and comfirmed Jewish history. It also contains amazing poetry (based in truth) and yes, these and more facts that are relevant or applicable to life.
I stand entirely by what I said about the sects I was referring to, which have forgotten or ignored the early insight that the bible is not be taken in all respects literally. They seem to be ignorant about the early church. And if their followers were well-educated, they would have enough basic science to make it obvious to them that a literal interpretation of everything in the bible (the story of Genesis, the sun standing still in Joshua - all these old chestnuts) is the wrong way to go about reading it.

It was not evident to me that you belong to one of these sects. In fact I had thought you took a more nuanced view. But if you choose to identify with them, that is up to you.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What "religion in the Bible" are you referencing?

I'm not saying subscribe to a religion. I don't.

Still I detect a reading comprehension issue here or simply playing duck, bob and weave and blue smoke and mirrors. I never said you were saying anything about subscribing to a religion. The Bible is scripture and considered a document of religions, namely Christianity. The subject you defined is Science and the Bible, which is the same as religion and the Bible.Unless you are making the arrogant view that what you believe is not religion.

Still it would help if you would stick to the topic and consider science as it is clearly defined in the English language.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I love how loosely the word science is used.

The word means knowledge.

Science should not be defined in terms of personal preference, and it is NOT loosely defined nor used

It's not some fancy new thing. It's always changing. You can be unimpressed with the references that's okay I definitely have learned when to not keep trying. (Regarding pretty much everyone else thus far)

Science is clearly defined in the English language. please use it to communicate in the English language. In the contemporary world the meaning of science is not changing.

The Bible is ancient and basically unchanging (don't start with translation debates - there are some variations but they are easily identified and understood) and even though the oldest books are thousands of years old - whether you approve the wording or not - there are people who see what the book is trying to convey.

But seriously y'all - I wouldn't have believed it either. I didn't. And no one was going to convince me. And no "one" did.

Not sure where you are going here with vague platitudes, but please address the subject and the problems with your considering science compatable with the Bible.
 

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
I stand entirely by what I said about the sects I was referring to, which have forgotten or ignored the early insight that the bible is not be taken in all respects literally. They seem to be ignorant about the early church. And if their followers were well-educated, they would have enough basic science to make it obvious to them that a literal interpretation of everything in the bible (the story of Genesis, the sun standing still in Joshua - all these old chestnuts) is the wrong way to go about reading it.

It was not evident to me that you belong to one of these sects. In fact I had thought you took a more nuanced view. But if you choose to identify with them, that is up to you.

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.
 

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
Science should not be defined in terms of personal preference, and it is NOT loosely defined nor used



Science is clearly defined in the English language. please use it to communicate in the English language. In the contemporary world the meaning of science is not changing.



Not sure where you are going here with vague platitudes, but please address the subject and the problems with your considering science compatable with the Bible.

The etymology of the word:
IMG_3451.PNG


English.

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

CLee421

Bible believing-Face painting-Musical Momma
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.
 
Top