Science vs Religion

[Scuba Pete]

1) The lack of any native speakers that tell me otherwise.

2) It is the only way for the Bible to make sense to me

3) From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Dictionary

Strong's Ref. # 3117
Romanized yowm
Pronounced yome
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]:

I eagerly anticipate your scholarly repudiation of these three points.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where is your evidence that the use of day in Genesis is an instance of 'obscure idiom'?

1) The lack of any native speakers that tell me otherwise.
2) It is the only way for the Bible to make sense to me
3) From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Dictionary ...

My goodness. This is almost embarrassing ...

1. NetDoc's evidence #1 for 'obscure idiom' is: The lack of any native speakers that tell me otherwise.
   Rubbish. How did the the translators of the Septuagint translate it? How did the translators of the Targumim translate it? Where is Rashi's commentary warning of an obscure idiom? Furthermore, even in the absence of such translations and commentaries, since when does such an absence constitute evidence?​
2. NetDoc's evidence #2 for 'obscure idiom' is: It is the only way for the Bible to make sense to me
   This is the first time that I've seen need promoted to the level of evidence.​
3. NetDoc's evidence #3 for 'obscure idiom' is: From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Dictionary ...
   Where in the Concordance does it suggest that the term is being used idiomatically?​

In brief: rubbish, wishful thinking, and a breakdown in reading comprehension. All of these may, indeed, cause someone to hold a particular belief, but no one, theist or atheist, should suggest that they constitute evidence for anything other than bias.

 

[Scuba Pete]

In brief: rubbish, wishful thinking, and a breakdown in reading comprehension. All of these may, indeed, cause someone to hold a particular belief, but no one, theist or atheist, should suggest that they constitute evidence for anything other than bias

While we appreciate these astute personal revelations on the way you cogitate and believe that the humility in which you expose your falacious thinking is wonderful; we have to wonder just how this bears on the current subject?

I'm sorry you don't understand the word "idiom" even AFTER you posted the definition. However, that's not my problem and I refuse to rise to your bait on this.

But in light of Strong's definition about the ambiguity of the word, I have yet to see any evidence from YOU to the contrary. Your desire to twist "day" to fit your myopic view of the Bible is well beyond my control and obvious to most who would read this. I bow to your pride and arrogance. Mine is not nearly as well developed as yours.

 

[samgeorge11]

I have to agree with Scitsofreaky... many athiests use science as a club with which to try to bludgeon both God and religion to death. They accept nuances in a dead language as being the factual rendering of that text.

Why don't you get this straight "Why would God want yours(or anyones) scientific observations and facts to contradict with what he says(in his books). Either our observations(even basic facts) are vague or else God doesn't know science??
Better, check out the Gospels in the form which they were revealed(absolutely pure without any human modifications). But sadly, I'm of the strong opinion that they are lost or in a huge way impure. So I say just read the Quran! Cause it hasn't been modified ever since its revealation.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The Bible does not contradict science and visa versa.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The Bible does not contradict science and visa versa.

The sun standing still for a day?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Miracles, by definition are when God suspends the laws of nature for a bit. That's the point of miracles. They do not suggest that the earth does not rotate.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Miracles, by definition are when God suspends the laws of nature for a bit. That's the point of miracles. They do not suggest that the earth does not rotate.

Miracles does not stand in harmony with Science, hence your first statement does not hold.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You can dwell on the semantical meaning of this all night, I'm going to bed. My statement holds just fine for most reasonable people. You can choose to be "not reasonable" if you so desire.

 

[greatcalgarian]

You can dwell on the semantical meaning of this all night, I'm going to bed. My statement holds just fine for most reasonable people. You can choose to be "not reasonable" if you so desire.

Have a sweet dream:jiggy:

 

[meogi]

Miracles, by definition are when God suspends the laws of nature for a bit. That's the point of miracles. They do not suggest that the earth does not rotate.

Wouldn't that have to happen for that to work though? Unless you mean supernatuarlly... either way, both conflict with science. Maybe not conflict, but they definitely are confronted.

My statement holds just fine for most reasonable people.

Facts are not a majority vote.

 

[samgeorge11]

The Bible does not contradict science and visa versa.

Ah Convincing, but not right. Lets see what are the scientific contradictions in Bibble.
1. THE BOOK OF GENESIS SAYS THAT GOD CREATED TWO LIGHTS
- THE LIGHT OF THE SUN AND THE LESSER LIGHT OF THE MOON..(THE HEBREW TEXT CALLS IT AS LAMPS)..WHICH IS WITH CONTRADICTION OF THE PRESENT SCIENTIFIC KNWOLEDGE..AS WE ALL KNOW THAT MOON HAS NO LIGHT OF ITS OWN.
2. ANOTHER CONTRADICTION IN THE BIBLE..IS THE "EITHER THE WORLD WILL PERISH OR NOT"? BOTH CANNOT TAKE PLACE SIMULTANEOUSLY..IT IS ILLOGICAL
3. IN THE BOOK OF JOB, THE BIBBLE SAYS THAT THE PILLARS OF THE HEAVEN WILL TREMBLE...BUT THE HEAVEN IS WITHOUT ANY PILLARS..DON'T U SEE IT. ALSO IT SAYS THAT THE EARTH HAS GOT PILLARS. I DOUBT ANY ASTROLOGIST WILL BELIEVE THAT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.
4. IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS IT IS SAID THAT GOD HAS GIVEN U ALL THE HERB BEARING SEEDS AND FRUIT BEARING TREES AND THESE ARE ALL EDIBLE(ALL LIVING THINGS ON EARTH ARE EDIBLE). BUT TODAY EVEN A LAY MAN KNOWS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL POISONOUS PLANTS SUCH AS WILD BERRIES, PLANTS CONTAINING ALKALOIDS ETC.. WHICH IF CONSUMED CAN PROVE LIFE THREATING. WHY WILL GOD EVER ASK HIS PEOPLE TO CONSUME POISON?
5. GOSPEL OF MARK SAYS THAT A TRULY BELIEVER OF CHRISTIANITY WILL SPEAK FOREIGH TONGUES, CAST OUT DEVILS IN HIS NAME, HE WILL BE UNAFFECTED BY POISON ETC.(TEST FOR TRUE BELIEVERS OR A FALSIFICATION TEST) IN MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE NEVER COME ACROSS SUCH A PERSON..IF ANY1 HAS, DO LET ME KNOW
6. BIBBLE ALSO TALKS ABOUT DISINFECTING A HOUSE FROM THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY. IT SAYS TAKE TWO BIRDS, KILL THEM, TAKE THEIR BLOOD, SPRINKLE THE HOUSE WITH IT. I THINK EVERY1 BY NOW KNOWS THAT BLOOD IS A MEDIUM FOR GROWTH OF DISEASE CAUSING ORGANISMS THEN HOW CAN ONE PREVENT OTHER DISEASES FROM IT??
7. THE BOOK LEVITICUS SAYS THAT AFTER A MOTHER GIVES BIRTH TO A CHILD THE "AFTER BIRTH"(REMAINS OF PREGNANCY) ARE UNHYGIENIC(WHICH IS TRUE)..BUT
a. WHEN SHE GIVES BIRTH TO A MALE CHILD SHE IS UNCLEAN FOR 40 DAYS
b. WHEN SHE GIVES BIRTH TO A FEMALE CHILD SHE IS UNCLEAN FOR 80 DAYS..
I MAY REQUEST ANY DOCTOR TO JUSTIFY THAT?? IT JUST GOES ABOVE MY HEAD.

WELL MORE ERRORS IN NEXT MESSAGE.

I suppose that needs another thought.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can dwell on the semantical meaning of this all night, I'm going to bed. My statement holds just fine for most reasonable people.

And how did you come to make that determination.

In fact, you've successfully eliminated all contradiction between science and religion by the simple expedient of redefining such contradiction as 'miracle' - it is a purely semantic victory and demonstrates little more than an unwillingness to let scientific facts get in the way of revealed dogma.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well Deut...

I'm just glad that I was successful at it!

From www.Dictionary.com...

mir·a·cle (m

r

-k

l)
n.

1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).
2. One that excites admiring awe.
3. A miracle play.

The whole point of miracles is that they are "impossible" and are more than just a slight of hand. Did you ever see Bruce Almighty? His miracles had some dire consequences. However, the inventor of scientific principles knows how to "stop the sun" without any consequences happening. This is done in SPITE of nature and does not try to disprove it.

But then, it wouldn't be "supernatural" if you could explain it in natural terms.

I MAY REQUEST ANY DOCTOR TO JUSTIFY THAT?? IT JUST GOES ABOVE MY HEAD.

Yeah... that's the whole point.
Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. NIV

Meogi...

Frubals on your head: Facts are indeed NOT a majority vote. However, the use (or misuse) of the English language is based on common usage. I would suggest that for most reasonable people (other than Deut and the greatcalgarian) miracles are seen as the supernatural "exception" to the rule and not the rule itself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The sun standing still for a day?

Miracles, by definition are when God suspends the laws of nature for a bit. That's the point of miracles. They do not suggest that the earth does not rotate.

In fact, they suggest nothing rational whatsoever. That is the wondrous utility of miracles in apologetics, and naturalists have no recourse but to marvel at how thoroughly absurd YHWH seems to be: not only does he stop the sun and moon for no apparent purpose other than to appease Joshua, but he makes sure that the world's population remain wholly unaware of such an event. Of course, another explanation for such silliness would be that we're dealing with folklore, and that the author was seeking to harmonize the conquest narrative with some tradition found in the "Scroll of the Upright One". This latter view is less fun, and far less spiritual, but at least it is consonant with the archeological evidence which shows a gradual ethnogenesis rather than a conquest of Canaan.

 

[samgeorge11]

Yeah... that's the whole point.
Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. NIV

Suit yourself, follow blind faith, satisfy your confused mind - if that is so you attain salvation.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well,

I feel far better now that I have your permission! But then, my mind was never confused. You should refrain from ascribing such without much research. Talk about your "blind faith". You have demonstrated nothing but.

Deut,

How do you define "supernatural"?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Meogi...

Frubals on your head: Facts are indeed NOT a majority vote. However, the use (or misuse) of the English language is based on common usage. I would suggest that for most reasonable people (other than Deut and the greatcalgarian) miracles are seen as the supernatural "exception" to the rule and not the rule itself.[/QUOTE]
I am sometimes very confused by what Netdoc is trying to say. Deut and I are the only two not included in "most reasonable people". Does that mean Deut and I are the only two "unreasonable people"?:banghead3

I am not sure when did I take the stand (whether it is agreeing or disagreeing) that: miracles are seen as the supernatural "exception" to the rule and not the rule itself.:bonk:

I think Netdoc need another good night sleep.

 

[scitsofreaky]

I like all the evidence that supports miracles. You know, a guy wrote it down once thousands of years ago, and yet no one else seemed to noticed that the sun stopped moving. Hmm...

 

[meogi]

Frubals on your head: Facts are indeed NOT a majority vote. However, the use (or misuse) of the English language is based on common usage. I would suggest that for most reasonable people (other than Deut and the greatcalgarian) miracles are seen as the supernatural "exception" to the rule and not the rule itself.

What rule is that? And I would hope that most reasonable people would see that miracles don't mix well with fact and science... especially when trying to explain something that is in the realm of fact and science. There are no excepetions with facts.

Of course, all of this is stemming from things 'unexplainable'. I don't see the sun stopping for a day as being a valid 'miracle' though... there's NO evidence for it and all evidence surrounding it suggests otherwise. Things such as 'miracle' health recoveries, however, I would classify as such. The basic difference is you see it as supernatural (unevidenced), while I see it as natural and 'eventually' explainable (once evidenced enough). Trust in the supernatural vs. trust in the physical.

And ultimately, unexplainable things cannot be facts. Until they are explained. At which point, things lose their 'miracle-ness' for those who believed in them in the first place. Although not always...