Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Reasoning]

So IOW, you're impressed, as long as it isn't true?

So it wasn't clear indeed. I mean, not impressed as a source to explain literal truth. I can like the writing and the story, but I also like Harry Potter's writing and story. Harry Potter proves that there are wizards in the same way as the Bible proves there is a God. But the story can still be nice though..

 

[JackRT]

The word should perhaps be translated calamity. In the NIV the verse is translated: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that Satan IS NOT the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney. There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. I think that this misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: " 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil. The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up this concept during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:7 is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Exilic Jews found the concept of a near-Supreme Being of Evil interesting. They borrowed it because it got God off the hook for the suffering in the world, providing him with a scapegoat. God was now all-good! Satan was made into the Devil as a result of this alien dualism, since his function as a prosecutor was so unwelcome to the Jews. The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It was the second-century Christian martyr, Justin of Samaria, who was first to argue that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Then don't take literature in college.

You'll find all sorts of atheists there highly-impressed with the King James Bible.

My son took a college level literature class. The book was on it's 26th edition. Why does literature need updated and new editions?

 

[The Cadet]

My son took a college level literature class. The book was on it's 26th edition. Why does literature need updated and new editions?

Wait, I'm sorry, I thought you said you knew something about science?

 

[dad]

OK
--- ability of the earth to retain its atmosphere

Not bad. However would a little more or less gravity change it all that much?

--- the formation of the moon

Forget that fable, the moon was not formed as science has falsely forecast at all. There is zero evidence for that.

Kids, you may safely dismiss that foolish fable as a total lie.

--- distance of the earth and sun

Is there some reason it had to be the same distance pre flood? I mean, for all we know, nature changed, and God arranged it to be somewhat closer or further?

--- the habitability of the earth

?? Not sure how some different laws that affected gravity would have ended life on earth? Now I could see a dino footprint maybe leaving a little less deep print than it might now in this gravity or whatever...but we don't know.

 

[dad]

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that Satan IS NOT the Devil!..

Gong!


Re 20:2 - And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 

[The Cadet]

Forget that fable, the moon was not formed as science has falsely forecast at all. There is zero evidence for that.

Kids, you may safely dismiss that foolish fable as a total lie.

I love how you provide extensive research showing support for your bizarre position.

 

[JackRT]

Gravitational attraction is a basic property of matter. If the earth's gravity were less, so would all gravity be less. This would cause the earth to orbit further from sun and be a much colder place, like Mars. It would also reduce the ability of the earth to retain its atmosphere, like Mars. Thanks to recent space probes we now know that Mars could have supported life the past but being colder and losing its atmosphere made it into the planet we know today. Stick to your magic "what ifs". I'll stick to the evidence.

 

[dad]

I love how you provide extensive research showing support for your bizarre position.

One need only look at the absolute lack of support for the so called science lunacy about where the moon came from.

 

[The Cadet]

One need only look at the absolute lack of support for the so called science lunacy about where the moon came from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

Yep, nothing there.

 

[dad]

Gravitational attraction is a basic property of matter. If the earth's gravity were less, so would all gravity be less. This would cause the earth to orbit further from sun and be a much colder place, like Mars.

That is present state based extrapolating. The reality is that whatever laws existed and whatever forces that God had in place may have included more than what we know today, and that means possibly forces that counteracted or somehow balanced gravity. The atomic reality of the sun and heat also could have been different, and so we would not have needed to be exactly as far or close from it as we now are.

I suspect that the planets may be a feature of this state also, because who says they were here pre flood?! Now if the bible said that fine...but what other reason is there to assume they were?

It would also reduce the ability of the earth to retain its atmosphere, like Mars. Thanks to recent space probes we now know that Mars could have supported life the past but being colder and losing its atmosphere made it into the planet we know today.

Water from the earth after the flood may have exited our earth area and ended up smashing into Mars and other places. That means that the remains of water there are not from some former climate! You guys are steeped in deep deep beliefs with no merit or redeeming feature.

 

[dad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

Yep, nothing there.

Exactly! Some imaginary planet smashed us and vanished and kicked up some moon forming dust and blah blah insane blah.

 

[The Cadet]

Exactly! Some imaginary planet smashed us and vanished and kicked up some moon forming dust and blah blah insane blah.

Hey, if you can't read, it's not my problem. Probably should stop responding, tbh.

 

[JackRT]

That is present state based extrapolating.

And what are you doing but extrapolating based on no evidence whatsoever?

 

[dad]

Hey, if you can't read, it's not my problem. Probably should stop responding, tbh.

I can read and the article has zero support for the moon fable of science. If you claim it does quote it.

 

[dad]

And what are you doing but extrapolating based on no evidence whatsoever?

Doesn't matter. Long as we see science is pegged to the present state in all ways and in all prophesies and in all utterances of what the past was like...they lose.

 

[JackRT]

Doesn't matter. Long as we see science is pegged to the present state in all ways and in all prophesies and in all utterances of what the past was like...they lose.

Yes, science is pegged to the present state because that is the only evidence we have to work with. If past state or future state was or will be any different then you are entering the realm of fantasy and magic.

 

[joshua 1 9]

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that Satan IS NOT the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney. There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. I think that this misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: " 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil. The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up this concept during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:7 is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Exilic Jews found the concept of a near-Supreme Being of Evil interesting. They borrowed it because it got God off the hook for the suffering in the world, providing him with a scapegoat. God was now all-good! Satan was made into the Devil as a result of this alien dualism, since his function as a prosecutor was so unwelcome to the Jews. The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It was the second-century Christian martyr, Justin of Samaria, who was first to argue that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God.

In the beginning when quirks were forming into neutrons, protons and electrons you have positive, negative and neutral. In Eden you have Adam as the positive, Eve as the negative. Then you have a concept of marriage between the two. As the Chinese talk about yin and yang as a form of energy.

So your questioning the teachings of the early church fathers?

 

[dad]

Yes, science is pegged to the present state

Beautiful admission...thanks.

because that is the only evidence we have to work with.

Of course we have just the current nature to work with. That should not encourage you to make things up about the past or future.

If past state or future state was or will be any different then you are entering the realm of fantasy and magic.

Heaven is a magic place. Eden was too. This is news?

 

[JackRT]

Heaven is a magic place. Eden was too. This is news?

You must realize of course that magic is a primitive fiction?