Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[HitchSlap]

Humans did those things.

Yeah, but Bob, er god, created those physics that humans used.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Humans did those things.

Yes, science is neither good or evil. Science is neutral. It is humans that decide if they want to do good or evil and if they want to use their knowledge of Science for good or evil. We can build up or we can tear down. The Bible says that God will: "destroy those who destroy the earth." God will: "destroy those who have corrupted The Earth.” In the same way He will reward those who have been faithful.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Bible says that God will: "destroy those who destroy the earth." God will: "destroy those who have corrupted The Earth.”

You mean Republicans and multi national corporations?

 

[Luke17:37]

Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
  
  
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
  
  
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
  
  
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
  
  
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
  
  
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis.—Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up “the heavens,” was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth’s surface during the first “day,” or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third “day” of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5,12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:16.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again.” However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words “sunrise” and “sunset,” yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (π), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of “the Sea of cast metal” given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that “it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

Joshua, the 6 literal day creation is not a myth.

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Then the rest of Genesis 1 goes on to describe the way He did it in six days. For those

The days are defined very clearly.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Also, God created the heavenly bodies on the fourth day. Notice how He discusses seasons and years:

Genesis 1:14-15
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

If the fourth day was an indeterminately long age, what does God mean by seasons and years? Also, since the day is defined as dark and light (just like an ordinary day), how could the plants created on day three survive the great period of darkness?

There's no Scriptural basis for taking the days of Genesis 1 any way other than literal days. The Bible just doesn't allow it, no matter what "modern" people like to say.

Also, God declared His creation very good. There was no death. People and animals were vegetarians.

In Genesis 2:17, God told Adam that if he chose to eat the fruit, he would "surely die." Adam died spiritually the moment he ate. Adam also died physically, but not immediately. An animal died, though--God shed its blood shed so He could make clothes out of its skin to cover Adam's nakedness/shame. The principle of death being the punishment for sin has never changed (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22), and it is the reason Jesus Christ shed His blood, dying on our behalf to pay for the penalty for our sins. Also, death was a cancer to the creation. Besides affecting Adam's race, animals (sometime after the flood) stopped being vegetarian, the ground grew thorns, etc. The whole creation groans waiting for its redemption in Christ (Romans 8:19-22). When He reigns on the earth, He will undo these things (Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 65, Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 47, etc.). The animals who now live in fear of being hunted will graze together and be vegetarians again.

Now think about it, if the removal of the curse will bring peace between animals and also man, then doesn't it follow (consistently) that death was never a part of God's perfect creation (although He knew it would occur)? Now, the only reason to accept long ages is to go along with conventional wisdom: evolution over millions of years. But death is the center of evolutionary biology - survival of the fittest. Millions of years of death and struggle, they preach, resulted in the world we see today. Some naturalists will overlook Christians who say, "God used evolution," but the truth is, they know (better than those Christians) that the worldviews are incompatible. God did not call a world created by death "good," and then turn around and blame Adam for what He already used. God is big enough to create things good the first time, and He didn't need millions of years. (The godless rely on millions of years, because it's the only way they can convince themselves it's possible that He doesn't exist.) If death came before sin, God is a liar and our faith is worthless.

Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar... (Romans 3:4b)

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, science is neither good or evil. Science is neutral. It is humans that decide if they want to do good or evil and if they want to use their knowledge of Science for good or evil. We can build up or we can tear down. The Bible says that God will: "destroy those who destroy the earth." God will: "destroy those who have corrupted The Earth.” In the same way He will reward those who have been faithful.

And this relates to the topic how?

 

[Luke17:37]

(Quotes from "dad" inside Michael's post don't appear, but basically Michael is arguing he is not alone--that most Christians don't believe Genesis is literal history)

Well, not *just* me. It's the consensus among *most* Christians.



Even if we both assume that he did, that still doesn't tell us *when* that might have occurred, and you're still in the minority viewpoint in terms of your "interpretation" of Genesis, even among "Christians" worldwide.



So says you.



Do you think that Catholics disagree with you on that topic?



None of that is necessary of course, in fact it's a red herring. Catholics do not toss out the book of John, Paul, Genesis or Moses, and they have no problem reconciling their faith in Christ with "science". Your argument is a pure red herring. Essentially you're attempting to dress up your position in the guise of "Christianity", but most "Christians" reject your ideas.

I guess "most Christians" today are the scoffers Peter prophesied about by the Holy Spirit:

2 Peter 3:3-9
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget [refuse to believe]: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water [God's creation from nothing starting with water, Genesis 1:2], 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. [The worldwide flood, Genesis 7:18-23] 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Many will fall away in the last days (Jesus says it four times in Matthew 24, and the great apostasy is also prophecied clearly in 2 Thessalonians 2). Don't be one. Notice that rejecting the clear teaching of God's creation and the worldwide flood provides a nice foundation for rejecting the similarly clear teaching of a literal, bodily return of Christ.

Believe the Word of God. He is worthy.

Revelation 4:11
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”

P.S. Notice that the scoffers of verses 3-6 will take verse 8 out of context in order to try to argue against the clear meaning of Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did someone say signs??

Rookies.

Try this one:

 

[dad]

I do not know if there is any truth there at all.

Exactly, there is so much bull, the whole thing is tossed out of court on it's ears!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Joshua, the 6 literal day creation is not a myth.

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Then the rest of Genesis 1 goes on to describe the way He did it in six days. For those

The days are defined very clearly.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Also, God created the heavenly bodies on the fourth day. Notice how He discusses seasons and years:

Genesis 1:14-15
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

If the fourth day was an indeterminately long age, what does God mean by seasons and years? Also, since the day is defined as dark and light (just like an ordinary day), how could the plants created on day three survive the great period of darkness?

There's no Scriptural basis for taking the days of Genesis 1 any way other than literal days. The Bible just doesn't allow it, no matter what "modern" people like to say.

Also, God declared His creation very good. There was no death. People and animals were vegetarians.

In Genesis 2:17, God told Adam that if he chose to eat the fruit, he would "surely die." Adam died spiritually the moment he ate. Adam also died physically, but not immediately. An animal died, though--God shed its blood shed so He could make clothes out of its skin to cover Adam's nakedness/shame. The principle of death being the punishment for sin has never changed (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22), and it is the reason Jesus Christ shed His blood, dying on our behalf to pay for the penalty for our sins. Also, death was a cancer to the creation. Besides affecting Adam's race, animals (sometime after the flood) stopped being vegetarian, the ground grew thorns, etc. The whole creation groans waiting for its redemption in Christ (Romans 8:19-22). When He reigns on the earth, He will undo these things (Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 65, Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 47, etc.). The animals who now live in fear of being hunted will graze together and be vegetarians again.

Now think about it, if the removal of the curse will bring peace between animals and also man, then doesn't it follow (consistently) that death was never a part of God's perfect creation (although He knew it would occur)? Now, the only reason to accept long ages is to go along with conventional wisdom: evolution over millions of years. But death is the center of evolutionary biology - survival of the fittest. Millions of years of death and struggle, they preach, resulted in the world we see today. Some naturalists will overlook Christians who say, "God used evolution," but the truth is, they know (better than those Christians) that the worldviews are incompatible. God did not call a world created by death "good," and then turn around and blame Adam for what He already used. God is big enough to create things good the first time, and He didn't need millions of years. (The godless rely on millions of years, because it's the only way they can convince themselves it's possible that He doesn't exist.) If death came before sin, God is a liar and our faith is worthless.

Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar... (Romans 3:4b)

You are using quotes from the Bible to support myths from the Bible. That is circular reasoning and does not support your case. If you want to claim that the Earth was made in seven days you need to find outside evidence that that happened. But as you seem to know all of the evidence out there tells us that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

Also pointing out that the Bible is wrong here and there does not make God a liar. It simply means that the Bible is wrong.

 

[Michael]

P.S. Notice that the scoffers of verses 3-6 will take verse 8 out of context in order to try to argue against the clear meaning of Genesis 1.

I think the only thing that any Christians "scoff" at is the goofy notion that we should limit ourselves *exclusively* to the book of Genesis when attempting to understand the universe that we live in, and bury one's head in the sand with respect to other scientific fields of study.

It's fine to have faith that God created the heavens and the Earth, but that still doesn't tell us *when* that occurred. Most Christians look to other fields of study to figure out the when part, and to understand how nature works.

The problem with excluding every external reference point in the universe when looking to questions about our origin is that it requires one to "assume" that they, and they alone have power to "properly subjectively interpret" a couple of a passages from a single book, and they get themselves stuck in a circular feedback loop without a way out of it.

The Holy Spirit has never spoken to me and claimed "Hey Michael, the Earth is only 6K years old and you're personally required to interpret every word of Genesis literally, or else!". Give me a break.

 

[Michael]

You are using quotes from the Bible to support myths from the Bible. That is circular reasoning and does not support your case. If you want to claim that the Earth was made in seven days you need to find outside evidence that that happened. But as you seem to know all of the evidence out there tells us that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

Also pointing out that the Bible is wrong here and there does not make God a liar. It simply means that the Bible is wrong.

Actually Catholics tend to reconcile their interpretation of the Bible with an ancient Earth and evolutionary theory, so it really only means that a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

 

[Michael]

/thread

Ya, I think Leslie's post was the most accurate post in the whole thread too.

 

[seashale76]

Hi there lesliedellow,

Two points:

Militant atheists? Because they speak out? Is that militancy?

No, atheists ('militant' or otherwise) as far as I know, do not agree that the Bible is a science text book! Unless perhaps some atheists might regard it s an extremely primitive and erroneous form of science, like alchemy for example.

Cheers old chap...

I think you're missing the point being made in order to quibble over wording. 'Militant' seems to be a word that is contentious. I think the sort of atheist that poster was talking about tends to have some interesting notions about Christianity. As an example, they tend to be firm adherents of Sola Scriptura, and cling to it doggedly, which is odd for an atheist to do. They also tend to ignore and seem to have never read any of the New Testament, especially the parts that tell Christians they aren't to follow the 613 laws of the Old Testament, and what to do instead. So, for that sort of atheist to also cling to an idea that the bible was meant to be a science text and interpreted with that in mind, is also odd, but not out of character. It reflects the exact type of Christianity they are either most familiar with, were influenced by, and perhaps once were part of (in which case- I don't blame them for rejecting it- but it still doesn't excuse insisting Christianity is only encompassed by their very narrow interpretations of what they think it is).

 

[dad]

I see only you and one other making claim for a different state past and you two disagree with each other wildly. You need to do better than that.

I don't think you can count avi. There is no real similarity with anything I have seen from him yet, with a different set of forces and laws in the days of Peleg. You can ask him, but I think he accepts difference mainly in the pre fall world, and that is combined with some embedded age, which I don't really understand. Where we agee is that Jesus is creator no matter who is wrong or right.

 

[dad]

Humans did those things.

Science is something that involves humans.

 

[Hoghead1]

There is some controversy over how to interpret "day" in Gen. 1. I favor a 24-hour period. I think the account was written to help phase out polytheism in ancient Israel. In various polytheistic systems, each day of the week celebrated a a different God. Hence, to insist on monotheism, Gen. 1 has one G0d creating thoroughout the week.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you can count avi. There is no real similarity with anything I have seen from him yet, with a different set of forces and laws in the days of Peleg. You can ask him, but I think he accepts difference mainly in the pre fall world, and that is combined with some embedded age, which I don't really understand. Where we agee is that Jesus is creator no matter who is wrong or right.

I am not taking about AVI, though he has his own beliefs. I am talking about the member that thinks this is the second Earth and that the first one was flat and destroyed in the flood. Sorry, but his name eludes me right now.

 

[dad]

I am not taking about AVI, though he has his own beliefs. I am talking about the member that thinks this is the second Earth and that the first one was flat and destroyed in the flood. Sorry, but his name eludes me right now.

That was not different laws here, that was a magic submarine traversing through planets, bobbing up from under lakes...etc. No relation to bible at all, except superficial.

 

[dad]

There is some controversy over how to interpret "day" in Gen. 1. I favor a 24-hour period. I think the account was written to help phase out polytheism in ancient Israel. In various polytheistic systems, each day of the week celebrated a a different God. Hence, to insist on monotheism, Gen. 1 has one G0d creating thoroughout the week.

So rather than God honestly saying how He created, the scripture was psychological warfare on Israel?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was not different laws here, that was a magic submarine traversing through planets, bobbing up from under lakes...etc. No relation to bible at all, except superficial.

Right, exactly the same as your beliefs. I am so glad that we can agree on something.