Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

We wait for this to be posted...and we wait..and wait...

You need to pay attention. Your ignorance is so low it requires no science for corrections. But on the speed of light thread that you just posted on I refuted Justa's ignorance by quoting a link that he supplied himself.

As usual, dad loses again. GONG!

 

[Jadis40]

What I see you doing here is blaming the Hebrews on something science is feeding you.

How did "windows of heaven" suddenly become "floodgates"?

And where did you read/hear about the "underside of a solid dome"?

By simply looking at the picture I posted in my first post in this thread. Unless you're denying that all sorts of ANE cultures held the belief that the sky was a solid dome, there were windows in it, and rain fell through those.

As far as the sun and moon and stars? Well, if they thought that the sky was a solid dome, then it's easy to see why they thought those celestial objects were if not hanging from the solid dome, than they at least had to be under it at least.

I suspect you're getting your theology from the Internet and choosing to believe it.That's nice.

I happen to know that too.

But does the same source of that knowledge also tell you about horses and chariots of fire?

Horses and chariots of fire are not at all relevant to the discussion.

If not, how is it these Hebrews know more about cosmology than science will ever ascertain in its myopic state?

That's my point. The Hebrews, when it's all said and done, did not know more than we do now in the 21st century.

 

[dad]

(In reference to the Hebrews thinking the earth was flat...yes they did.

No they didn't. That was easy!

They also had a cosmology of the earth and heavens that is completely and utterly wrong

No...yours is!So there. I mean that.

, in comparison to what has been observed through scientific study:

False. Any more old wives tales?

 

[dad]

You need to pay attention. Your ignorance is so low it requires no science for corrections. But on the speed of light thread that you just posted on I refuted Justa's ignorance by quoting a link that he supplied himself.

As usual, dad loses again. GONG!

Who cares about Justa or what he said? I addressed what I addressed, and it rocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who cares about Justa or what he said? I addressed what I addressed, and it rocks.

No, nothing that you ever say "rocks". We all know where you keep your rocks, but then you would not be "dad" if that were not the case.

Post something that needs more than a brush off and I will support my claims. So far all that you have been able to do is to make your ignorance of both the Bible and science appallingly apparent.

 

[dad]

No....

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

More dishonesty from dad. Why do I even try. It is rather amazing that I as an atheist seem to be a better "Christian" than he will ever be.

 

[Jadis40]

No they didn't. That was easy!
No...yours is!So there. I mean that.

False. Any more old wives tales?

...

More dishonesty from dad. Why do I even try. It is rather amazing that I as an atheist seem to be a better "Christian" than he will ever be.

Well, he has an extremely unorthodox view of things. He holds a belief that things were different "way back when", but I don't recall ever seeing anything where he's gone into depth on how or why. He's good for the occasional laugh though.

I do like this quote by St. Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

 

[dad]

... I as an atheist seem to be a better "Christian" than he will ever be.

Give yourself a pat on the back then I guess.

 

[dad]

Well, he has an extremely unorthodox view of things. He holds a belief that things were different "way back when", but I don't recall ever seeing anything where he's gone into depth on how or way. He's good for the occasional laugh though.

In the days of Peleg after the flood was when I posit the change occurred. The lifespans level off at this exact time also. No one after the days of Peleg lived more or much more than Peleg!

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

I do like this quote by St. Augustine:

Augustine talked nonsense on the topic of science and Scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give yourself a pat on the back then I guess.

I am not the only one.

What I would like to know is why are you so afraid of reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

...



Well, he has an extremely unorthodox view of things. He holds a belief that things were different "way back when", but I don't recall ever seeing anything where he's gone into depth on how or why. He's good for the occasional laugh though.

I do like this quote by St. Augustine:

I am sure that dad would point out that St. Augustine was a Catholic. For some Christians it seems that being Catholic is worse than being an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

By simply looking at the picture I posted in my first post in this thread.

I have no idea where your first post in this thread is; and I hope you'll excuse me for not wanting to hunt and peck for it.

Needless to say, if you're getting Hebrew theology from pictures, perhaps you're endorsing the wrong photographer?

 

[joshua 1 9]

How did "windows of heaven" suddenly become "floodgates"?

That is the NIV I am sure for you this passage alone is enough to support KJV only.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Gen 7:11 NIV

King James Bible
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Gen7:11

fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the NIV I am sure for you this passage alone is enough to support KJV only.

Ah!

I shoulda guessed!

Thanks for the info!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Thank you for your reply josh 1 9, I appreciate what you're saying, but by saying that "God is not corruptible" you still have the problem (from my point of view) that your source of reference is still a text (i.e. C. Bible), the origins of which can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible of ca. 500 B.C., which in turn, was a collection of thoughts, ideas about gods, traditions and beliefs that reach back even further. On that basis, the Bible always appeals to me as an unreliable source of information, because so much of it was steeped in ignorance (comparatively speaking) myths, ancient traditions and fear. It became to be considered "the word of God" only at a much later time. I could be wrong (it has been known!) but what always strikes me as 'odd' is that people with a religious faith almost never investigate the origins and evolution of their own religion. The difference than between you and I, or atheists and theists, is that atheists are not satisfied just stopping their investigation at the point where the Bible takes off. They (atheists) tend to question the authenticity and authority of the Scriptures themselves. What are your thoughts?

The Bible goes back to the beginning of recorded history. Moses was a very well educated Egyptian and Abraham was a very well educated Chaldean. The Chaldeans later on became Babylon in what is now modern day Iraq. Their teaching in part came from Sumeria even though the name Bible came from Byblos an ancient city in Lebanon. There is actually a HUGE amount of clay tablets that have never been translated. So there is a lot of work left to do in this area.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Biology book and how it is jam packed and filled to over flowing with evidence that the Bible is true. But I have to warn you that God will hold you accountable for what you know.

if one is being asked for specifics, it's probably not a good idea to go vague at that point. It looks bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible goes back to the beginning of recorded history. Moses was a very well educated Egyptian and Abraham was a very well educated Chaldean. The Chaldeans later on became Babylon in what is now modern day Iraq. Their teaching in part came from Sumeria even though the name Bible came from Byblos an ancient city in Lebanon. There is actually a HUGE amount of clay tablets that have never been translated. So there is a lot of work left to do in this area.

But Moses never existed. He is a folk tale figure. The fact that there are untranslated tablets does not support your claim any more than they would support the claim of someone with a totally different religion. Archaeologists have given up on looking for evidence for the Exodus. The area has been thoroughly scoured and none has been found. The claim that upwards of two million people left Egypt. That would have left evidence. There is none:

"
Archaeology
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[30] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[6] A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.[31] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[32]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Archaeology

Now there is a possibility that a much smaller group of people left Egypt, but there is no reason to believe the fables of Exodus. This article goes into a little detail on possible explanations. There may have been a nugget of truth to the story:

http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html

 

[The Barbarian]

You see. When the evolutionist demands evidence they don't want you to quote scripture but Talkorigins, the evolution bible.

I'd prefer it direct from the source in scientific literature.

(I used to quote Talkorigins here years ago thinking this was what the scientist believed but I was told it was badly overrated and don't rely on it.)

Problem is, it doesn't always revise articles to keep up with new findings. But it is pretty good as a source to locate actual research.

But as you recently learned, scripture is not scientific evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd prefer it direct from the source in scientific literature.



Problem is, it doesn't always revise articles to keep up with new findings. But it is pretty good as a source to locate actual research.

But as you recently learned, scripture is not scientific evidence.

Talkorigins does have the advantage of usually linking to the peer reviewed scientific articles that they base their arguments on. I have noticed that creationist sited when they refer to a peer reviewed article almost never have a link to the article itself. But if they cite a creationist source they almost always link it. Can you say "hypocrisy"?