Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Kylie]

And you have failed to show any ability to perceive an alternate reality that is eternal, although in addition to my witness, there have been countless testimonies to the fact down through all of recorded history. The difference is, by holding to your perception of reality, you have something to loose.

Is that the best you've got?

First of all, you have to demonstrate that there actually IS this alternate, eternal reality to be perceived. If you can't do that, then don't complain about me not perceiving it.

Secondly, if there is an actual REALITY that is, you know, REAL, why are there so many different versions of it? Explain to me why something you claim is an objective truth looks just like a subjective fantasy.

 

[Kylie]

Thanks for the ruling. We all need to check in with you to see what reality is.

lol you don't need me to act as an arbiter of what reality is. Just put it to the test. Get other people to put it to the test. If it withstands those tests, then it's likely to be real.

Also, see what your ideas suggest. Then go and test those suggestions. If what the idea suggests is what you actually find, then it is support for your idea.

It's not that hard to find out what is real and what is not. All you need to do is actually look at reality. But as long as you consider an old book to be more accurate, you're not going to find out what reality actually is.

 

[Smidlee]

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

Recently learned? I learn a long time ago scripture is greater than science. The scriptures deals with the heart of the scientist where all science comes from.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But Moses never existed. He is a folk tale figure.

When you say this then I am simply going to disregard anything else you have to say. This sort of revisionism has no place in the church, this is why we have creeds and even there are standards of belief here on this forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you say this then I am simply going to disregard anything else you have to say. This sort of revisionism has no place in the church, this is why we have creeds and even there are standards of belief here on this forum.

They've got their own genealogies wrong.

Do you think they're going to get the genealogies in 1 Chronicles right?

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[The Barbarian]

Recently learned? I learn a long time ago scripture is greater than science.

Scripture is about man and God and our relationship. Yes, greater. And scripture and science are not contradictory. Only some modern revisions of scripture, like YE creationism, are incompatible with science.

The scriptures deals with the heart of the scientist where all science comes from.

It is disrespectful of God to suggest He is limited, and must infer things He does not know. He is your Creator, not some "scientist."

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say this then I am simply going to disregard anything else you have to say. This sort of revisionism has no place in the church, this is why we have creeds and even there are standards of belief here on this forum.

But it is a simple fact. Why do you object to that statement? I am not saying that Jesus did not exist. What part of any creed says that Moses was real?

 

[joshua 1 9]

But it is a simple fact. Why do you object to that statement? I am not saying that Jesus did not exist. What part of any creed says that Moses was real?

Revisionism does not belong on the science forum. We are here to discuss science and the bible not heresy. The christian creeds establish true Christianity and this forum goes by the creeds. They have an apologetics section now and this sort of revisionism would most likely go there.

 

[joshua 1 9]

They've got their own genealogies wrong.

Do you think they're going to get the genealogies in 1 Chronicles right?

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

There is nothing for them to "get", there objective is to destroy the truth and any evidence they can find. I suppose they earn some sort of points if they accomplish their objective. They are going to reject any scientific evidence that does not support their agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Revisionism does not belong on the science forum. We are here to discuss science and the bible not heresy. The christian creeds establish true Christianity and this forum goes by the creeds. They have an apologetics section now and this sort of revisionism would most likely go there.

It is not revisionism to point out the simple fact that Moses never existed. This part of the forum is dedicated to science and science tells us that there was no Exodus as written in the Bible. No Exodus means no Moses. It is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

[AV1611VET]

No Exodus means no Moses.

And no Mosaic covenant either ... right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And no Mosaic covenant either ... right?

Correct. He was not the source of it. It still may be a "valid idea", but Moses was clearly not the source.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct. He was not the source of it. It still may be a "valid idea", but Moses was clearly not the source.

That's a pretty weak reply, Zone.

So Moses was "clearly not the source" of something that "still may be a valid idea"?

You're awful strong in claiming Moses didn't exist; but weak in denying his covenant.

Who did God give the Ten Commandments to?

Remember those?

People like to say God never wrote anything Himself; and to counter that, we say He personally wrote the Ten Commandments down.

 

[The Barbarian]

People like to say God never wrote anything Himself; and to counter that, we say He personally wrote the Ten Commandments down.

The Bible lists three different versions of the ten commandments (actually, adding all versions, there are 12 commandments). Catholics took the one without the graven image section, and Protestants chose the one that doesn't prohibit coveting one's neighbor's wife. (If anyone wants to draw any conclusions from that, he's on his own)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a pretty weak reply, Zone.

So Moses was "clearly not the source" of something that "still may be a valid idea"?

You're awful strong in claiming Moses didn't exist; but weak in denying his covenant.

Who did God give the Ten Commandments to?

Remember those?

People like to say God never wrote anything Himself; and to counter that, we say He personally wrote the Ten Commandments down.

Why is it weak? The concept of a covenant was supposedly between God and man, not between God and a man. It was not "Moses' covenant".

Which "Ten Commandments"? Do you even know them? Describe how the Ten Commandments came to be in the Moses version of the story?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are different versions of the ten commandments (actually, adding all versions, there are 12). Catholics took the one minus the graven image section, and Protestants left off the one that prohibits coveting one's neighbor's wife. (If anyone wants to draw any conclusions from that, he's on his own)

Actually for protestants number 10 is general coveting, wives, donkeys, whatever sort of property that your neighbor has. Now that may show another problem, the protestant version reaffirms the wives as property idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're witnessing anti-semitic science at its best, folks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're witnessing anti-semitic science at its best, folks.

What are you talking about? That the Jewish faith is based on myths is not "anti-semitic". I guess since some Jews fall to their deaths that makes gravity anti-semitic too. Your inability to reason is largely caused by your fear of reality.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And no Mosaic covenant either ... right?

Interesting how they consider Hammurabi a real person but not Moses.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting how they consider Hammurabi a real person but not Moses.

Good analogy!