Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[JonFromMinnesota]

Just so you know what I'm thinking when posters throw up bible verses;
I take it as an implicit admission of defeat.

I don't like rides that go around in circles either. It makes me dizzy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are you saying that current scientific knowledge about the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) and of the solar system (4568 million years), the deposition of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor, and our common ancestry with other primates, does not conflict with the Bible in any way? If so, I am very glad to hear it.

Yes that is what I am saying.

In fact you maybe surprised how essential common ancestry is with God becoming one with His Creation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did plants exist before the sun?

No

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No

Your bible says they did.

 

[Loudmouth]

If Adam and Eve were not real people this would prove the Literal Hard Interpretation of the Bible wrong.

The lack of a global flood already did that.

So again, what would prove the Bible wrong? Please describe the observations we would need to make in order to disprove the Bible.

Still you would be left with the non literal soft interpretation. At that point anything could mean anything or whatever you want it to be.

That's exactly what you did when you made Noah's flood into a local flood.

The Bible is the Bible because Jesus sets the standard. He is the Chief Cornerstone.

I thought we were talking about science?

 

[Astrophile]

Because I can not find any sign of degenerate disease in pre historic man.

La-Chapelle-aux-Saintes 1 Neanderthal man: 'the specimen was severely arthritic and had lost all his teeth' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal ).

What was the cause of death of pre-civilized people. It is always the same. They were killed in the "prime" of their life from a weapon like an arrowhead.

'Several fossils of Neanderthal children have been discovered.' (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Neand...ns_with_their_bones_disfigured_from_illnesses ). Were they killed by weapons?

 

[joshua 1 9]

scientifically impossible to have plants without a sun. It easily falsifies Genesis.

Yes it would. The skeptics Bible is the result of a reprobate mind doing what a reprobate mind does, they try to falsify the truth. They use twisted reasoning and logic. That is why they call the great apostasy.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and abolish by the majesty of His arrival. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder,…Thessalonians

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yes it would.

And you just admitted above that plants did not exist before the sun. Your bible claims it does. There you go, Genesis falsified.

You seem to have an obsession with the word "reprobate". I laugh every time I see it. Am I supposed to be insulted?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The lack of a global flood already did that.

The lack of a global flood did not prove the Bible to be wrong in the original Hebrew. The KJV is perhaps the best translation but inerrant only applies to the original Hebrew. Those who study Ancient Hebrew will tell you that every stroke has profound and universal meaning. This is why Gerold Schroeder after He got his PhD from MIT he went on to study Kubbalism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You seem to have an obsession with the word "reprobate".

We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Having the Mind of Christ is very important.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your bible claims it does.

The Bible does not make that claim. The self professed Skeptic: Steve Wells makes that claim and he is wrong. Because the Skeptics Bible is based on a reprobate mind that has the objective of suppressing the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

The lack of a global flood did not prove the Bible to be wrong in the original Hebrew.

For a literal interpretation, it did.

If you claim otherwise, now is the time to prove it. How do have a flood deep enough to cover the mountains of Ararat for weeks at a time, and not cover most of the globe?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The Bible does not make that claim. The self professed Skeptic: Steve Wells makes that claim and he is wrong.

Oh really? Let's take a look then, shall we?

In Genesis 1 verse 11 it says God created plants. The next day it says he creates the Sun.

There you go. You're proven wrong.

 

[dougangel]

There is an overwhelming amount of rock solid science that proves the Bible is accurate and true. To be sure Science is limited in what Science can do. Still there is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence for the Bible. The problem is people that are perishing do not understand the Bible. They ALWAYS get it wrong. Because they are not born again then they have NOT been renewed in their mind and the CARNAL mind simply is not able to comprehend the Bible. The Bible is SPIRITUAL NOT CARNAL. The fact that they ALWAYS get it wrong is evidence in itself. Because if you are not FOR God then you are AGAINST God. That means you are an enemy of God. I have no idea why people would want to be an enemy of the God that is powerful enough to Create the Whole Universe. That does not even make any reasonable sense. We know that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness". Why would they want to subject themselves to the Wrath of God? For them to say there is NO evidence is simply absurd and that is a sign their mind is not functioning right. The Bible says they have a reprobate mind. We are told that they “suppress the truth by their wickedness.”. So we see that their main objective is to suppress the truth. I am sure they get some sort of reward for their wickedness, "for a season". The Bible says the wages of sin is death. Of course they know they are going to die and perish so that is no surprise to them. Whatever pleasure or advantage they get for their wickedness now is going to be short lived. "Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season." Heb 11:24 Everyone gets to make this choice. God is willing to turn people over to a reprobate mind if that is what they want. He will not make that decision for them. This is a choice that each and every individual must make for themselves. We all make the choice: do we want a mind that is renewed in strength or do we want a reprobate mind? So even I give people huge, Huge, HUGE amounts of scientific evidence they are not able to accept or receive that evidence because of the reprobate mind they have and their propensity to suppress the truth.

Many Christians feel the old testament is not a science book and science shouldn't be taught from it.

1. Psalm 50:1
   
   The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.
   The sun does not rise and go down the sun doesn't move. This is scientifically incorrect.
   Malachi 1:11
   
   For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.
   
   ""The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken,
   The lord has said. There's a problem there '''the lord said"" The suns coming up. A house hold saying. That’s what it looks like to the person. But It’s not scientific.
   
   Isaiah 11:12
   
   12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
   
   Won’t get my science from that statement. The earths a ellipse sphere. But we know what they mean “”all the earth”” But did they at the time. Did they think it was a flat earth ??? Isn't that where that saying comes from Ancient Hebrew flat earth thinking.
   
   Job 38:13
   
   13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
   
   Jeremiah 16:19
   
   19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
   
   The earths a sphere and doesn’t have an end won’t get my science from there.
   
   "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"
   
   Sorry the earths moving and it’s not on foundations.
   There are quite a few more of these scriptures.
   
   We should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality,something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different conceptual model and different vocabulary with which to describe the world.
   
   
   We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God. Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvellous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and the humanity that God expresses

 

[joshua 1 9]

The sun does not rise and go down the sun doesn't move. This is scientifically incorrect.

You will need to take this up with AV1611 because for me we need to look at the original Hebrew and not the English language. In Hebrew the word just means East same as this passage:

Psa 103:12
As far as the east H4217 is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

 

[joshua 1 9]

For a literal interpretation, it did.

The literal interpretation of the translation. NOT the literal interpretation of the Hebrew. IF you want to understand the Bible you have to look at the original Hebrew language. The English language will confuse you. I did just that with the story of Noah and just what was flooded. The exact word used for what was flooded was Adamah, the land of Adam. There is a different word used for the world: erets. I went though the whole story in the Hebrew and everything works out just fine for a local flood in the land of Adamah.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will need to take this up with AV1611 ...

I have a thread where I play devil's advocate and agree that the verses about the earth being unmoveable are literal.

Yet today, the earth moves.

I reconcile these two seeming contradictions nicely, and will be glad to do it here as well.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In Genesis 1 verse 11 it says God created plants. The next day it says he creates the Sun.

There you go. You're proven wrong.

The word SUN is not used ANYWHERE in Genesis Chapter one. Also verse 11 does not use the word: "create". The work God did was in the firmament. Science uses the term green house effect. You can study the atmosphere by looking at the ice core data. Because there are air bubbles in the ice and so they can study the atmosphere at any point in time for hundreds of thousands of years. So your actually giving an example of where science proves that the Bible is true. Using the ice core samples we can verify this part of the Bible to be accurate and true. We do have scientific evidence dealing with this. Of course I mostly work with a day is 1,000 years. So what is going on here is the ice began to melt around 13,900 years ago. This is called the The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, also known as the Clovis comet hypothesis. So the third day would be 3,000 years later at 10,900 years ago or 7,900 BC. We need to take a look at the earth to see what the conditions were at this point in time. If you look at the Ohio valley the ice had melted and man was starting to move back into the area that had been covered by ice. The great lakes were starting to form from the melted ice. The land was beginning to emerge and the grass was beginning to grow.

I still believe that old earth creationism is valid but I am not prepared to try to figure all of that out right now.

 

[dougangel]

You will need to take this up with AV1611 because for me we need to look at the original Hebrew and not the English language. In Hebrew the word just means East same as this passage:

Psa 103:12
As far as the east H4217 is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

I didn't mention Psa 103:12
but there are quite a few of these sun rise verses in the old testament.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have a thread where I play devil's advocate and agree that the verses about the earth being unmoveable are literal.

Yet today, the earth moves.

I reconcile these two seeming contradictions nicely, and will be glad to do it here as well.

The problem they have is with the word Sunrise. This is the word used in the KJV. In the Hebrew the word used is East. They claim the Bible can not be true because the Sun does not rise.