Bible and science?

[The Barbarian]

I know of Henry Morris mostly from his book, The Beginning of the World:

The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.

The Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
pp. 147-148

Henry wasn't much of a geneticist, you see...

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess if I am to accept your word for it I also have to believe Isaac Newton knew nothing about science.

Don't see how you got there from my observation that Newton denied the divinity of Jesus. How did that happen?

 

[FEZZILLA]

Don't see how you got there from my observation that Newton denied the divinity of Jesus. How did that happen?

Newton is a product of the Puritan movement which makes up 100% of all home grown denominations in America. Despite the fails of Puritan thought, on a more positive side, they were believers. Newton was a believer and so was Morris.

But you did ask how it happened so that does require an answer. It happened during the Puritan movement in England when true Protestantism with a cause was rivaled by a new Protestant movement which would go to utter extremes from the more rational Protestant movement led by Luther and Tyndale (who did have a cause). The Puritan movement is responsible for the 1560 Geneva Bible that contains radical notes about the church. While I can understand how Puritans felt about the reign of Queen bloody Mary, their rebellion is the cause for all the divisions ans denominations we see today. By the mid 1800s the radical teachings of the Puritans would lead to an earthquake of anti-Catholic denominations which would lead to the mass apostasy we see going on today. It all began with a bad translation of the Bible done by layman scholars who were not high churchmen. Had they listened to the words of William Tyndale we might only have 4 or 5 denominations today. The Tyndale Bibles are the best we have. The KJV is a fine translation but at times it follows the Geneva Bible where it shouldn't have. But the object of the KJV was to bring Puritans and Anglicans back together and stop the fighting. It was a noble idea but it didn't work.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I know of Henry Morris mostly from his book, The Beginning of the World:

The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.

The Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
pp. 147-148

Henry wasn't much of a geneticist, you see...

He's correct overall. Noah's sons cultivated the world. From the dispersion of Babel came all other races. There is a long list of creationists who hold this point of view. I agree. But there is also a wall of science and history behind the explanation.

 

[The Barbarian]

He's correct overall. Noah's sons cultivated the world. From the dispersion of Babel came all other races. There is a long list of creationists who hold this point of view. I agree. But there is also a wall of science and history behind the explanation.

I was speaking of Morris's claim that black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. He blames this on "genetic character."

 

[FEZZILLA]

I was speaking of Morris's claim that black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. He blames this on "genetic character."

I don't think that is what he is saying. You are reading ideas into his words that aren't there. What is there is true history and there is no political correctness where truth is concerned. Though I admit he could have worded it better to avoid nit-pickers.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I was speaking of Morris's claim that black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. He blames this on "genetic character."

I don't think that is what he is saying.

It's precisely what he was saying:

Morris, regarding his assumed relative inferiority of black people:
Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

You are reading ideas into his words that aren't there.

It's there in black and white. "Negroes" are inferior to other people, intellectually and religiously, according to Morris.

What is there is true history and there is no political correctness where truth is concerned.

Except in the middle ages, when "Hamites" like Moors had "Japhethite" (European) slaves, and Africans in Timbuktu had universities where medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry were being studied, and there was nothing remotely like it in Europe.

Morris was highly selective in his "history."

Though I admit he could have worded it better to avoid nit-pickers.

That kind of talk does have consequences, yes.

 

[Queller]

If you are talking about Bartemaeus, then only one in Mark. In Matthew, there was two blind men healed, one of them was Bartemaus. In Luke, there was a third one as he was approaching Jericho.

Then either Matthew or Mark are wrong about the incident, aren't they? Kind of throws the whole "the Bible is inerrant" argument out the window, doesn't it?

Not to mention that the three stories are generally thought to refer to the same incident. However, there are major differences between them; the aforementioned number healed, whether Jesus touched their eyes to heal them or they were healed by their faith alone, whether, as you mentioned, Jesus was leaving Jericho or arriving at Jericho.

BTW, Matthew does not identify either of the blind men as Bartimaeus.

 

[Queller]

If you demand absolute consistency to tiny details in scripture like how the Earth brought forth living things, or how many blind men were cured at Jericho on a specific day, you're trying to make it into something that it is not.

It's about God and man and our relationship. That's all God intended it to be. Let it be his way.

I agree. However, those that claim the Bible is inerrant must address these issues.

 

[Justified112]

Then either Matthew or Mark are wrong about the incident, aren't they? Kind of throws the whole "the Bible is inerrant" argument out the window, doesn't it?

No, it is not a problem at all. Inerrancy would be affected if one Gospel account said that Jesus healed NO blind men in Jericho and another one said that He DID heal blind men. Then you would have a genuine contradiction that would effect inerrancy.

Not to mention that the three stories are generally thought to refer to the same incident. However, there are major differences between them; the aforementioned number healed, whether Jesus touched their eyes to heal them or they were healed by their faith alone, whether, as you mentioned, Jesus was leaving Jericho or arriving at Jericho.

There are secondary details, but the historical core is still preserved. It's kind of like the way that 4 people can witness the same car accident, but have completely differing details about what each of them saw. In fact, you would expect a range of variance in such accounts and that goes for the Bible, as well. When we see varying details about a given event in the Bible, it tells us that the disciples didn't conspire with each other to concoct a story.

BTW, Matthew does not identify either of the blind men as Bartimaeus.

One account tells us that one of them was named Bartimaeus. The other simply says that there were two of them. So they are complementary, not contradictory. They each give information that the other does not. That is not a problem for inerrancy at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it is not a problem at all. Inerrancy would be affected if one Gospel account said that Jesus healed NO blind men in Jericho and another one said that He DID heal blind men. Then you would have a genuine contradiction that would effect inerrancy.

Inerrancy would be if all accounts agreed exactly.

There are secondary details, but the historical core is still preserved. It's kind of like the way that 4 people can witness the same car accident, but have completely differing details about what each of them saw.

Because human recall is not inerrant. The Bible never claims to be inerrant. That's a modern doctrine, unrelated to the purpose of the Bible.

 

[nolidad]

The YEC view of Noah ark contradicts science, yes. The YEC view is wrong.

Being new into this thread, let me intro myself by saying that the YEC view of Noahs Ark does nto contradict science- but opinions of evolutionary scientists.

The earth shows enormous evidence for the Flood! the Bible writes it as an historical account, Jesus refers to Noah as a historical account.

Fatally flawed radio-dating cannot disprove the Ark account. Yes radiometric forms of dating have been scientifically shown to be fatally flawed. By science I mean any theory that can be tested, observed and repeated!

The Fermi Institute (no YEC stronghold) accelerated radio decay by 10,000% in 90 minutes using a garbage can filled with water and a low amp trolling boat motor!

Neutrino bombardment increases the decay rate

The apogee and perigee of the earths orbit increases the decay rate.

Simple water flow over a radio rock distorts the dating as it transports material out of the matrix of the rock and thuis giving a false date.


Thse are but a few methods that falsify radiometric dating.


But the evidence for the Noahic Flood is enormous!

 

[trophy33]

Being new into this thread, let me intro myself by saying that the YEC view of Noahs Ark does nto contradict science- but opinions of evolutionary scientists.

The earth shows enormous evidence for the Flood! the Bible writes it as an historical account, Jesus refers to Noah as a historical account.

Fatally flawed radio-dating cannot disprove the Ark account. Yes radiometric forms of dating have been scientifically shown to be fatally flawed. By science I mean any theory that can be tested, observed and repeated!

The Fermi Institute (no YEC stronghold) accelerated radio decay by 10,000% in 90 minutes using a garbage can filled with water and a low amp trolling boat motor!

Neutrino bombardment increases the decay rate

The apogee and perigee of the earths orbit increases the decay rate.

Simple water flow over a radio rock distorts the dating as it transports material out of the matrix of the rock and thuis giving a false date.


Thse are but a few methods that falsify radiometric dating.


But the evidence for the Noahic Flood is enormous!

There is evidence for local floods, yes. Not for a global one, though. Fossil layers are from simple to complex organisms, global flood would mix it all up.

 

[nolidad]

Bible and science do not contradict each other, because Bible is not a scientific book. Only people who read Bible as science are getting contradiction with science.

when the Bible speaks on subjects of science it is infallible and verified by the scientific method.

No one can prove, the big bang, Darwinian evolution nor divine creation. They are all objects of faith based on ones presuppositional worldview.

Wit that being said- empirical science lends far more support to the biblical account of origins.

 

[trophy33]

when the Bible speaks on subjects of science it is infallible and verified by the scientific method.

No. We do not think with our kidneys, there is no firmanent where sun, moon, stars are, sun, moon and stars are not just "lights", they are huge objects, the Earth is not flat etc.

Bible is fallible regarding the subject of science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Being new into this thread, let me intro myself by saying that the YEC view of Noahs Ark does nto contradict science- but opinions of evolutionary scientists.

The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism directly opposes God's word, in which He says the Earth brought forth living things.

The earth shows enormous evidence for the Flood!

Many of them, in fact. But no sign ofa worldwide flood. But then the Bible doesn't say it's worldwide.

the Bible writes it as an historical account

It could have been. There was a region-wide flood in the middle east, about the right time. But the Bible does not say whether it's a parable or literal history.

Jesus refers to Noah as a historical account.

He uses the same sort of language for Noah, as he does for His parables. Nowhere does He say that it's a literal history.

Fatally flawed radio-dating cannot disprove the Ark account.

It does, however, show that the Earth is billions of years old.

Yes radiometric forms of dating have been scientifically shown to be fatally flawed.

You've been badly misled about that. I'm guessing you don't actually know how it's done, and are just repeating what others told you. How do you think it works?

By science I mean any theory that can be tested, observed and repeated!

Such as the argon/argon radioisotope testing that accurately dated the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii? Like that?

The Fermi Institute (no YEC stronghold) accelerated radio decay by 10,000% in 90 minutes using a garbage can filled with water and a low amp trolling boat motor!

Hmmm... 10,000% sounds like a nice round number. Since 90% of all internet facts are just made up, how about showing us your source?

Neutrino bombardment increases the decay rate

The apogee and perigee of the earths orbit increases the decay rate.

Some scientists have suggested that they do. However, the effect, if it exists, is so small that at this point, they can't distinguish between effects of neutrinos and small deviations in instrument sensitivity:
https://physicsworld.com/a/do-solar-neutrinos-affect-nuclear-decay-on-earth/

Such tiny variation would do YE believers no good at all. If radioactivity increased to a level sufficient to indicate an Earth less than 10,000 years old, it would have fried all living things on Earth anyway. Rock and a hard place, for YE creationism.

Welcome here. You're going to be seeing a lot of stuff for the first time. Buckle up.

 

[nolidad]

No. We do not think with our kidneys, there is no firmanent where sun, moon, stars are, sun, moon and stars are not just "lights", they are huge objects, the Earth is not flat etc.

Bible is fallible regarding the subject of science.

Straining at gnats. Look into the sky. are those stars lights? Are you mad at God for not going into a textbook definition of the stars?

There is a firmament where the sun, moon, and stars are- it is called outer space in todays language .

Evolutionists should think with their kidneys- they might come up with better solutions!

 

[nolidad]

The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism directly opposes God's word, in which He says the Earth brought forth living things.



Many of them, in fact. But no sign ofa worldwide flood. But then the Bible doesn't say it's worldwide.



It could have been. There was a region-wide flood in the middle east, about the right time. But the Bible does not say whether it's a parable or literal history.



He uses the same sort of language for Noah, as he does for His parables. Nowhere does He say that it's a literal history.



It does, however, show that the Earth is billions of years old.



You've been badly misled about that. I'm guessing you don't actually know how it's done, and are just repeating what others told you. How do you think it works?



Such as the argon/argon radioisotope testing that accurately dated the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii? Like that?



Hmmm... 10,000% sounds like a nice round number. Since 90% of all internet facts are just made up, how about showing us your source?



Some scientists have suggested that they do. However, the effect, if it exists, is so small that at this point, they can't distinguish between effects of neutrinos and small deviations in instrument sensitivity:
https://physicsworld.com/a/do-solar-neutrinos-affect-nuclear-decay-on-earth/

Such tiny variation would do YE believers no good at all. If radioactivity increased to a level sufficient to indicate an Earth less than 10,000 years old, it would have fried all living things on Earth anyway. Rock and a hard place, for YE creationism.



Welcome here. You're going to be seeing a lot of stuff for the first time. Buckle up.

Well all the YEC scientists I know and read prefer creation ex-Deo! God called forth the herbs from the ground.

Point 1: the bible does declare a worldwide flood! It would be stupid for Noah to spend 120 years building an ark, when he could have packed up and moved to a different region to avoid the mess.

The bible declared all mountains were covered. Geology shows that the world has continent large sedimentary rock formations! Evolutionists say multiple floods- but the conformity of the strata across the globe denounces that thought!

Point 2 The bible writes it as history and Jesus confirms Noah.

Point 3 No I have not been misled and yes I do know how radiometric dating works. I also know all the untestable assumptions required to arrive at a radiometric date and the peer reviewed and approved publications in both YEC and secular journals that show how radio decay is not constant.

Point 4: Argon40/argon39 cannot date such a young event like Pompeii.That is less than 2,000 years old and qr/ar replaced K/Ar which supposedly measures samples in the billions of years!

Point 5: when I caqn find the CERN report again I will post it. The info that I gleaned came from CERN- they applauded it as a means of dealing with nuclear waste.

Point 6: Neutrino bombardment does affect decay about 3/10% /annum. It is a small amount but still measurable as reported by Perdue and Stamford scientists. and add those up after 4,400 years...?

You wrote: "Such tiny variation would do YE believers no good at all. If radioactivity increased to a level sufficient to indicate an Earth less than 10,000 years old, it would have fried all living things on Earth anyway. Rock and a hard place, for YE creationism."

Unless of course there was a global flood that washed away and so diluted radio materials as to give rocks a false appearance of age radioactively. It has been repeatedly shown that flowing water alters ages because radio material is easily removed from the lattice matrix of minerals.

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable one article referring to the Italian experiment.

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates

 

[nolidad]

Then either Matthew or Mark are wrong about the incident, aren't they? Kind of throws the whole "the Bible is inerrant" argument out the window, doesn't it?

Not to mention that the three stories are generally thought to refer to the same incident. However, there are major differences between them; the aforementioned number healed, whether Jesus touched their eyes to heal them or they were healed by their faith alone, whether, as you mentioned, Jesus was leaving Jericho or arriving at Jericho.

BTW, Matthew does not identify either of the blind men as Bartimaeus.

Well a student of biblical history knows the answer. First there were two Jerichos in Jesus' day so one could be leaving Jericho and going to Jericho at the same time.

As for the blind man healings?

There are two separate healings of blind men, also many times the synoptic writers used different aspects of teh same story to convey a thought to the audience they were primarily addressing.

Matthew to the Jewish mind
Mark to the Roman mind
Luke to the Greek Mind.

They did not contradict each other but many times just told partial parts of the whole story! Just like the resurrection!

 

[trophy33]

Straining at gnats. Look into the sky. are those stars lights?

No, only appear to be.

Are you mad at God for not going into a textbook definition of the stars?

No, because I do not hold to scientific infallibility of Scriptures, so I do not care.

There is a firmament where the sun, moon, and stars are- it is called outer space in todays language .

But its not firmanent. Its not firm. Its just a space.

Evolutionists should think with their kidneys- they might come up with better solutions!

Evolution works. But thinking with kidneys, as Bible describes, does not.