Science VS the Bible

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people. The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'.

Yup and because of this you are arguing on a different topic.

science vs the Bible. Where the Bible is compatible with science fact.

So then Christ literally incarnate born as a real human in Bethlehem

and Lazarus raised from the dead in real life - seen in nature as alive.
..

But not scientific facts in regards to nature, and it's not to be taken literally

nonsense.

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people fully compatible with science fact.

The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'. And Bible facts are fully compatible with science fact.

Confirmed - incarnation is literally true.

Confirmed - resurrection of Lazarus is literally true and fully compatible with science fact - so then Pv=nRT remains true no matter that Lazarus is raised from the dead.

Electrolysis is still an observed feature in nature no matter that there is the incarnation of Christ.

7 day creation week does not stop salt from occurring in the form NaCl.. fully compatible with science fact.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible says God made the Sun and moon on day 4- it does NOT say that "this is how you go downstairs to your private little lab and make the Sun -- step by step instructions". I keep saying the Bible is not a science text book and does not NEED to be one to accurately report that God did something in a single day.

Gen 1 says that on the 4th day God created the Sun and the Moon and they appear as lights in the sky - which... they... do...

But then how can you take a 6 day creation to be fact

I can see that they do exist.
That they do appear as lights in the sky providing light on Earth
And I can see that no science has tried to create sun or moon and discovered that "God cannot do that".

This is the easy part.

The odd argument that the Bible claims fusion reactions on the moon provide light just as fusion reactions on the Sun do -- is ... well... "weak" and is not substantive enough for me to pivot away from the Word of God on that detail.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The Bible does not distinguish between a light source that is emitting light vs reflecting light - just as the person that sees the headlight on the car does not distinguish between the halogen bulb in the light fixture and the whopping 99% light coming from the reflector.

Yes, it does not but it doesn't make it sound ambiguous either it really does describe it as independently.

They move independently and one provides light at night while the other provides light in the day time -- the Bible does not say "one does it via fusion reactions and the other via reflection"

The point remains.

The argument you are making is not considered substantive enough to pivot away from the word of God on this Bible detail for many christians on this board as the voting list proves on that other thread.

But of course you have free will and can choose as you wish.

 

[Cis.jd]

BobRyan said: ↑
The Bible does not distinguish between a light source that is emitting light vs reflecting light - just as the person that sees the headlight on the car does not distinguish between the halogen bulb in the light fixture and the whopping 99% light coming from the reflector.

Not only is this excuse of "not distinguishing" baseless but now you have explaining to do, please think about your responses carefully because now you have opened up questions that challenge this reasoning/excuse of yours which is:

what makes you suspect that the bible doesn't distinguish between an independent source of light and a reflector? At the same time, Where did you get this idea that the moon reflects light and if I say the moon omits own light, how do you know I am wrong?

 

[Cis.jd]

And I can see that no science has tried to create sun or moon and discovered that "God cannot do that".

But this is not my argument. Why are you arguing so out of context? Are you doing this intentionally?

The odd argument that the Bible claims fusion reactions on the moon provide light just as fusion reactions on the Sun do -- is ... well... "weak" and is not substantive enough for me to pivot away from the Word of God on that detail.

Fusion? What are you talking about. So the Bible says they combine? This makes no sense, at the same time it is entirely far from everything I said in that post.

 

[BobRyan]

But this is not my argument. Why are you arguing so out of context? Are you doing this intentionally?

I simply propose a "real science" objection and what it would look like if one existed.

Fusion? What are you talking about. So the Bible says they combine?

I am talking about the science fact that the light from the sun comes as a result of fusion reactions on the sun and the Bible is making no such case about light source for sun vs moon. Its description is at the level of the name of the objects and the fact that they appear as two lights in the sky - and we know they move independent from each other as view from the frame of reference of an observer on Earth.

As Einstein pointed out relative motion is fine and can be described in terms of frame of reference. In this case - an observer on Earth is the frame of reference.

This makes no sense, .

You have free will of course - and can choose as you wish.

 

[Cis.jd]

science vs the Bible. Where the Bible is compatible with science fact.

So then Christ literally incarnate born as a real human in Bethlehem

and Lazarus raised from the dead in real life - seen in nature as alive.

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people fully compatible with science fact.

As I said before, I will not entertain this same argument that i have answered involving Jesus' miracles. I have effectively answered them and here you are repeating it past the 3rd time.

 

[Cis.jd]

I simply propose a "real science" objection and what it would look like if one existed.
I am talking about the science fact that the light from the sun comes as a result of fusion reactions on the sun and the Bible is making no such case about light source for sun vs moon. Its description is at the level of the name of the objects and the fact that they appear as two lights in the sky - and we know they move independent from each other as view from the frame of reference of an observer on Earth.

Fusion? All of what you wrote is complete nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix.

Here's the criteria I use:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Hmm]

How about a new criteria?

6. Bible says x, Science says ø = I'm misreading the Bible because it's not meant to be read as a scientific textbook. Religion must give way to science on questions of science. I presume you would rather be operated on by a surgeon than a monk?

 

[AV1611VET]

How about a new criteria?

How about not?

6. Bible says x, Science says ø = I'm misreading the Bible because it's not meant to be read as a scientific textbook.

Trying to read the Bible as a science textbook is like trying to read Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

Religion must give way to science on questions of science.

Religion can go back to Hell where it came from.

I'm talking about the Bible.

I presume you would rather be operated on by a surgeon than a monk?

You presume correctly.

Jeremiah 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

If you're sick and don't go to the doctor, whose fault is that?

 

[Hmm]

Trying to read the Bible as a science textbook is like trying to read Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

But that's precisely what you're doing in your criteria 2!

Religion can go back to Hell where it came from.

I'm talking about the Bible.

Christianity is a religion. Or what is it? A quote from Martin Luther King on the subject:

Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

How can religions go to Hell anyway? That doesn't sound very biblical to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that's precisely what you're doing in your criteria 2!

No.

Christianity is a religion. Or what is it?

Christianity is an espousal relationship with Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

How can religions go to Hell anyway? That doesn't sound very biblical to me.

As Proverbs says:

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[Hmm]

No.

Let me put it another way then. If the Bible (or rather, your interpretation of it) and science conflict on a statement about the natural world, which would you believe?

No.Christianity is an espousal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I had to look that up. Espousal:
1 : marry. 2 : to take up and support as a cause : become attached to.

But Christianity is not just about an individual relationship with Christ. It's also about a covenantal relationship with God.

It's also a religion. The computer says:
Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion centred on Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me put it another way then. If the Bible (or rather, your interpretation of it) and science conflict on a statement about the natural world, which would you believe?

The Bible.

 

[Cis.jd]

I'm talking about the Bible.You presume correctly.

The Bible still equates to religious views. You can't dictate religious views over science facts. As given the examples before, you have verses in the Bible stating the moon as a body of light, yet we know the moon is just a satellite that reflects light off the sun. Therefore there is really one main body of light for the earth.

Now if I come to you saying the moon is an absolute body of light as i've interpreted from scripture, from where are you going to tell me my beliefs are wrong?

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm! said: ↑
Let me put it another way then. If the Bible (or rather, your interpretation of it) and science conflict on a statement about the natural world, which would you believe?

And remember ... before answering that question - that in the realm of science .. what you swear to today is total rubbish tomorrow when some experiment disproves it... (Spontaneous generation anybody?)

The Bible.

Good choice. The Word of God does not change. Science does.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I simply propose a "real science" objection and what it would look like if one existed.
I am talking about the science fact that the light from the sun comes as a result of fusion reactions on the sun and the Bible is making no such case about light source for sun vs moon. Its description is at the level of the name of the objects and the fact that they appear as two lights in the sky - and we know they move independent from each other as view from the frame of reference of an observer on Earth.

Fusion? All of what you wrote is complete nonsense.

Were you looking for a link to the physics that explains light from the sun?? I can help with that.

 

[BobRyan]

science vs the Bible. Where the Bible is compatible with science fact.

So then Christ literally incarnate born as a real human in Bethlehem

and Lazarus raised from the dead in real life - seen in nature as alive.

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people fully compatible with science fact.

The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'. And Bible facts are fully compatible with science fact.

Confirmed - incarnation is literally true.

Confirmed - resurrection of Lazarus is literally true and fully compatible with science fact - so then Pv=nRT remains true no matter that Lazarus is raised from the dead.

Electrolysis is still an observed feature in nature no matter that there is the incarnation of Christ.

7 day creation week does not stop salt from occurring in the form NaCl.. fully compatible with science fact.

The point remains.

As I said before, I will not entertain this same argument .

And as I said above ...

the point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

Yup and because of this you are arguing on a different topic.
..
But not scientific facts in regards to nature, and it's not to be taken literally

Jesus - literally resurrected
Jesus literally ascended to heaven
Lazarus literaly resurrected.
God literally created life on earth in 7 days...As He reminds us in legal code - Ex 20:11

the Acts of God literally happened in real nature.

the point remains.