Science and the Bible

[Ace777]

They don't really disagree because they speak to different interests, theology and nature.

The Big bang started off as creationism long before it became science.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

So bow down to the science god. If you think that will be me, you had better rethink you assessment.

There is no "science god". There is only a reasonable method.

 

[d taylor]

There is no "science god". There is only a reasonable method.

-
​

Sure it is or there would be no need for a thread like Science and the Bible.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

Sure it is or there would be no need for a thread like Science and the Bible.

What you are referring to is the age old conflict some think exists between faith and reason.

 

[d taylor]

What you are referring to is the age old conflict some think exists between faith and reason.

-

​

No what i am referring to is he simple fact that science's statements they make about God's creation. Is not the same as the creation descriptions given in The Bible, so science and The Bible are not compatible.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-

​

No what i am referring to is he simple fact that science's statements they make about God's creation. Is not the same as the creation descriptions given in The Bible, so science and The Bible are not compatible.

Ok, so you think the creation description in the Bible can only be literal historical facts. No possibility of other literary genres at work here such as allegory, myth or parable with other points to make. Do you make the same assumption with Job and Noah? I so, my question is why? Why the Bible? Why everything in the Bible? You would not do this reading Aesop or the Odyssey or any other classic literature?

What would happen to your faith if you were wrong? If the accounts in Genesis are not literal historial facts?

 

[d taylor]

Ok, so you think the creation description in the Bible can only be literal historical facts. No possibility of other literary genres at work here such as allegory, myth or parable with other points to make. Do you make the same assumption with Job and Noah? I so, my question is why? Why the Bible? Why everything in the Bible? You would not do this reading Aesop or the Odyssey or any other classic literature?

What would happen to your faith if you were wrong? If the accounts in Genesis are not literal historial facts?

-
​

I think God gave a literal description of His creation in Genesis 1 and other areas of The Bible where the creation is described. There are some times when God mentions His creation, He does not use literal language, but those are few. So the flood was a literal description of what happened, as the sun and moon stopping in Joshua 10.

Why The Bible, because The Bible is of God. It is God telling people what He wants people to know at this time in history about God, creation, etc...

If what i believe is wrong then The Bible is not a God inspired book and only a book written by men.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

-
​

I think God gave a literal description of His creation in Genesis 1 and other areas of The Bible where the creation is described.

Why do you think that?

Why The Bible, because The Bible is of God. It is God telling people what He wants people to know at this time in history about God, creation, etc...

If what i believe is wrong then The Bible is not a God inspired book and only a book written by men.

What a bout a collaboration? Do you believe the words just appeared in ink on a page? Or did a human being write them down?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"We find that common honesty demands that we bring to bear upon the reality-claims of even our most cherished stories the most penetrating tools of critical analysis presently available. In that familiar theological word, we need to demythologize. in order to eliminate the literalizing temptations in our appropriation of myths which can at best becloud, at worst completely distort, the ways-of-being-in-the-world disclosed in the myths." - David Tracy

Rather than trying to force some literal "facts" what are the narratives actually trying to tell us?

 

[d taylor]

Why do you think that?

What a bout a collaboration? Do you believe the words just appeared in ink on a page? Or did a human being write them down?

-
​

Because God was communicating truth about His act of creation and about creation.

How the original writing came about i am not sure. There may have been a few ways God worked to bring about what He God wanted man to know.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Because God was communicating truth about His act of creation and about creation.

Why do you think that? Especially that truth needs to be literal historical?

 

[d taylor]

Why do you think that? Especially that truth needs to be literal historical?

-
​

Because, otherwise it places that role into the hands of man.

 

[Diamond72]

Or did a human being write them down?

Some people believe the Bible was oral tradition before the words were written down.

 

[DennisF]

We are told to study God's creation. For example I asked God a question about His justice and He told me His justice is as accurate and perfect as the entire universe. To study God's creation means to study math. You would not even have a home to sleep in if it were not for math. If you think we do not need science then you are in for a rough time. You would not even have any clothing to wear. Even Jesus was a carpenter and that requires a lot of math. Which you do not seem to think we need. Try to live without science if you think we do not need it. But chances are you would not be alive. I would not be alive having this conversation if it were not for science.

Moses and Abraham were VERY well educated in their day. They had the best education available at the time. Esp Moses. He was the son of a Pharaoh. That is why he could go before the Pharaoh. They both had the same education and they could have even been class mates. Moses was the father of civil engineering. Abraham separated Astrology from Astronomy. He was very much a scientist to separate truth from error.

Of course Moses learned a lot from his father in law too. He was both a man of science and a man of religion. Just like Abraham.

To speak of the ancient biblical characters as "men of science", it should be kept in mind that science as a word in our time carries with it a broad range of connotations that would not apply to the understanding of Abraham or Moses about the physical world. While the ancients knew more than is usually attributed to them about physical reality - the Great Pyramid at Giza testifies to that - Daniel was told that it will be in "the last days" that people will "do research and knowledge will increase." The silly rendering in most Bibles of the Hebrew phrase, transliterated as "push forth", that is given in English as "run to and fro" misses the correct sense of the sentence. Even today, we have the figure of speech of the advancement of knowledge as that of pushing forth into new areas of study.

 

[Diamond72]

that would not apply to the understanding of Abraham or Moses about the physical world.

Moses was raised in the Egyptian royal household, which would have provided him with an exceptional education. According to Acts 7:22, Moses was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” and was powerful in speech and action1. This education likely included subjects such as astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, music, and art2. Abraham also had the best education the city of Ur could provide. He was know to separate truth from error. Astronomy from astrology. Many great men of God were also Great men of Science. He had the same education that Pharaoh would have gotten.

 

[stevevw]

I constantly get asked about this. The general opinion is that science does not need the Bible and the Bible does not need science. That is not true. Science and the Bible are like our left and are right hand and they should fit together like a glove fits our hand. Science needs the Bible the most. Because everything is in the Bible, so we can verify the truth of what we believe with the Bible.

So the real question is: Does the Bible need science. Paul tells us that God has revealed Himself in HIs Creation. Science is the study of God's creation. God gives us lots of artifacts and lots of natural evidence like fossils. Through Science and the Study of God's creation, we come to know our Creator. God wants us to know what He is doing so that is why there is so much for us to study in Creation using Science and the evidence Science has gathered for us.

We need to do a study on what wisdom, knowledge and understanding is. Proverbs is loaded with teaching on this. For example Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

I think science enhances God as creator or that there is a creator. We see a piece of art but then are even more amazed at the finer detail and work that went into creating the art.

I believe as we discover more detail about Gods creation through science it becomes more obvious that God is creator. From the discovery of the cell and DNA, quantum physics and cosmology and the laws that govern everything are all revealing Gods handiwork in more detail. Like a watch maker but definitely not a blind one.

In all these areas of discovery we seem to be coming back to philosophy. We can't help it as it seems the more we discover in detail the more it brings up questions about our place in the overall scheme of things. Can something come from nothing, what exactly is nothing. Can life come from non life and what exactly is non life and can consciousness come from the non conscious objective world.

The big question is what role we as observers and subjects play in all this. I think for science to really understand reality it needs to incorporate the scientist into the equation. How we influence reality. Not just from a 3rd person perspective but also a 1st person one.

In doing so this brings agency and teleology into our understanding of the data science gives. This then changes everything and seems to fit the data well in explaining many anomelies that science cannot explain.

Then we begin to see that things are not so blind and random which is exactly what we should be seeing if God created a universe with order and laws like clockwork. The closer we get to a theory of everything the more we will see there must be a creator.

 

[DennisF]

Moses was raised in the Egyptian royal household, which would have provided him with an exceptional education. According to Acts 7:22, Moses was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” and was powerful in speech and action1. This education likely included subjects such as astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, music, and art2. Abraham also had the best education the city of Ur could provide. He was know to separate truth from error. Astronomy from astrology. Many great men of God were also Great men of Science. He had the same education that Pharaoh would have gotten.

I don't disagree with your characterization of Moses or Abraham as educated in their day. The problem is in the connotations of the word science. To us, that means modern, contemporary scientific understanding, which the ancients showed no evidence of having. (They did have some knowledge we do not have today, such as how to build the Great Pyramid at Giza.) The "Great men of Science" as we know science might be pegged to the time of Copernicus, Galileo, then Newton - beginning in the 15th century, or 14th at the earliest.

In ancient times "astrology" was "astronomy" but the pagan rendition of astrology today is not what it was before the babylonian mystery religion corrupted it. The stars have always been the "gold standard" of chronographs throughout human history. The Bible contains a nontrivial amount of ancient non-pagan astrology, including (Revelation 12) the birthdate of Jesus.

 

[Diamond72]

The problem is in the connotations of the word science.

Science, art and math are all processed by the same part of the brain. You can not develop one without the other.

 

[DennisF]

Science, art and math are all processed by the same part of the brain. You can not develop one without the other.

What is your point? I don't see how it is related to the history of the development of science and what we call "science".

 

[Diamond72]

I don't see how it is related to the history of the development of science

Do you understand the development of children, how they grow and mature?

Parietal Lobes: These regions are crucial for numerical processing and spatial reasoning
Parietal Lobes: These regions help with spatial awareness and coordination, important for tasks like drawing and sculpting2.

When we study the brain using a MRI the SAME part of the brain does math and art. You can not do art without science and you can not do science without art.

If we look at primitive buildings we can see how the brain was developing. We see art and architecture develop together at the same time as the brain develops.