Bible and science?

devin553344 said:

Yeah people do believe in young earth. I don't think I do though. Thanks for finding those scriptures. Something I'm a little confused about. They did in fact find whale bones, so they must be protruding out of the ground and fairly shallow. And whether there were upheavals of earth into mountains or not, they are found on dry land, indicating that once there was water over the area of where the mountains are. So what does that mean?

Click to expand...

About 75% of all dry land was underwater at one time and is sedimentary rock.
Pretty much every fossil is a marine fossil. There are only a few exceptions around a handful of tar pits. Mountains are usually sedimentary rocks filled with marine fossils.

SkyWriting said:

About 75% of all dry land was underwater at one time and is sedimentary rock.
Pretty much every fossil is a marine fossil. There are only a few exceptions around a handful of tar pits. Mountains are usually sedimentary rocks filled with marine fossils.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. So do you think that all was from Noah's flood then?

devin553344 said:

That's interesting. So do you think that all was from Noah's flood then?

Click to expand...

Noah's flood might have not left a trace.
All historical events are based on a person's faith in the story teller.
There is nothing in scripture about flood geology or fossils or any such thing.

Flood geology is like Monty Python's Life Of Brian.
The Bible does say much on the subject so people
feel a need to invent whatever they want with scripture
not able to contradict them.

When people make this claim, you can bet that those people are Protestants. What they really mean when they say that the Bible and science conflict is that the biblical interpretations of their own denomination conflict with the findings of science. And since the biblical interpretations of their own denomination (which conflict with the biblical interpretations of the other denominations) are obviously true and correct, science therefore must be untrue and incorrect. Of course, every other denomination makes the same claim. Fact: Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church the fullness of God's truth until the end of time. Why was oneness so important? Because truth is of ultimate importance, and truth cannot conflict with truth. Therefore conflicting beliefs (as among Protestant denominations) necessarily mean untruth. Since many Protestant beliefs are therefore untrue, it is no surprise that they conflict with natural truths revealed by science. However, because Jesus promised His one Church the fullness of truth, its teaching never conflicts with any natural truth revealed by science. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

God saves said:

I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

The Bible is not a textbook of modern science. None of the human authors were aware of post-Enlightenment presuppositions that are assumed in the 21st century. People in the Ancient Near East (ANE) had a phenomenological view of reality. Just like we do when we say the sun "rises in the East and sets in the West". Is that wrong? Yes, according to modern astronomy, and no from an observational and utilitarian point of view.

The big question is: Can Yahweh, the God of Everything, enter into relationship with people before they have modern understandings? Answer: YES! God works with all kinds of people in the Bible. He is clearly more interested with relationship than He is with modern standards and methods.

ANE people also had radically different concerns and focuses than do modern westerners. One example, since clocks weren't invented until the middle ages, precision in time-keeping wasn't really important. Look in the gospels for example; things happen "about the 9th hour", not at "11:29am".

Carl Linnaeus came up with binomial nomenclature in the 1700s. Classification of animals into species, genus, class, etc. is a human invention that is relatively new. It's great for biologists and botanists, but it has nothing to do with the ANE mindset of the biblical writers.

Classification system are helpful but artificial, unlike the Law of Gravity which is hard to ignore. For example what kind of animal is a dolphin? We would say "a mammal". But that's only because we think that warm blood, milk production and live-birth are more important than the much more obvious fact that THEY SWIM! To a Jewish writer, if it is in the realm of the water it is a fish! Are they mistaken? Nope, the are using a different criteria with different terms.

The Bible is primarily the story of Yahweh and his human creatures. It is not a science book (although there are some observations and even a few "experiments". It is not a math book (although there are quite a few numbers and calculations). It is not history book (although it is highly historical). It is not a botany book (although it gives some excellent descriptions of indigenous plants). It's not a book on agriculture (although there is some good information about ANE farming practices). The biblical authors are interested in recording the oracles of God, the actions of God, the promises of God, the person of God, the power of God, and the plans of God

It is anachronistic to impose modern concepts and preferences on the biblical texts as a test for their veracity and reliability. I recommend the Bible Project and the scholarship of Michael Heiser to learn more about this issue.

Scripture confirms science, not the other way around. When people realize this, they will see science is not a threat to scripture. Conversely, science sees scripture as a threat, but this is normal since science by its very nature is to explore alternative explanations at every possible juncture. However, science depends on scripture to be absolutely valid (in that it can't contradict scripture), for any science that contradicts scripture, either is a misunderstanding of scripture, or is incorrect science. The two can't be mutually disagreeable, since one is the declaration of truth, whereas the other is the discovery of it.

THE CREATOR REVEALED
a physicist examines the big bang and the bible
MICHAEL G. STRAUSS, PHD

devin553344 said:

The only thing that contradicts science is the old testament and particularly Moses' revelations. All of those things happened well before Moses was born apparently. Perhaps Moses' revelations are parable and science should just ignore that aspect. Which means Christians should probably not take them as literal.

Taking them literally makes Christians look silly to scientists probably.

Click to expand...

So, in the NT, when Jesus walked on water... is scientifically sound?

How about when He, instantly, turned huge jugs of water into the best wine at the party?

OR When He took two fish and five loaves of bread... fed more than five thousand people and ended with twelve baskets of left overs....

Stopped the storm?

Blind man sees? Crippled walks? Leprosy gone?

Oh, Oh.... ya.... came back from the dead and ate food, cooked a meal... ascended to heaven.....

Scientific or not?

I am sick of people ignoring the solid literal bible events that contradict the false truth of our modern atheistic, Darwinian "science" agenda... because "the Bible isn't a science book"

Then......they go and say that they believe in the Gospel and the work of Christ.

But, you want it that way... so that you can agree with all your friends about unexplainable supernatural events of the OT... and still be saved by the equally.. or more... unexplainable, supernatural events of Christ's life.


Sorry... you cannot have it both ways.

Christ walked on water.. FACT
Jonah got swallowed by a large fish.. not whale... FACT
Christ fed 5000 + with tonnes of left overs... FACT
Moses parted the Red Sea... FACT.
Christ commanded the storm to stop... FACT
Noah built and ark, God flooded the whole earth... FACT
Christ gave a blind man sight, cured a Leper, crippled man walked.. FACT
God made the earth in six days... FACT.


So..........do you believe magical, mythical, "flying spaghetti monster" stuff like Jesus dying and resurrecting? and this saves your soul? OR NOT?

If you do... you better check yourself with the other "magical", "mythical" stuff that you toss out because it doesn't agree with science.



YOUR whole salvation is based on and demands the truth of events that don't agree with science.

You cannot pick the ones that you want to believe and the ones that you dismiss.

JacksBratt said:

So, in the NT, when Jesus walked on water... is scientifically sound?

How about when He, instantly, turned huge jugs of water into the best wine at the party?

OR When He took two fish and five loaves of bread... fed more than five thousand people and ended with twelve baskets of left overs....

Stopped the storm?

Blind man sees? Crippled walks? Leprosy gone?

Oh, Oh.... ya.... came back from the dead and ate food, cooked a meal... ascended to heaven.....

Scientific or not?

I am sick of people ignoring the solid literal bible events that contradict the false truth of our modern atheistic, Darwinian "science" agenda... because "the Bible isn't a science book"

Then......they go and say that they believe in the Gospel and the work of Christ.

But, you want it that way... so that you can agree with all your friends about unexplainable supernatural events of the OT... and still be saved by the equally.. or more... unexplainable, supernatural events of Christ's life.


Sorry... you cannot have it both ways.

Christ walked on water.. FACT
Jonah got swallowed by a large fish.. not whale... FACT
Christ fed 5000 + with tonnes of left overs... FACT
Moses parted the Red Sea... FACT.
Christ commanded the storm to stop... FACT
Noah built and ark, God flooded the whole earth... FACT
Christ gave a blind man sight, cured a Leper, crippled man walked.. FACT
God made the earth in six days... FACT.


So..........do you believe magical, mythical, "flying spaghetti monster" stuff like Jesus dying and resurrecting? and this saves your soul? OR NOT?

If you do... you better check yourself with the other "magical", "mythical" stuff that you toss out because it doesn't agree with science.



YOUR whole salvation is based on and demands the truth of events that don't agree with science.

You cannot pick the ones that you want to believe and the ones that you dismiss.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. Thanks for sharing

devin553344 said:

Interesting point. Thanks for sharing

Click to expand...

Your welcome.

If you like my logic, try this:

A lot of people like to use the "broken telephone" idea for support of the Bible being inaccurate... right?

Well, with the ages of the people in those days... Adam knew Methuselah. Methuselah knew Shem... Shem knew Issac.

Pretty wild HUh?

Kinda puts it all in perspective as to how solid these events are to historically valid.

There is no "lost through generations of handed down stories".

Not to mention that much of these accounts was dictated to Moses... by God.

God saves said:

I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Types within a species can only interbreed with each other. For example, a cat and a dog can not produce a cadog . God created animals "in their own kind". All one needs to do is explain; how nature works. It would be impossible for nature to work another way as genes do not allow for all species to be one kind.
Blessings

God saves said:

I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

As long as man is the spokesperson for things that predates theirselves there will always be contradictions. It doesn’t mean whatever truth found in observations will negate Gods existence, but rather how one would interpret it may contradict truth.

God saves said:

I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Back in the 1800s, the science of Geology was based on the idea that there was a global flood. Today science denies the global flood, and this is one major area where the bible and modern science contradict. Here is a good video on the flood:

thesunisout said:

Back in the 1800s, the science of Geology was based on the idea that there was a global flood. Today science denies the global flood, and this is one major area where the bible and modern science contradict. Here is a good video on the flood:

Click to expand...

Bible was not talking about South America or Australia when it said "the whole land under the sky". Their earth did not mean planet.

They and we use some same words, but with different meaning.

Contradictions arise only when we read Bible in a wrong way.

God saves said:

Things I have have heard are why there are so many species of a certain type of animal, they claim darwinism is likely to be true and they claim that means the Bible is unlikely to be true,

Click to expand...

Is it that the Bible itself is untrue or that a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

Maria Billingsley said:

Types within a species can only interbreed with each other. For example, a cat and a dog can not produce a cadog .

Click to expand...

Cats and dogs are not even remotely within the same species.

God created animals "in their own kind". All one needs to do is explain; how nature works. It would be impossible for nature to work another way as genes do not allow for all species to be one kind.
Blessings

Click to expand...

Define "kind".

thesunisout said:

Back in the 1800s, the science of Geology was based on the idea that there was a global flood.

Click to expand...

Guess who were the first people to find evidence contradicting Flood Geology?

Christian geologists in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Queller said:

Cats and dogs are not even remotely within the same species.

Define "kind".

Click to expand...

That is what I said. A cat and a dog can not breed. Kind is defined in Genesis.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

myst33 said:

Bible was not talking about South America or Australia when it said "the whole land under the sky". Their earth did not mean planet.

They and we use some same words, but with different meaning.

Contradictions arise only when we read Bible in a wrong way.

Click to expand...

Do you think that God could not flood the entire earth?

God saves said:

I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

The Lord our God is a God of miracles, so if any believer could not explain an account in the story of Noah and the Ark, they can just say that God did a miracle. Problem solved. But if one wants a more indepth explanation or they believe that God operated in a way that was not by miracles in this situation, they need to just think outside the box and to research articles online about it. Ask God, too. Ask for His help on it. Usually the atheist is not thinking outside the box to defend the Bible. They don't want the Bible to be true because it exposes their own sin and their need for a Savior. So they are going to see flaws where none exists. I usually do not debate with atheists. I just tell them about the gospel and then move on (if they do not receive it). If I tell them about the amazing things within God's Word, or how God worked in my life, I would be "casting my pearls" (of which I am sure you know the rest of the phrase).

Here is a Blogspot article I created showing how God's Word is divine in origin (if you are interested):

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

For me, this kind of evidence is unmistakeable that God's Word is true.
While I did not need evidence to believe in God's Word, the evidence is there none the less (for those who are truly seeking the truth).