Bible and science?

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

SkyWriting said:
You may look into this topic, with more serious intent.

No, I don't need to. I will just believe what the Bible says happened at the flood. You can believe whatever weird thing that pops into your head if you want. But, I am a critical thinker and there is nothing in your "special water" argument that needs to be taken seriously.

SkyWriting · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
No, I don't need to. I will just believe what the Bible says happened at the flood. You can believe whatever weird thing that pops into your head if you want. But, I am a critical thinker and there is nothing in your "special water" argument that needs to be taken seriously.

It really does not say much of anything about the geo-physical results of the flood. Which is why there may not have been any at all.

trophy33 · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
It says that the flood was global and that it covered the entire earth.

The problem is, that what you think "Earth" is, is something totally different from how they used the word.

YEC proponents try to put todays vocabulary into 4000 years old text and thats where all the contradictions with science come from.

Their "earth" is, in today's vocabulary, "inhabited, known dry land of the middle east".

Similarly, "under all heaven" is not the 21st century view from ISS or from Mars, but from the viewpoint of those people. And because of the curvature of the planet, they certainly could not see Europe, America, India, Australia or Antarctica.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

myst33 said:
The problem is, that what you think "Earth" is, is something totally different from how they used the word.

YEC proponents try to put todays vocabulary into 4000 years old text and thats where all the contradictions with science come from.

Their "earth" is, in today's vocabulary, "inhabited, known dry land of the middle east".

Similarly, "under all heaven" is not the 21st century view from ISS or from Mars, but from the viewpoint of those people. And because of the curvature of the planet, they certainly could not see Europe, America, India, Australia or Antarctica.

No, the Bible makes it clear in the NT that only 8 people were saved out of the flood. That means that all of the dry land was covered up to the very mountains. Every human being except for those on the ark were killed in the flood. The Bible is totally unambiguous about that. They were not using figures of speech, nor did they mean something different than what we mean when they picture the flood as a global catastrophe. Remember that this is God's book, inspired by Him and He is not deficient in communicating to us exactly what He means for us to understand.

trophy33 · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
No, the Bible makes it clear in the NT that only 8 people were saved out of the flood.

Because there were no people on other continents.
The beginnings of humanity are in northern Africa/middle east. So you would not need to flood South America.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed"
Lk 2:1
Do you believe also native indians from Canada came? Do you really belive thats what the author (Luke) wanted to communicate? Or, did they use the term "world" differently than we today? ;-)

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

myst33 said:
Because there were no people on other continents.
The beginnings of humanity are in northern Africa/middle east. So you would not need to flood South America.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed"
Lk 2:1
Do you believe also native indians from Canada came? Do you really belive thats what the author (Luke) wanted to communicate? Or, did they use the term "world" differently than we today? ;-)

I am certain that the topography of the planet was far different than it is today. We don't really know what it looked like. The current continental layout is likely not all what it was like at that time. And I would also argue that you really don't know what the population centers looked like at that time.

But what we DO know is that Noah and his family were the only human survivors. The Bible teaches a global flood. A local flood makes no sense.

Luke was using hyperbole. The Bible's description of the flood as global does not include any figures of speech.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
Science and the Bible do not contradict at all.

Correct. How could the Creator's creation contradict his word. If we think they conflict, then we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Evolution and the Bible contradict.

In this case, you've misunderstood both of them. Evolution is perfectly consistent with God's word. It does conflict with some modern revisions men have made to God's word, but that's another issue, entirely.

Science, done properly, is a marvelous means of observing and learning about the glory of God.

No. Science is too weak a method to do it. Science is, by it's very methodology, unable to address the supernatual. And it's so unnecessary. You don't need a degree in science to see His hand in creation:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Every now and then, when I'm deeply involved in learning something new about the world, that understanding that Paul describes, somehow connects with the hard edge of scientific understanding, and that epiphany is a remarkable moment. I wish everyone could experience it. But it's not the normal way things go.

What we have to guard against is letting the YE creationist movement, which is mostly unscriptural in its worldview, promote their man-made revision of Scripture.

trophy33 · Apr 5, 2019

myst33 said:
Luke was using hyperbole. The Bible's description of the flood as global does not include any figures of speech.

Interesting. Why do you think so? Why one is hyperbole and the second one is not?

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
I am certain that the topography of the planet was far different than it is today. We don't really know what it looked like.

There were maps, even then. "World" had a much different meaning in that time. Obviously, it meant "the land under control of Rome." But there's no doubt that at that time, the continents were all within a hundred yards of where they are today. If you'd like to see how I know that, ask me.

The current continental layout is likely not all what it was like at that time.

For the vast majority of the Earth's surface, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a map, even down to the scale of kilometers.

And I would also argue that you really don't know what the population centers looked like at that time.

We have very good data on that, since at that time, all populated continents had civilizations with writing, and they left records.

But what we DO know is that Noah and his family were the only human survivors.

Of the flood. But of course, God doesn't say it was global.

The Bible teaches a global flood.

No, it does not. Never says that. Although it's likely that even when the flood story was written down, Hebrews (like other educated people at the time) knew the world was a globe, they didn't say it was global.

A local flood makes no sense.

A global flood makes no sense. And seeing as God doesn't say it's global, there's really no reason to believe it, other than to make scripture fit into your modern conceptions.

Luke was using hyperbole.

But you believe that Peter, writing in the same time, was not? You're just playing as a cafeteria Christian, believing the parts you like and writing off the parts you don't like as "hyperbole."

And yes, the flood story includes all sorts of figures of speech:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:

Unless you think the sky is a roof, with gates in it to let rain fall down, there are figures of speech in the flood story.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Of the flood. But of course, God doesn't say it was global.

Yes, the Bible does say that it was global. God said he was going to destroy all flesh. He did not say he was going to destroy a local group of people.

A global flood makes no sense. And seeing as God doesn't say it's global, there's really no reason to believe it, other than to make scripture fit into your modern conceptions.

If the flood was local, there was no reason to preserve the animals. They would have simply migrated to the unflooded areas of the earth.
If the flood was local, Noah would have simply moved out of the flooded area.
God promised no more floods of the kind that Noah experienced. If the flood were local, then God's promise was broken millions of times since that day.

But you believe that Peter, writing in the same time, was not? You're just playing as a cafeteria Christian, believing the parts you like and writing off the parts you don't like as "hyperbole."

No, I just exegete Scripture better than you do.

And yes, the flood story includes all sorts of figures of speech:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:

Unless you think the sky is a roof, with gates in it to let rain fall down, there are figures of speech in the flood story.

What I said was that the Bible doesn't use hyperbole with regard to the flood. You can't use figures of speech to discount a literal global flood and do so with any intellectual credibility.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

The Barbarian said:
In this case, you've misunderstood both of them. Evolution is perfectly consistent with God's word. It does conflict with some modern revisions men have made to God's word, but that's another issue, entirely.

Evolution is inconsistent the Bible. Evolution is impersonal, wholly naturalistic and lacks real purpose. The Bible tells that creation was personal, wholly supernatural and that everything was made for man.

The creation of Adam is inconsistent with Evolution as well.

No. Science is too weak a method to do it. Science is, by it's very methodology, unable to address the supernatual. And it's so unnecessary. You don't need a degree in science to see His hand in creation:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I didn't say you needed a degree in science, but science opens us up to the immense complexity of every aspect of the universe that teaches us about the power, and immeasurable wisdom of the Creator.

What we have to guard against is letting the YE creationist movement, which is mostly unscriptural in its worldview, promote their man-made revision of Scripture.

Old earth creationism is a compromise with evolution and theistic evolution is as oxymoronic as "atheistic Christianity. Theistic Evolution has to deny the historicity and inerrancy of the Bible to make their warped ideas work.

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
Evolution is inconsistent the Bible.

No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.

Evolution is impersonal, wholly naturalistic and lacks real purpose.

Sorta like gravity. Or electricity. Or any other natural phenomenon. Go figure.

The Bible tells that creation was personal, wholly supernatural and that everything was made for man.

And they are all important things that made us and life here possible. Don't go stepping off any high places, though.

The creation of Adam is inconsistent with Evolution as well.

Nope. You're wrong there, too. As God says, Adam's body was formed naturally, as were the other animals. It's his soul that is given to him directly by God.

I didn't say you needed a degree in science, but science opens us up to the immense complexity of every aspect of the universe that teaches us about the power, and immeasurable wisdom of the Creator.

No, it's not science. As St. Paul told you, it's easy for anyone to see; no scientific procedures necessary.

Young earth creationism is a compromise of scripture and man's own wishes . YE creationism has to deny the historicity and inspiration of the Bible to make their warped ideas work.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

The Barbarian said:
No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.

No you don't. Evolution has never been either proven, nor intuitively observed.

Nope. You're wrong there, too. As God says, Adam's body was formed naturally, as were the other animals. It's his soul that is given to him directly by God.

Adam was created from the dust the earth, as a special creation apart from the rest of the animal world, which means Adam didn't evolve from some other creature. He was created directly from the dirt.

No, it's not science. As St. Paul told you, it's easy for anyone to see; no scientific procedures necessary.

No, Paul said that creation is a revelation of Creator. But what I am talking about the details, the complexity of the created order in both the biosphere and the biological life that exists on the planet. On a more complex level the construction of things like the human eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of Creator. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.

Young earth creationism is a compromise of scripture and man's own wishes . YE creationism has to deny the historicity and inspiration of the Bible to make their warped ideas work.

Nope. YEC takes God at His word and interprets Genesis 1-11 literally the way God wants. Others have to re-interpret the Bible. Simply repeating my words back to me is an immature, childish, mocking approach. Try a more intelligent approach.

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Justified112 said:
Yes, the Bible does say that it was global. God said he was going to destroy all flesh.

And yet whales and sharks all sorts flesh were not destroyed. So again your interpretation requires that God be wrong.

If the flood was local, there was no reason to preserve the animals. They would have simply migrated to the unflooded areas of the earth.

I note that in the Midwest right now, people are saving animals from floods. So you're wrong there.

God promised no more floods of the kind that Noah experienced.

The great flood in the Middle East that covered a huge area and created the Black Sea was unlike anything seen since. So that would make sense.

If the flood were local, then God's promise was broken millions of times since that day.

That flood was regional. Nothing like it since.

Barbarian observes:
But you believe that Peter, writing in the same time, was not? You're just playing as a cafeteria Christian, believing the parts you like and writing off the parts you don't like as "hyperbole."

No,

Yes, that's what you've done here. One of them, you want to take literally, so you do, and the other one you don't want to take literally, so you don't. You're just reading it to suit your own wishes.

I just exegete Scripture better than you do.

"Exegete" doesn't mean "pick what I like, and reject what I don't like."

What I said was that the Bible doesn't use hyperbole with regard to the flood.

I just showed you that it does. Unless you really think the sky is a solid dome with windows in it that can be opened to let water fall through.

You can't use figures of speech to argue a literal global flood and do so with any intellectual credibility.

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.

Justified112 said:
No you don't. Evolution has never been either proven, nor intuitively observed.

You're just wrong here. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. We see that constantly. Even speciation has been directly observed.

Adam was created from the dust the earth,

As were the other animals. God makes your body just as he made Adam's body, by natural processes. As even the early Christians knew, this is a parable for man's creation.

It's not the creation of Adam's body that made him different. As God says, it's the direct gift of a soul that makes him so.

Barbarian observes:
No, it's not science. As St. Paul told you, it's easy for anyone to see; no scientific procedures necessary.

No,

Sorry, you're wrong about that:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

That's what God says. Science, on the other hand, is about the details, the complexity of the created order in both the biosphere and the biological life that exists on the planet.

It is true that things like the evolution of the vertebrate or cephalopod eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of a Creator wise and powerful enough to make a world in which such things come about in fulfillment of His will. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.

Young earth creationism is a compromise of scripture and man's own wishes . YE creationism has to deny the historicity and inspiration of the Bible to make their warped ideas work.

Nope.

Yep. YE creationism is no older than the last century, having been invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess." Before that, most creationists were OE creationists. That was the form of creationism that was presented by evangelicals at the Scopes Trial, for example.

YEC takes Ellen G. White at her word and interprets Genesis 1-11 literally the way she wanted. They have to re-interpret the Bible to make it consistent with her visions.

Many Evangelicals in Americabelieve that young-earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.
...
Ellen White (1827-1915) was a prophetess whose writings have been widely translated. She experienced the “Great Disappointment” on October 22, 1844, when Jesus failed to appear as predicted by William Miller, the leader of her sect. Shortly after, she began receiving visions and was soon at the heart of a new branch ofChristianity that now boasts more than 14 million followers in 200 countries. Her literary output exceeded 5,000 articles and 40 books. Among White’s influential writings is Patriarchs and Prophets in her series “Conflict of the Ages,” first published in1890. In this text White offers an expanded vision of Bible stories such as the Genesis creation accounts, the Fall, and Noah’s great flood. In a curious twist of history, modern young-earth creationism can be traced to her visionary expansion of the Genesis flood narrative.
...
White’s interpretation of the biblical narratives attracted little interest outside Adventist circles, but within the Adventist tradition her writings acquired a stature comparable to Scripture. Her interpretation of the Flood became widely known outside Adventistcircles through the writings of George McCready Price (1870-1963). A self-taught geologist with limited education beyond high school, Price was a gifted writer, amateur scientist, and tireless crusader in the cause of anti-evolution. His 723-page The New Geology,2published in 1923, was catapulted into relevance by William Jennings Bryan, who prosecuted John Scopes at the famous trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. But even Bryan, the most important anti-evolutionist of the first half of the twentiethcentury was not a young-earth creationist, seeing no reason to interpret the Genesis creation account as taking place over a literal seven-day week. Because these creationist ideas were basically limited to Seventh-day Adventist biblical interpretation, most Christians outside that group paid no attention to them, and many were fine with the idea that evolution was simply God’s method of creation. A few decades later, however, all this would change when respected fundamentalist scholars John Whitcomb and HenryMorris joined forces to move Price’s ideas from Adventism to mainstream Evangelicalism. They co-authored The Genesis Flood, the book that launched the modern creationist movement and convinced millions of Christians to accept White’s vision of earth history. But what is not widely known, because the authors of The Genesis Flood left it out of their book, is that the arguments in the book are really just Price’s arguments, updated to provide a more scientific presentation.
https://biologos.org/files/modules/giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf

Simply repeating my words back to me...

...is showing you how pointless mere generic objections are. Try a more intelligent approach.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

The Barbarian said:
And yet whales and sharks all sorts flesh were not destroyed. So again your interpretation requires that God be wrong.

No, because God said, "

I note that in the Midwest right now, people are saving animals from floods. So you're wrong there.

No, I am not. If the flood were global, there would be nowhere to which you could save them, no place for them to go. My point is that

The great flood in the Middle East that covered a huge area and created the Black Sea was unlike anything seen since. So that would make sense.

Not really. Again, no reason to make an ark to save animals if entire species of animals are not going to be destroyed. The only animals that would be destroyed would be those unable to escape. You might lose some horses or whatever, but not all of them, so no reason to make an ark to preserve them.

Barbarian observes:
But you believe that Peter, writing in the same time, was not? You're just playing as a cafeteria Christian, believing the parts you like and writing off the parts you don't like as "hyperbole."

Because flood account doesn't use hyperbole, particularly when it says that only 8 people were left alive after the flood. No one else on earth survived. The Bible is pretty clear. Plus it says that the waters covered the mountains which would, if it were local, give us an egg-shaped flood.

Yes, that's what you've done here. One of them, you want to take literally, so you do, and the other one you don't want to take literally, so you don't. You're just reading it to suit your own wishes.

Nope, I take the whole Bible literally. That's why I can tell the difference when hyperbole is being used and when it isn't. I am simply better at exegeting the Bible

"Exegete" doesn't mean "pick what I like, and reject what I don't like."

That's right. That's why I don't accept evolution. It would require me to re-interpret the Bible to suit Evolution. The one thing I have noticed is that Christians who believe in evolution are far more dishonest about the Bible than Atheists. Even Atheists acknowledge that the Bible is wholly incompatible with Evolution. They are at least honest about the fact that the Bible, as written doesn't support Evolution. It is pretty bad when an Atheist has more integrity, honesty and credibility than so called "Christians."

I just showed you that it does.

What I mean is that the Bible doesn't use figures of speech in a manner that denies the historicity or the global effects of the flood.

You can't use figures of speech to argue a literal global flood and do so with any intellectual credibility.

Figures of speech point us to a literal truth. And the Bible uses no figures of speech with regard to the flood.

Justified112 · Apr 5, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.

No, you don't.

You're just wrong here. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. We see that constantly. Even speciation has been directly observed.

That's not what we are talking about. No one, not even creationists deny mutations within a species. But molecules to man evolution has never been observed.

As were the other animals. God makes your body just as he made Adam's body, by natural processes. As even the early Christians knew, this is a parable for man's creation.

No, it was not a parable. God made man from the dirt. It was a supernatural act.

It's not the creation of Adam's body that made him different. As God says, it's the direct gift of a soul that makes him so.

The point is that Adam did not evolve, from something else, into a human being. He was made a human, just like us, but without sin.

It is true that things like the evolution of the vertebrate or cephalopod eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of a Creator wise and powerful enough to make a world in which such things come about in fulfillment of His will. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.

Denies a creator and thus cannot give glory to the Creator

Yep. YE creationism is no older than the last century, having been invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess."

Yeah, that's a lie.

...is showing you how pointless mere generic objections are. Try a more intelligent approach.

No, it is just you being immature and refusing to be an adult.

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Barbarian observes:
And yet whales and sharks all sorts flesh were not destroyed. So again your interpretation requires that God be wrong.

Justified112 said:
No, because God said, "

Not very convincing. Is it your argument that mammals like whales don't have flesh?

I note that in the Midwest right now, people are saving animals from floods. So you're wrong there.

No, I am not. If the flood were global,

And now you're assuming what you proposed to prove.

Not really. Again, no reason to make an ark to save animals if entire species of animals are not going to be destroyed.

Those livestock in the Midwest are being saved, even though their loss won't wipe out a species. So you're wrong,again.

Because flood account doesn't use hyperbole,

You think there are windows in the sky where water falls out when the windows are opened?

Plus it says that the waters covered the mountains which would, if it were local, give us an egg-shaped flood.

The Black Sea flood covered mountains. They are now submerged under the Black Sea.

One of them, you want to take literally, so you do, and the other one you don't want to take literally, so you don't. You're just reading it to suit your own wishes.

Nope, I take the whole Bible literally.

Unless it doesn't fit what you want, and then you say "world" is just a figure of speech. When the Bible says Rome counted the whole world, it doesn't mean the whole Earth, and you're O.K. with that. But when you want it to mean the whole Earth, then you declare that it must be so interpreted. It's the cafeteria Christian way.

That's why I can tell the difference when hyperbole is being used and when it isn't. I am simply better at exegeting the Bible

To you, "exegeting" seems to mean "whatever I want it to mean."

That's right. That's why I don't accept evolution. It would require me to re-interpret the Bible to suit Evolution.

Rather, it means you'd have to give up your revisions of scripture.

So many YE creationists are far more dishonest about the Bible than atheists. But they have one common belief; many atheists also claim that the Bible is wholly incompatible with Evolution. Honest ones do not, but some of them have the same agenda you do; to re-interpret scripture to make it incompatible with evolution. However, most atheists do not make this claim, knowing that it is dishonest.

It is pretty bad when many atheists have more integrity, honesty and credibility than so called "Christians."

What I mean is that the Bible doesn't use figures of speech in a manner that denies the historicity or the global effects of the flood.

I know you want to believe that. But of course, that's not the case. You just change your interpretation, depending on whether you want to believe that part of scripture, or not.

The Barbarian · Apr 5, 2019

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.

Justified112 said:
No, you don't.

We do. Even honest creationists admit that. You're just wrong here. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. We see that constantly. Even speciation has been directly observed.

That's not what we are talking about.

If you're talking about evolution, that's what we're talking about. I suspect you're talking about some imagined set of ideas you've dreamed up and call it "evolution."

Or possibly, you've confused the causes of evolution, such as mutation and natural selection, with evolution. Or confused consequences of evolution,such as common descent, with evolution.

No, it was not a parable.

It is. Even ancient Christians knew it. No point in denying it.

God made man from the dirt.

Yes. You just object to the way He did it.

The point is that Adam did not evolve, from something else, into a human being.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.

It is true that things like the evolution of the vertebrate or cephalopod eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of a Creator wise and powerful enough to make a world in which such things come about in fulfillment of His will. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.

Denies a creator

That's a lie. Shame on you.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. YE creationism is no older than the last century, having been invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess."

Yeah, that's a lie.

I just showed you the documentation. No point in you denying it. Learn to live with the truth. God says it will make you free. Worth a try.
https://biologos.org/files/modules/giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf

Bible and science?

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads