Bible makes no scientific claims

[trophy33]

Therefore, there is no conflict between Bible and natural science.

 

[Sabertooth]

...but it makes historical claims...
(And its surrounding content has scientific ramifications.)

 

[Believer000]

Therefore, there is no conflict between Bible and natural science.

The Bible told us 'He hangs the Earth on nothing' way before men had any knowledge what our world looked like from the outside.

 

[Halbhh]

(And its surrounding content has scientific ramifications.)

What? No. I've read through the common bible twice and soon it will be 3 times. There isn't any section that can be accurately understood to be about any science topic like a physics area, or geology, biology, etc., when read in context, aiming to understand the text as it was intended.

 

[trophy33]

...but it makes historical claims...
(And its surrounding content has scientific ramifications.)

Ancient Israelites understood history differently than we do today.

For them, the most important part was a story. For us, the most important part are facts.

 

[trophy33]

The Bible told us 'He hangs the Earth on nothing' way before men had any knowledge what our world looked like from the outside.

It also says its standing on pillars.

But I would not frame the statement as "The Bible told us". No, we are not the original audience and such windows into ancient worldview are not the message Bible is teaching us.

 

[Sabertooth]

There isn't any section that can be accurately understood to be about any science topic like a physics area, or geology, biology, etc., when read in context, aiming to understand the text as it was intended.

For them, the most important part was story. For us the most important part are facts.

It says little about specifics, but it falls apart if we would reject its generalities.

 

[d taylor]

The Bible told us 'He hangs the Earth on nothing' way before men had any knowledge what our world looked like from the outside.

Earth in The Bible means land/ground not a water cover rotating sphere magically floating out in nowhere space.

 

[Sabertooth]

It also says its standing on pillars.

So, gravity cannot be a pillar...?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Therefore, there is no conflict between Bible and natural science.

Care to summarize for those of us who can't watch a nearly 2 hour video now?

 

[d taylor]

-​

The Bible describes God's creation Heaven and earth. The sun, moon and stars and many of the other areas.

This descriptions given in The Bible is in conflict with science and its claims.

 

[Halbhh]

The Bible told us 'He hangs the Earth on nothing' way before men had any knowledge what our world looked like from the outside.

Ah, the exception. Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing. is a fun verse, in that way.

But what people tend to think about that try to argue science vs the bible is by misinterpreting things like the Earth is on pillars etc. (see further below), or misinterpreting Genesis chapter 1, or 2-3, or 6, etc.

It also says its standing on pillars.

But I would not frame the statement as "The Bible told us". No, we are not the original audience and such windows into ancient worldview are not the message Bible is teaching us.

"He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world." 1 Sam 2:8

Of course, these words like 'foundations of the Earth', 'pillars' etc. etc. -- are all saying that the Earth is stable -- as we would in modern terms phrase it, Earth it will not suddenly go out of orbit nor is it going to split into pieces, nor any such other total instability.
As Genesis chapter 1 is all about, Earth is a good habitat for life.

 

[trophy33]

So, gravity cannot be a pillar...?

Thats reading into the text. Thats not what the author meant.

 

[trophy33]

Care to summarize for those of us who can't watch a nearly 2 hour video now?

I highly recommend to watch it, there were so many useful insights that I am probably not able to summarize it well.

We are not the original audience, our ideas (cultural river) are different. That produces all kinds of various mistakes when we read the text, because we try to insert our problems and our worldview into the text, instead of learning the background of the authors and what they originally meant.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Given the current state of science and its refusal to address the "a man can be a woman" issue, I am not sure the Bible becoming a scientific volume would add to its credibility. We would be better off just leaving as a spiritual text of faith. If one were to believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, and natural selection (or was that natural rejection?), I would have to say modern science has placed us on the road to extinction. The first species to ever "think" it's way out of existence.

 

[trophy33]

I agree religion and science should remain separate, but it seems fairly clear that these sorts of Christian claims are an attempt to salvage Genesis 1 after modern science has thoroughly debunked it.

Science did not debunk Gn 1.
Gn 1 did not debunk science.

Science does not make theological claims. Its a way to indentify mechanisms.
Gn 1 does not make scientific claims. Its a story of temple inauguration.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I highly recommend to watch it, there were so many useful insights that I am probably not able to summarize it well.

We are not the original audience, our ideas (cultural river) are different. That produces all kinds of various mistakes when we read the text, because we try to insert our problems and our worldview into the text, instead of learning the background of the authors and what they originally meant.

Sounds dull. Thanks anyway.

 

[Greengardener]

As I read through some of the posts, it crossed my mind to ask a different question: is it required that the Bible address science? If that were the case, wouldn't it would be the same thing we have now in science: that one group believing in a particular theory point to their evidence and try to prove what they believe while refuting the beliefs of other groups who see things differently? And in all honestly, that on-going debate is a process I endorse: we should be observing and making theories as well as considering other possibilities. It's just without the whole story we honestly can't conclude an absolute, but we can say what seems to work and be reliable.

With anything we choose to believe or have confidence in (or faith, if you will), it's a matter of individual agreement and hopefully is supported by reality. When it comes to science we can see what we can trust overall and we see where error can happen. We sent John Glenn up into space and he came back just fine. Fast forward a bit and we sent a crew of people into space and the ship blew up. Lately we have had an ongoing situation of sending people up to a space station where they live for months and come back. Every one of them had confidence in the ship.

Could it be that the purpose of the Scriptures is very different from the course of science? And could it be that the Creator of all of this has ways that are so much higher than ours that it makes the comparison from man finding fire to man on a space station look like the head of a pin compared to the distance we've calculated to the edge of the universe as we know it? And if that is so - and like anyone I'm limited to speculation here - and if He is indeed "parental" in disposition as it appears in Scriptures, I think it makes good sense that the thing that makes or breaks us as a people is the caring we have in our group and sticking to social concepts that make life work for the greatest number of average folks, which is the concept of "right" and "fairness" we for the most part seem to share. And since we don't get that part right innately, it looks to me like this Creator shows in the Bible a method of resetting, the likes of which makes profound sense to me.

In it all, what does it really matter if we "evolved" from a line of something when we can't go back to uncover where it all started anyways OR if we simply refuse that line of thinking to conclude that at least for roughly 6,000 years of written history we appear to be a people who have learned a lot of interesting things and yet have continued to struggle with simple decency, justice, and doing the "right" thing? No matter which way we choose, it doesn't stop science: we've continued to learn how to make some things work that we had no idea could work earlier, like spaceships. And it doesn't stop what might easily be called "philosophy," which is our need as a human community to live in the greatest freedom and safety each of us can have while living in a way that allows our neighbor to also live likewise, and which perpetuates that freedom and safety so that we don't destroy ourselves. If you read the Bible carefully for yourself apart from the religiosity of what others promote, you can see the sensibleness of the framework presented by the Creator in that Book and appreciate the 6000 years of history of people either choosing to agree with it or refusing to agree with it. From my view it offers a lot of wisdom to help us know where to draw the lines in human behavior, which is actually foundational for the survival of people in any degree of science that man has found himself living.

 

[Rachel20]

Actually the Bible does make claims that are within the pervue of science. For example, that the world had a beginning. That the seas have pathways. Credit Lemaitre for the BB theory and Fontaine for discovering/mapping the ocean currents (both Christians btw)

 

[Halbhh]

Christians did understand the Bible as defining their science of the world;

Sorry that's merely mistaken in the very broad way you have written it.

Galileo is the famous example, and a great one.

With very poor reading and apparently very little understanding, some decided scripture said said the Earth literally stood still as if that meant it could not orbit the sun, a wild mistake that suggests a tendency towards poor reading and error, as those verses cannot be taken that way unless one reads very poorly and fails to notice what they actually are saying.

1 Chronicles 16:30 tremble before Him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

But if a person merely reads the text (instead of blindly isolating a verse), that mistake ought to easily be corrected:

30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

31 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let them say among the nations, “The Lord reigns!”

32 Let the sea resound, and all that is in it;
let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them!

33 Let the trees of the forest sing,
let them sing for joy before the Lord,
for he comes to judge the earth.

Of course, obviously, we have figurative wordings here. While God can surely alter trees and make them literally sing if He chooses, He has not chosen so, around us, at this time, nor 400 years ago, etc.

Instead, this is akin to poetry, and that's not hard to get right it seems to me if a person merely has been reading through more broadly, the entire book, listening. So that when they hit a metaphor, they naturally get it right as metaphor.

Ergo, the Earth is "firmly established; it cannot be moved" -- it won't suddenly disintegrate into pieces or spin out of control, wobble badly and suddenly one day topple over and be destroyed in a few minutes, etc.