Bible Science

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings All,

Here is some Bible science:

Earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22)

Incalcuble number of
stars
(Jeremiah 33:22)

Creation made of
invisible elements
(Hebrews 11:3)

Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41)

Light moves
(Job 38:19,20)

Air has weight
(Job 28:25)

Winds blow in cyclones
(Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Blood is the source of
life and health
(Leviticus 17:11)

Ocean floor contains
deep
valleys and mountains
(2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah
2:6)

Ocean contains
springs
(Job 38:16)

When dealing with
disease,
hands should be
washed
under running water
(Leviticus 15:13)

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Those ancients were pretty smart people. However, they did not know everything about science, nor did they get all of their science right. For instance, the Earth is not immobile, neither are the stars. Pi is 3.14, not 3. Epilepsy is not caused by demons, it is a neurological disorder. The earth formed in a process that took hundreds of thousands of years and occured over 4 and a half billion years ago, according to the bible it took 7 days and happened within the realm of recorded history.

In anycase, thebible is not intendted to be a science text.

p.s. Can you find any reference to electricity, fusion, quantum mechanics, aerodynamics or cancer treatment? Of course not, and why would you? So then why are some people so disturbed that no mention of biologicla evolution ????

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Quite agreed.


Those examples are works of science of the time. They had no ability to percieve of such topics such as evolutionary biology, nuclear fission, or perhaps quantum mechanics. It simply was not a topic being researched at the time. Therefore, there are bound to be conclusions and errors made hastily to quickly explain certain things as they are rather than attempt to ponder on that which is virtually untestable by the scientific tools and standards of the time.

Make no mistake, these were very smart people, but they were working with very primitive methods and processes.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Racoons wash their hands in water. Are they enlightened?

Could you please paste the verse as well - it is annoying to keep opening up a window and Googling the passage.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

On closer look - these are an embarassment to any claim of scholarship. This is reaching for straws at it's worst.

I hope whomever developed this list is in no way connected with the education of children. It borders on the criminal.

Is some peoples faith so shallow they need this sham of justification.

 

[lucaspa]

Greetings All,

Here is some Bible science:

Earth is a sphere
(Isaiah 40:22)

This verse says the earth is a circle, not a sphere. Hebrew has a word for "round object" = ball and this is used elsewhere in Isaiah.

Incalcuble number of
stars
(Jeremiah 33:22)

And yet we calculate the number.

Creation made of invisible elements
(Hebrews 11:3)

Out of context. This is a statement of faith, and the "invisible element" referred to here is God.

Each star is different
(1 Corinthians 15:41)

But stars come in classes and some are identical. For instance, Cepheid variables with the same period are identical brightness.

I'm not going to do the rest of these, but instead point out the fallacy of trying to turn the Bible into a science book and validate the theology by saying the science is valid. This is the error made by Buccailism in Islam. Buccailism is a movement to say the Quran is the dictated word of Allah by saying the Quran is accurate as a science text. The problem is that now the reverse must also be true: if the Quran is not accurate as science, then it was not dicated by Allah.

This OP is the same thing. If you are saying the Bible is the word of God because it is accurate science, then you also have to say that if the Bible is not accurate science in any place, then it is not the word of God. There are plenty of places where the Bible is not accurate science. The running water for washing hands for disease is a prime example. Washing your hands in water alone isn't enough. You need to disinfect your hands, and to do that you need not running water but soap at least and you really need a special disinfectant.

Don't tie the Bible to science. The Bible is a theological document. Not a science text.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings All,

I have never said that the Bible was a "Science Book", but it contains countless references to subjects of scientific study. Did you know that an understanding of one particular verse in the NT will give you the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Basically what this verse is saying is that all creation is running downhill.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings All,

Did you know that the Bible tells us what continues to sustain all of creation:

Colossians 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

This also reveals WHO is the FIRST CAUSE, one which "science" still cannot figure out because they conclude that EVERYTHING COMES FROM NOTHING! How ridiculous can you get?

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[lucaspa]

I have never said that the Bible was a "Science Book", but it contains countless references to subjects of scientific study. Did you know that an understanding of one particular verse in the NT will give you the "2nd law of thermodynamics"?

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Basically what this verse is saying is that all creation is running downhill.

How did you possibly get that interpretation?

This is what Buccailism does: takes parts of the Quran and then reinterprets them as fitting what science has found. The danger is the corollary: what if new science shows the "science" to be wrong. That makes the Quran, or Bible, wrong.

I submit that it's simply a stupid game to play. God can only lose such a game.

 

[lucaspa]

Greetings All,

Did you know that the Bible tells us what continues to sustain all of creation:

Colossians 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Yes, this is a statement of belief of Christians. What I find it amazing is how creationism drops this belief and accepts atheism when they get down to how God created. Suddenly evolution is not "sustained" by God, but happens all on its own -- according to creationism!

The problem is that science can't confirm that God sustains all of creation. So it remains a belief. It is the belief that underlies the "theistic" in theistic evolution.

This also reveals WHO is the FIRST CAUSE,

It tells us what Christians believe is First Cause.

Again, it one which "science" still cannot figure out because they conclude that EVERYTHING COMES FROM NOTHING! How ridiculous can you get?

It better not be ridiculous, because eventually God has to come from nothing.

There are several hypotheses for First Cause. One of them is God. But the existence of others and insufficient data to choose between the competing hypotheses means that Christians don't have science backing their belief.

Now, think about the nothing of vacuum. No matter in it. Yet from that nothing matter is continually popping into and out of existence. It is called virtual particles. They are real.

3. C Seife, The subtle pull of emptiness. Science, 275 (Jan. 10): 158, 1997. Describes recent experiment demonstrating the Casimir effect.
3a. Physical Review Letters -- November 23, 1998 -- Volume 81, Issue 21 pp. 4549-4552 http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000081000021004549000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid=2476841006384468984 Paper documenting Casimir Effect
3b. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6 web article on Casimir effect

 

[Sinai]

The earth formed in a process that took hundreds of thousands of years and occured over 4 and a half billion years ago, according to the bible it took 7 days and happened within the realm of recorded history.

According to the Bible, creation took six yoms, but I have been unable to find the passage that says it "happened within the realm of recorded history." Could you please assist me in locating that scripture? Thank you.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The world's oldest stone tools - Ethiopia = 2500000 years
The world's oldest artificial structure - a hut in Japan = 500000 years (Homo erectus)
The oldest known city - Çatalhöyük Turkey = 9500 years ago
The oldest surviving dog breed - Saluki = 9000 years ago
First cultivation - Egypt and Mesopotamia = 9000 years ago
Oldest graineries - Mesopotamia = 8000 years
Wheat domesticated - Mesopotamia = 7800 years ago
Cattle domesticated = 8000 years ago
First irrigation - Mesopotamia = 7500 years ago

The garden of eden (based on the litereal intepretation of the bible's geneologies - as used by most young earth creationists) 6000 years

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Lucaspa,

It better not be ridiculous, because eventually God has to come from nothing.

I am happy you are showing your "true colors", because God had no origination, He ALWAYS was/is. His Name is "I am", or "I am that I am" meaning that He is the eternal one, the never ending one, the one without beginning or end, or the Alpha and the Omega.

I have found no secular scientist that even comes close to accepting God as the "first cause", and they are the ones that say the Bible is foolishness and has no respect to science, just as you continue to do.

I take Jesus' Word seriously when He says: "It is not by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God..." Those who do not are walking on shifting sand, ever changing with every wind of doctrine that passes by. God tells us that these should never expect to receive ANYTHING from God.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[lucaspa]

Greetings Lucaspa, I am happy you are showing your "true colors",

I know this is hard for you, Ernie. You are used to dealing with evolutionists who are either agnostic or atheist. Therefore you can run in and portray creationism as defense of Christianity and the "good guy". That won't work here. Here you are dealing with evolutionists who are Christians and who, far from looking at creationism as the good guy, look at it as the bad guy and the biggest danger facing Christianity today.

Instead of meeting us on the grounds of discussing how God created, you have to fall back on trying to portray evolutionists as atheists.

Let me lay out my conclusions on Biblical literalism creationism, just so you have no doubts where I am coming from.

Biblical literalism is false idol worship. It substitutes worship of the Bible for worship of God. Worse, it substitutes worship of a particular man-made interpretation of the Bible -- literalism -- for the worship of God. This is very evident when you say

I take Jesus' Word seriously when He says: "It is not by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God..."

You ignore that Jesus is the LIVING WORD, you ignore the Holy Spirit and inspiration outside the Bible, and you ignore God's second book -- Creation. It's all the man-made idol of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Sorry, but I am simply not going to worship your false idol.

God had no origination, He ALWAYS was/is.

That's special pleading and isn't an answer. It is the equivalent of the atheists saying "matter/energy/universe had no origin; it simply always was there in some form or other." We don't accept the "always was" argument in that context; we can't accept it in this.

This is an extrapolation from the fact that God never gave the Hebrews any origin. He was there long before the Hebrews showed up. He simply never talked about it. However, you don't know it as a fact and eventually we are faced with the question of God's origin. If something coming from nothing is ridiculous, then so is the only possibility you have for where God came from.

His Name is "I am", or "I am that I am" meaning that He is the eternal one, the never ending one, the one without beginning or end, or the Alpha and the Omega.

The Burning Bush did respond "I am what I am" to Moses' question "Who are you?" However, everything after "meaning ..." is your interpretation. It's not in Exodus. What you are giving are man-made theories about God.

Now, the designation makes perfect sense if God is singular. After all, names are for distinguishing similar entities one from another. Yawheh, as singular, has no such need and therefore no need of a "name" in the conventional sense. Just who is Yahweh going to distinguish itself from?

I have found no secular scientist that even comes close to accepting God as the "first cause", and they are the ones that say the Bible is foolishness and has no respect to science, just as you continue to do.

Please define "secular scientist". If you mean scientists who are also atheist, then you are probably correct. But in that case we aren't talking about science or the scientific conclusion of the person, but their personal faith of atheism. However, God as First Cause has been discussed in scientific meetings. The New York Academy of Sciences for one.
1: Russell RJ. Did God create our universe? Theological reflections on the Big Bang, inflation,and quantum cosmologies.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:108-27.
2: Gingerich O. Scientific cosmology meets western theology: a historical perspective.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:28-38.
4: Miller JB. Cosmic questions and the relationship between science and religion.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:309-10.
5. Kurt Gödel. Unpublished essays and letters.
Collected works vol. III - Edited by Solomon Feferman, John W. Dawson Jr., Warren Goldfarb, Charles Parsons and Robert N. Solovay - Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995 pp. 403-404
6. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 174.

That's only a partial bibliography. Your phrase "I have found no secular scientist " only indicates that you haven't done a very good search.

I take Jesus' Word seriously when He says: "It is not by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God..."

And what was the rest of the verse, and the 3 verses before and after? I have found that Biblical literalists have a deplorable habit of taking the Bible out of context.

Yep, out of context. This is when Satan is tempting Jesus. Satan has demanded:
"If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." You have focussed on the "every word" because that fits with bibliolatry, but have completely missed what Jesus was saying. How typical of literalism.

However, let's see what happens logically if you take this literally. You now have the problem that different Christians have different words of God, because different Christians have different books that are included in the Bible. So, which "every word" since there are different words in the different Canon.

It sounds like you are advocating that God dictated the Bible. Can you find me any theologian or denomination that says that?

Finally, you have the problem that there are two books written by God. Not just the Bible. Remember, God wrote Creation. So, if you are serious about "every word", how is it that you justify ignoring some of the words of God?

Those who do not are walking on shifting sand, ever changing with every wind of doctrine that passes by.

And those that ignore God are over the theological cliff. I hope there is a good soft mattress at the bottom for you.

 

[bdfoster]

Hi Lucaspa
While I agree with 95% of what you've said in this thread, I have to stick up for the eternal existance of God here. I think the scriptural support for that view is pretty substantial, not just in Exodus. It's true God never gave the Hebrews any origin, because I think he had no origin. The statement "...eventually God has to come from nothing" implies there was a time when God was not. Actually it doesn't make much sense to say a "time" when God was not because time itself is part of the created universe. Nevertheless it implies a "situation" where God did not exist.

Brent

 

[lucaspa]

Hi Lucaspa
While I agree with 95% of what you've said in this thread, I have to stick up for the eternal existance of God here. I think the scriptural support for that view is pretty substantial, not just in Exodus. It's true God never gave the Hebrews any origin, because I think he had no origin. The statement "...eventually God has to come from nothing" implies there was a time when God was not. Actually it doesn't make much sense to say a "time" when God was not because time itself is part of the created universe. Nevertheless it implies a "situation" where God did not exist.

Brent

Brent, remember that this comes specifically in response to Ernie's claim that something can't come from nothing -- that the whole concept is ridiculous.

Now, when we are referring to the universe, it is true that time -- as part of spacetime -- came into existence at the Big Bang. Therefore, strictly speaking, talking about time "before" the BB doesn't make a lot of sense. But we aren't strictly speaking. We are saying God exists independent of the universe, therefore God exists when the universe does not -- whether that is "before" or some other term isn't really important.

In terms of human perception of the universe, God was always around. After all, God created the universe so God was present from the beginning of the universe. However, the larger question of whether God "always" existed isn't addressed because it simply wasn't important to the Hebrews. That God was far older than the Hebrews was all that was important.

IMO, what we have is an extrapolation. Just like omnipotence is an extrapolation of God being very powerful, God being "always present" is an extrapolation of God being very old. The distinction wouldn't be important except for the specific claim that Ernie made. Ernie made the specific statement that any entity coming from nothing is "ridiculous". In the light of that claim, saying God was "always present" is special pleading. All entities have to come from somewhere. If God can't come from nothing, there is no place for God to come from. Like I said, atheists claim that matter/energy always existed in some form, therefore no need for God. Ernie would say that was not possible. Sauce for the goose. If God can always exist, so can some other entity -- like matter/energy.

 

[Bushido216]

Hi Lucaspa
While I agree with 95% of what you've said in this thread, I have to stick up for the eternal existance of God here. I think the scriptural support for that view is pretty substantial, not just in Exodus. It's true God never gave the Hebrews any origin, because I think he had no origin. The statement "...eventually God has to come from nothing" implies there was a time when God was not. Actually it doesn't make much sense to say a "time" when God was not because time itself is part of the created universe. Nevertheless it implies a "situation" where God did not exist.

Brent

lucaspa is using one of his favoured strategies, which is to use his opponents arguements against him in such a way as to show that their arguements hurt their position.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa is using one of his favoured strategies, which is to use his opponents arguements against him in such a way as to show that their arguements hurt their position.

I would say I follow the logical conclusions from the arguments and that those conclusions contradict the original claim.

IOW, I use the hypothetico-deductive method. Assume the claim/argument is true and then see where it leads. Sometimes it leads to contradicting their position.