Biblical literalism vs. science - Why is evolution the sticking point?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's a conversation between Elihu and Job, not "YHWH" and job, show me a verse that says that Elihu had the spirit of God on him when he spoke those things.

So we can take what Elihu says as untrue?

 

[Yennora]

So we can take what Elihu says as untrue?

We can take it as opinion, and i don't say that, Elihu himself said that in Job 32:17 "I said, I will answer also my part, I also will shew mine opinion."

Is Elihu's opinion the infallible word of God? Of course not, only what YHWH said is the infallible word of God, and what was said/written by people whom had the Holy Spirit upon them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Anyway, the last several posts have been getting hung up on the details which I have already said are not the important aspect of this discussion.

To save time and to avoid taking the thread down a path which leads it too far away from the central questions, let me instead just ask a simple question of any Bible literalist who may be reading - do you believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific theory or concept which is at odds with a literal reading of the Bible?

If the answer is yes, then why do you suppose this to be the case? I ask that in both senses - namely; why do you believe this to be the case, and how do you imagine this has come to pass? Also, would this mean that you believe the trial and imprisonment of Galileo for heresy to be unjust, and based on the Church's misunderstanding of the Bible?

If the answer is no, then could you explain what other passages of the Bible you consider to be incompatible with science, and detail what in science you believe they are at odds with?

These kinds of questions are precisely why in the OP I asked Biblical literalists to explain their position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Job 37: 18 disagrees with you, claiming that the sky is "strong", or "hard", depending on the translation.

Job is a tough book to handle; and is Hebrew poetry to boot.

Be careful getting your cosmology from the book of Job.

Job 37 was spoken by Elihu, a man so evil, God wouldn't even acknowledge him.

Here's a brief overview of Job:

Job is about Satan vs JEHOVAH.

Satan was mouthing off about God's people being righteous because they were prosperous, so God intentionally got Satan to focus on Job.

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

All Satan had to do to win this wager with God was to get Job to curse God.

That's all he had to do.

And God, in His omniscience, knew Job would not; but He let Satan "throw the book at Job" to get Job to curse Him.

Satan tried everything he could, including using Job's wife; but to no avail.

Job, of course, didn't know anything about this Satan vs JEHOVAH wager; and he refused to take the easy way out by cursing God and dying.

In fact, Job did just the opposite: worshipping God.

But Satan saved the best for last and played his trump card:

A man called Elihu, who was so evil, God wouldn't even allow Job to sacrifice on his behalf in the end.

Be careful when getting your cosmology from the book of Job.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is an argument for the term "light" being meant as metaphorical in Genesis.

Light is not metaphorical in Genesis.

The light in question is visible energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, hitting the moon and reflecting to earth.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is Elihu's opinion the infallible word of God? Of course not, only what YHWH said is the infallible word of God, and what was said/written by people whom had the Holy Spirit upon them.

Then that implies that, as per Job 38, the Earth is set upon foundations, has a cornerstone and edges; that the stars can sing; that the sea is kept behind doors; that snow and hail are kept in storehouses and rain in jars; that the Pleiades are chained and Orion wears a belt; and that lightning bolts can speak?

 

[AV1611VET]

The word in this instance is "astēr",

No, it isn't.

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

If you see "aster" in that passage, you either need glasses or a better monitor.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Light is not metaphorical in Genesis.

The light in question is visible energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, hitting the moon and reflecting to earth.

You are equivocating on the word "light". Genesis 1:16 doesn't mention the electromagnetic spectrum, it mentions 2 "lights", meaning a source of light, such as a lightbulb or a lamp. The original Hebrew word is "meoroth", which does not have the meaning you are ascribing to it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, it isn't.

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

If you see "aster" in that passage, you either need glasses or a better monitor.

That's the English translation. "Aster" is the word in the original Greek.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Anyway, again, we're getting off track. Could you answer the questions in post #23, please?

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, would this mean that you believe the trial and imprisonment of Galileo for heresy to be unjust, and based on the Church's misunderstanding of the Bible?

My personal opinion is that God used the Catholic church to put Galileo under house arrest.

Free from outside interference, Galileo was able to finish two of his most important works.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the English translation. "Aster" is the word in the original Greek.

Where the original Greek differs from the KJB, the original Greek is wrong.

And what do you mean by 'original Greek'?

Classical Greek or Koine Greek?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, again, we're getting off track. Could you answer the questions in post #23, please?

No, I do not believe the theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific theory or concept which is at odds with a literal reading of the Bible.

The seven or so theories as to how we got our moon are all wrong.

Science today has one major [unspoken] agenda: to sterilize every jot and tittle of the Bible.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

My personal opinion is that God used the Catholic church to put Galileo under house arrest.

Free from outside interference, Galileo was able to finish two of his most important works.

To be clear - you believe that God deliberately made the Church misinterpret the Bible for centuries in order to imprison one man for several years so that he could publish some scientific works free from interference? Is that accurate?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Where the original Greek differs from the KJB, the original Greek is wrong.

Thank you. I think that is probably the statement which most helps me to start to answer the questions posed in the OP.

Although I should probably point out that the Greek doesn't differ from the KJB, it's just your interpretation of the term which it contradicts.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I do not believe the theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific theory or concept which is at odds with a literal reading of the Bible.

The seven or so theories as to how we got our moon are all wrong.

Interesting, thank you. Any more?

 

[AV1611VET]

To be clear - you believe that God deliberately made the Church misinterpret the Bible for centuries in order to imprison one man for several years so that he could publish some scientific works free from interference? Is that accurate?

No, that is not accurate.

Why are you blaming the Church for this, when geocentrism is basically a scientific observation?

In your opinion ... your opinion ... how many scientists disagreed with Galileo?

I'd say most, if not all of them.

We would see this same kind of mistake happen years later with Thalidomide.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, that is not accurate.

Then can you clarify your position for me, please?

Why are you blaming the Church for this, when geocentrism is basically a scientific observation?

I've not blamed anybody for anything.

 

[Yennora]

No, I do not believe the theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific theory or concept which is at odds with a literal reading of the Bible.

The seven or so theories as to how we got our moon are all wrong.

Science today has one major [unspoken] agenda: to sterilize every jot and tittle of the Bible.

Exactly, Secularism is pushed everywhere and they still claim that we are not open minded, how open minded is it to fire a scientist for "thinking"? Do you want more secular science? Multi-universe, where is the "irrefutable" evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting, thank you. Any more?

The Big Bang theory is diametrically opposed to a literal six-day creation.

So the following theories are in contrast to the Bible:

1. Theory of evolution.
2. Theories of how we got our moon.
3. The Big Bang theory.