Creationists and the Heart

[Dale]

The word "heart" appears quite a number of times in the Bible. "Heart" is used 127 times in the Psalms and 75 times in Proverbs, for instance. Overall, "heart" appears 712 times in the Bible. This count is based on the NIV translation.

"Heart" obviously has two meanings, one, an organ of the body, and two, a secret place of thoughts, feelings, and motives.

Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients. Blood pressure was first measured in 1733, over a hundred years later.

In the ancient world, Galen was physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He died about 200 AD. Galen thought that blood formed in the liver, flowed out to the rest of he body, and was absorbed. Galen knew more about blood than anyone in the ancient world and yet he still didn't understand that blood is circulated by the heart.

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.

They were right to say that God is responsible, that God is the Creator, that God has creative power but they did not know the details. As non-creationists have pointed out before, the Bible is not a science text.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

So you are surprised that none was an anatomy expert?
Likely, some did exist and knew that the heart circulates.
It's a good question for you, how many years of classroom
learning did the writers hold, on average?
They were not so ignorant as you suggest.

Empedocles (ca. 490-430 B.C) who believed that the heart distributed life-giving heat to the body, initiated the idea that an ethereal substance called pneuma, which was both life and soul, flowed through the blood vessels.

23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.

 

[St_Worm2]

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about?

Did God know (when He had Moses pen the words of Genesis as He did)? Did Jesus know when He affirmed those same words as truth in the NT?

Thanks!

--David

2 Peter 1
16 We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”—
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

 

[mark kennedy]

The word "heart" appears quite a number of times in the Bible. "Heart" is used 127 times in the Psalms and 75 times in Proverbs, for instance. Overall, "heart" appears 712 times in the Bible. This count is based on the NIV translation.

"Heart" obviously has two meanings, one, an organ of the body, and two, a secret place of thoughts, feelings, and motives.

Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients. Blood pressure was first measured in 1733, over a hundred years later.

In the ancient world, Galen was physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He died about 200 AD. Galen thought that blood formed in the liver, flowed out to the rest of he body, and was absorbed. Galen knew more about blood than anyone in the ancient world and yet he still didn't understand that blood is circulated by the heart.

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.

They were right to say that God is responsible, that God is the Creator, that God has creative power but they did not know the details. As non-creationists have pointed out before, the Bible is not a science text.

While it's true that the Bible isn't a science book, science as we know it didn't exist until the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth century. It's not going to tell you much about astronomy either, or geology or biology, the Levites and the prophets did not concern themselves with such things. What it does tell you is the narrative of redemptive history starting with five historical books and including various others, including the Gospels and Acts. The Bible is founded on historical narrative, that's where it gets it's authority to declare the true history of man. The revelation of the Creator is witnessed to and proclaimed within it pages. The stone age ape men myths are a fabrication of history, not a true representation.

So the question for theistic evolutionists is this, how do we dismiss the historical narratives of the first five books of the OT without doing the same with the New Testament. Not a challenge, just a simple question. The first five books of the OT and the NT are historical narrative, true or false?

 

[Grandpa2390]

The word "heart" appears quite a number of times in the Bible. "Heart" is used 127 times in the Psalms and 75 times in Proverbs, for instance. Overall, "heart" appears 712 times in the Bible. This count is based on the NIV translation.

"Heart" obviously has two meanings, one, an organ of the body, and two, a secret place of thoughts, feelings, and motives.

Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients. Blood pressure was first measured in 1733, over a hundred years later.

In the ancient world, Galen was physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He died about 200 AD. Galen thought that blood formed in the liver, flowed out to the rest of he body, and was absorbed. Galen knew more about blood than anyone in the ancient world and yet he still didn't understand that blood is circulated by the heart.

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.

They were right to say that God is responsible, that God is the Creator, that God has creative power but they did not know the details. As non-creationists have pointed out before, the Bible is not a science text.

I'm trying to understand this wall of text here.

Allow me to summarize and tell me whether I am interpreting your point correctly.

You are saying that because the Ancients didn't know understand the circulatory system and the role that the heart plays in this system, that they couldn't possibly know anything about history?

I could spend a few minutes finding the name for the logical fallacy there, but giving an examples would be much easier.

Do you know how light is paradoxically able to exist as both a particle and a wave? Then how can I expect you to know who the first president of the United States was?

Do you know the diameter of the Universe? Then how can I expect you to know who discovered the function of the heart?

Seems awfully silly that you have chose some random arbitrary fact that the ancients did not understand, and you have somehow set it up as a basis for determining whether a person can be trusted on anything they say. You are allowed to not know and understand things. It is not possible for a person to know everything there is. That doesn't mean I can't expect history professors to speak truths concerning history.

If you are arguing that person has to understand how something works in order to know (and be trusted) in their testimony about who built it, then you are still in trouble. I don't know how a lot of things work in this world. But I still know who programmed, designed, built, etc. them.

 

[Speedwell]

Not a challenge, just a simple question. The first five books of the OT and the NT are historical narrative, true or false?

False--subject to a discussion about the nature of historical narrative. The Pentateuch and the NT are each a complex collection of texts, not all one thing. No doubt they contain various forms of historical narrative, but there is much more than that.

 

[mark kennedy]

False--subject to a discussion about the nature of historical narrative. The Pentateuch and the NT are each a complex collection of texts, not all one thing. No doubt they contain various forms of historical narrative, but there is much more than that.

If you can read those texts and come back with that, I don't really think the concept of what an historical narrative is has dawned on you. Two very important ceremonies commemorate redemptive history, the Passover and the Lord's Supper. These are remembrances of God acting in time and space to redeem his people according to his promise. Sure those historical narratives include things like Levitical law and the parables, but in essence they are historical narrative. I find the ambiguity disappointing, especially with regards to the New Testament.

 

[Dale]

So you are surprised that none was an anatomy expert?
Likely, some did exist and knew that the heart circulates.
It's a good question for you, how many years of classroom
learning did the writers hold, on average?
They were not so ignorant as you suggest.

Empedocles (ca. 490-430 B.C) who believed that the heart distributed life-giving heat to the body, initiated the idea that an ethereal substance called pneuma, which was both life and soul, flowed through the blood vessels.

23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.

The problem is that Empedocles did not realize that blood flowed through the tubes that we call blood vessels.

 

[Speedwell]

If you can read those texts and come back with that, I don't really think the concept of what an historical narrative is has dawned on you.

I can't read them. I can't read ancient Hebrew and I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew literary culture. All I can do is read an English translation--with instruction.

Two very important ceremonies commemorate redemptive history, the Passover and the Lord's Supper. These are remembrances of God acting in time and space to redeem his people according to his promise.

Go slow here; we differ on some important underlying assumptions about the Bible. For instance, the redemptive-historical approach to Scripture is a stranger to my faith tradition.

Sure those historical narratives include things like Levitical law and the parables, but in essence they are historical narrative. I find the ambiguity disappointing, especially with regards to the New Testament.

Whenever historical narrative is written, there is tension between the history and the act of narration, the relationship between fact and story. How that tension is resolved varies, and has varied, considerably over time and place. The question has even produced an entire academic discipline, called Historiography--the study of how historical narrative is and has been written. Glib or naive answers about what kind of historical narrative is being examined have no place here.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can't read them. I can't read ancient Hebrew and I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew literary culture.

The translations have their limitations but their the work of some pretty awesome scholarship. I don't know where that comes from but you don't have to be an expert to know what an historical narrative is.

All I can do is read an English translation--with instruction. Go slow here; we differ on some important underlying assumptions about the Bible. For instance, the redemptive-historical approach to Scripture is a stranger to my faith tradition.Whenever historical narrative is written, there is tension between the history and the act of narration, the relationship between fact and story. How that tension is resolved varies, and has varied, considerably over time and place. The question has even produced an entire academic discipline, called Historiography--the study of how historical narrative is and has been written. Glib or naive answers about what kind of historical narrative is being examined have no place here.

Actually you believe it or you don't, the narrative is evident and obvious. You can't answer a straight forward question about the Pentateuch, the Gospels and Acts are historical narrative? Really?

 

[Speedwell]

...but you don't have to be an expert to know what an historical narrative is...the narrative is evident and obvious.

That sounds suspiciously like the Doctrine of Perspicuity, another assumption which we definitely do not share.

You can't answer a straight forward question about the Pentateuch, the Gospels and Acts are historical narrative? Really?

Really. The answer is far from straightforward.

 

[mark kennedy]

That sounds suspiciously like the Doctrine of Perspicuity, another assumption which we definitely do not share.Really. The answer is far from straightforward.

It's just not a straight answer, not that it's all that complicated.

Typical.

 

[Speedwell]

It's just not a straight answer, not that it's all that complicated.

Typical.

Typical of what? I thought you wanted an honest answer, which is what I am trying to give you. Evidently you just want to score off a "Bible-hater."

But yes, I think it is complicated. What makes you think that genre determination of ancient texts should be easy?

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

Your conclusion does have one possible problem in its working out as you say that it does.

Who is the author of the Scriptures? Not the writer, but the author. According to Paul, it was holy men of God as they were led by the Holy Spirit. I'm fairly confident that the Holy Spirit knew perfectly well all about the human body that God created as the vessel for the soul and spirit of a man.

If we believe Paul and understand that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures, then your premise that lack of knowledge of how things work precludes some claims made of the Scriptures as necessarily being correct, well...

This is one of the ongoing and deep divides between believers and unbelievers. Who is the author of the Scriptures? From whose thoughts and understandings came the things we find revealed to us in the Scriptures?

What say you?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi dale,

Your conclusion does have one possible problem in its working out as you say that it does.

Who is the author of the Scriptures? Not the writer, but the author. According to Paul, it was holy men of God as they were led by the Holy Spirit. I'm fairly confident that the Holy Spirit knew perfectly well all about the human body that God created as the vessel for the soul and spirit of a man.

If we believe Paul and understand that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures, then your premise that lack of knowledge of how things work precludes some claims made of the Scriptures as necessarily being correct, well...

This is one of the ongoing and deep divides between believers and unbelievers. Who is the author of the Scriptures? From whose thoughts and understandings came the things we find revealed to us in the Scriptures?

What say you?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

It depends on one's view of the inspiration of scripture. Truly, God knows many things that he did not cause to be written about in the Bible.

 

[Dale]

Did God know (when He had Moses pen the words of Genesis as He did)? Did Jesus know when He affirmed those same words as truth in the NT?

Thanks!

--David

2 Peter 1
16 We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”—
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

Jesus certainly did know all about the heart and circulation but it wasn't His mission to explain the physical world to his disciples. I'm not sure what you mean by "He affirmed those same words..." Jesus didn't say that much about Genesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is that Empedocles did not realize that blood flowed through the tubes that we call blood vessels.

It's a good question for you, how many years of classroom
learning did the writers hold, on average?

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is that Empedocles did not realize that blood flowed through the tubes that we call blood vessels. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients.

I think you mean clearly documented and saved for you to read.
All unwritten knowledge is a blank space for modern scholors.

EMPEDOCLES OF ACRAGAS
(B. Acragas [now Agrigento, Sicily], c. 492 BCE;

 

[SkyWriting]

Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.

This knowledge base is all conjecture today. History is created by those who write it.
Usually the ones who win the wars.

 

[miamited]

It depends on one's view of the inspiration of scripture. Truly, God knows many things that he did not cause to be written about in the Bible.

Hi speedwell,

While that fact is surely true, it doesn't then mean that the things that are written about in the Scriptures, God didn't know. I'm, therefore, not quite clear on your point.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted