Creationists and the Heart

[miamited]

Hi again dale,

Let me take a moment and see if I can offer some better explanation as to my understanding of where the knowledge and wisdom that we find in the Scriptures came from. If we believe the time and date of the things written in the book of Daniel, then Daniel foretold an event that he didn't even have any idea when it would happen, yet gave specific information concerning when it would happen. Daniel couldn't have known the timeline of his foretelling by his own knowledge.

However, Daniel's explanation was that the information was given to him by an angel and that angel told him that he (the angel) was given the information directly from God. So, what Daniel then wrote down to be preserved throughout the generations wasn't based on Daniel's ability, knowledge or understanding. It was ultimately God telling Daniel, "Look, this is going to happen and here's when it's going to happen'.

Hopefully this helps in understanding that what Moses wrote down regarding the creation event, to be preserved for future generations, wasn't any ability, knowledge or wisdom that came from Moses. It was the knowledge and wisdom of God who was there at the time of the event's happening. The Holy Spirit revealed these things to Moses and Moses, much like a secretary, wrote it all down for us.

Now, I readily agree and admit that a lot of people don't understand the creation of the Scriptures in this way and that's ok. Ultimately, what the believer wants to know is the truth. Did the ideas and thoughts and facts that we find in the Scriptures come from the mind of man or the mind of God?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

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

What I mean is, that it is possible that the authors God chose to inspire may have had ideas about the natural world which He thought unnecessary to disturb, even though He knew better.

 

[St_Worm2]

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.

Granted, His Apostles and the other NT writers said more than Jesus did about the Creation, but He actually said pretty much Himself. Here's what I remember anyway:

First of all, He identified Himself as YHWH from the OT Scriptures .. e.g. John 8:58 (as does the Apostle John, who puts Jesus on the throne of the temple in Isaiah 6:1-4 .. John 12:41). We also know that Jesus is the Creator & Sustainer of the Universe.. e.g. John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17, and that He believes every dot and tittle within the word of God is the truth. That said, here are the verses I was thinking of.

Adam and Eve and the Creation of mankind:

Matthew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”​

Abel:

Matthew 23
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.​

Noah & the Flood/Lot/Sodom/Lot's wife:

Luke 17
26 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
31 On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back.
32 Remember Lot’s wife.​

Jonah & the Whale/Nineveh/Solomon & the Queen of Sheba:

Matthew 12
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
42 The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
​

The Devil in the Garden:

John 5
44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”​

Jesus confirms the writings of Moses a) as the truth and b) that they spoke of Him:

John 8
45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?​

There is much more, of course, and then there are the Apostles and everything they said , as I already mentioned.

Yours and His,
David

 

[mindlight]

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.

The bible does not use the word heart to describe merely the physical organ that generates a heart beat. It uses the word to describe the centre of a persons inner life- their thoughts and motivations. The bibles references are as pertinent today as ever. Maybe the person who first applied the word heart to the organ was the one who made the mistake here.

 

[Speedwell]

Granted, His Apostles and the other NT writers said more than Jesus did about the Creation, but He actually said pretty much Himself. Here's what I remember anyway:

First of all, He identified Himself as YHWH from the OT Scriptures .. e.g. John 8:58 (as does the Apostle John, who puts Jesus on the throne of the temple in Isaiah 6:1-4 .. John 12:41). We also know that Jesus is the Creator & Sustainer of the Universe.. e.g. John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17, and that He believes every dot and tittle within the word of God is the truth. That said, here are the verses I was thinking of.

Adam and Eve and the Creation of mankind:

Matthew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”​

Abel:

Matthew 23
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.​

Noah & the Flood/Lot/Sodom/Lot's wife:

Luke 17
26 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
31 On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back.
32 Remember Lot’s wife.​

Jonah & the Whale/Nineveh/Solomon & the Queen of Sheba:

Matthew 12
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
42 The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
​

The Devil in the Garden:

John 5
44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”​

Jesus confirms the writings of Moses a) as the truth and b) that they spoke of Him:

John 8
45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?​

There is much more, of course, and then there are the Apostles and everything they said , as I already mentioned.

Yours and His,
David

All of which is based on the assumption that in order to be "true" and "believable" the texts must be 100% accurate literal history.

 

[St_Worm2]

All of which is based on the assumption that in order to be "true" and "believable" the texts must be 100% accurate literal history.

Of course, and so it was written by Moses in the OT, and then confirmed by the Lord and His Apostles in the NT (who told us that they "did not follow cleverly devised myths" when they wrote the Gospels and the Epistles .. e.g. 2 Peter 1:16).

In Christ,
David

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Likely any farmer or person who eats meat throughout human existence
understands the heart and the function of blood vessels. If not, what is the problem?

 

[Dale]

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?

On whether the first five books of the OT are "historical narrative," consider this.

In my experience, creationists believe in a Fall of the Rebel Angels. I'm not so sure about this story but it was a Roman Catholic belief that Protestants have rarely questioned, so creationists believe it.

If the story of the Fall of the Rebel Angels is true, and Genesis is a historical narrative, why doesn't Genesis start there? That's where John Milton started. But Genesis doesn't start there. It looks like either the story of the Fall of the Rebel Angels isn't true or the purpose of Genesis is something other than what you imagine it to be.

 

[Dale]

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?

Are the first chapters of Genesis a "historical narrative"? I've talked to people in their eighties who have been creationists all their lives and they still don't know who Adam's sons married. That's a major indication that these stories are parables. They have meaning but they aren't literal.



When conservative Christians look at the first part of Genesis today, they look for a narrative about where the world came from, where humanity came from. They look for a religious narrative to compete with the scientific narrative that they know too little about and aren't attached to anyway. They look for a story about origins, how it all started. While Genesis 1:1 may deal directly with the desire of modern Christians for an authoritative statement in the Bible about origins, most of the chapter's contents may have a different purpose.

For the authors of Genesis, where matter came from wasn't something they worried about. The notion of creation ex nihilo was invented by Catholic theologians in the early Christian era.

What Genesis One is concerned about is that the Jews were surrounded by people practicing Babylonian paganism, or Phoenician paganism. They were surrounded by polytheists, idolaters. The crucial point of Genesis One is not to list everything that God created, as some modern creationists expect it to do. The exact order that things were created isn't the point either.

The key point of the six days of creation is that the sun, moon, stars, winds and seas are things made by the One True God. To put it differently, the point is that the sun, moon, stars, winds and seas are NOT beings worthy of worship. The Bible opens with a strong statement of monotheism.

 

[SkyWriting]

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, herdsmen and hunters.

That covers all knowledge.

 

[dqhall]

The bible does not use the word heart to describe merely the physical organ that generates a heart beat. It uses the word to describe the centre of a persons inner life- their thoughts and motivations. The bibles references are as pertinent today as ever. Maybe the person who first applied the word heart to the organ was the one who made the mistake here.

The ancient Egyptians mummified their dead in an attempt to preserve them for the afterlife. They opened the chest cavity and saw the heart was connected to the body by numerous vessels and thought it was the center of life and reasoning. They usually left the heart in the body while packing the chest with salts to dry out and preserve the body. The Egyptians removed the corpse brains without understanding their function. The Biblical descriptions indicating the heart had brain functions such as thought and memory may have been copied from the ancient Egyptians.

 

[Dale]

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.

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

I broke it down into paragraphs.

Grandpa: "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 said natural history, which includes what we know about fossils and the animals and plants who left them.

Grandpa: "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."

That's not what I said at all. I trust what they say about God, about marriage, and morality. What I questioned is whether we should draw radical conclusions about how long living things have been around from a few verses in Genesis. You say that I seize on a "random, arbitrary fact" but the word "heart" is mentioned in the Bible over 700 times. It is not a random fact that Biblical authors did not know what the heart as a physical organ does. Likewise, blood is mentioned many times in the Bible and yet Biblical authors did not know the relation between the heart and blood.

Since creationists are determined to ignore everything that we have learned about living things and the physical world, I must point out the limitations of where they get their information.

 

[Grandpa2390]

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

I broke it down into paragraphs.

Grandpa: "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 said natural history, which includes what we know about fossils and the animals and plants who left them.

Grandpa: "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."

That's not what I said at all. I trust what they say about God, about marriage, and morality. What I questioned is whether we should draw radical conclusions about how long living things have been around from a few verses in Genesis. You say that I seize on a "random, arbitrary fact" but the word "heart" is mentioned in the Bible over 700 times. It is not a random fact that Biblical authors did not know what the heart as a physical organ does. Likewise, blood is mentioned many times in the Bible and yet Biblical authors did not know the relation between the heart and blood.

Since creationists are determined to ignore everything that we have learned about living things and the physical world, I must point out the limitations of where they get their information.

I disagree with you. understanding what the heart does has no bearing on the accuracy of their historical beliefs. and we too use the heart as a metaphor. albeit we use it for emotion (they used the bowels to represent the seat of emotion rather than the heart).

your argument is fallacious, and silly. And Creationists are not determined to ignore everything. there you continue going. there are many scientists who are Creationists. I myself am one. I don't have a problem with science and what it has helped us to discover.
I find the evidence of your beliefs to be lacking. Now when scientists come out with more evidence for their theory (or potentially come up with a new theory that is well-supported by evidence), I will consider it.
If they could just create life in laboratory using chemicals, I would consider it possible to have happened by accident. but until they prove it is even possible to be done intelligently, I am hard-pressed to believe it could be done unintelligently.

But so far, the only evolution that occurs is within the individual kinds of animals.

 

[miamited]

What I mean is, that it is possible that the authors God chose to inspire may have had ideas about the natural world which He thought unnecessary to disturb, even though He knew better.

Hi speedwell,

Yes, that is possible. As soon as you find any evidence to support that possibility, then let's look at it. At this point, your claim is just as valid as one who would say that it's certainly possible that pigs could fly if God had created them to do that.

I have provided my evidence that shows that God obviously did reveal to one writer of His Scriptures things of which he could not possibly have had any understanding or knowledge of at the time. Let's see yours.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi dale,

You made the claim:

Since creationists are determined to ignore everything that we have learned about living things and the physical world, I must point out the limitations of where they get their information.

Sweeping generalizations are rarely the truth. I, of course, can only speak for myself, but...

As a creationist who solidly believes that this created realm has only existed for about 6,000 years, there are a lot of things about living things and the physical world that I agree with and understand. However, these are things which we have learned that we can stand back and watch it happen again and again. We can set up experiments that prove that such things happen. The moment of the creation of this realm of planets and stars and galaxies and the earth and vegetation and man and animals isn't such a testable event.

The Grand Canyon is a fairly good example. For years scientists have taught us that the canyon was eroded away by the river running through it or that it was dug out by glacial movement. There's only one problem with both of those ideas.

We have hundreds of rivers crisscrossing the earth. Rivers that have supposedly run their courses for likely as long as the Colorado River has run its course. Rivers that run over all sorts of bottom materials. None of them have etched out a canyon over the many millinea of their flowing.

Glaciers are believed to have been extremely large sheets of ice and we have seen glacial flow as it happens in some of the more extreme northern and southern points of the earth. What is the explanation that allows that such a natural event that has happened, according to old earth models, several times throughout the existence of the earth that would explain this singular anomaly of such a steep sided and relatively narrow canyon. Considering the 'evidence' that explains the existence of the Grand Canyon, it is just as possible that a cataclysmic event such as the opening of the fountains of the great deep could have just as likely been the cause of the Grand Canyon.

I'm not saying that it is, I'm merely saying that the evidence to prove the current theories is lacking any real proof that either of these explanations are really true. We see a big crevasse in the ground and we ask ourselves, 'how did that get there?' We then devise theories that might explain it, but we can't likewise devise models that show that our theories are the truth or in any way replicate the process to show that either theory is correct in explaining how the Grand Canyon came to exist.

Are we really expected to believe that of all the rivers in the world only the Colorado River traveled over such a type of earth that would allow it to slowly erode away billions of tons and tons of rock and dirt? Yet every other river on the face of the earth has not? Are we really expected to believe that of the models that show that pretty much half of the northern and southern hemispheres were at one time covered in ice, that only in this little place of North America did such ice movement carve out some huge cavernous crevice in the earth? Where is the real proof that would show us that either of these theories is really the truth of how the Grand Canyon came to exist?

Similarly with the creation event of this entire realm of existence. Where is the real proof that any of the modeled theories that we have come up with to explain it's existence is the real truth of its coming into existence?

God, however, has shown Himself to be a being with such awesome power and wisdom that we can't even begin to fathom all that He can do. His Scriptures tell us that at one point in time He made the sun to shine in Goshen, a suburb of Egypt, just like it always had. Yet, for three days in Egypt it was pitch black. His Scriptures tell us that to prove to a man that He could be trusted, He caused a shadow cast by the sun over some steps to go backward 10 steps. His Scriptures tell us that He once parted a sea in such a manner that there was a wall of water on both the right and the left side of a group of people passing through. Whatever caused that opening was so calm that the group of people merely walked through on dry ground carrying all of their earthly belongings with them. The Scriptures also tell us that there was a night in Egypt in which the firstborn of every family died. What possible disease or sickness could cause such a specific manner of death?

All of these things are just as impossible as God's claim that He created all that exists in this realm in six days. So, we stand at a crossroads. Either all of it is true or none of it is. The God I know and serve can do that which is impossible for man. Something else that His Scriptures tell us. I have no problem understanding and believing that the God who portrays Himself to us in His Scriptures created this realm of existence all for the benefit of man to live upon the earth which He created and will one day draw it all to a close, judge all men, and then establish an existence in which those who love Him will be eternally separated from those who don't. I firmly and faithfully believe that such a beginning and eventuality of this realm is exactly what the Scriptures tell us has and will happen.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[JoeP222w]

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.

"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."


Your argument is completely fallacious and a claim to your own omniscience, that you know what ancient people knew about the body and what they did not know. Since you were not alive when they were, you claim to know what they knew is completely false.

Galen was credited with understanding much of the blood flow because he documented much of his thoughts (more than 350 documents I think). But that does not mean that no one, not one single person ever understood blood flow prior to Galen.

Harvey was credited with documenting the circulatory system but again that does not mean that no one had a clue about the circulatory system before him.

It is high arrogance of the modern generation to believe that people of ancient times were utterly clueless about so many things and that we are so very much smarter than them.

 

[miamited]

Hi again dale,

So, to continue with my understanding of God's ability to pass his knowledge through to men by the power of His Spirit, here's how I envision that Moses came to write the book of the beginning. Moses was with God for 40 days on the mountain top. There came a time, during that period, that God revealed to Moses how and when He created this realm. Moses then wrote it all down. To this day, God has preserved that account for all men to know the truth of the how and why we are here. Now the choice for each of us becomes, will we believe God or man?

Yes, I readily agree that this is only my limited understanding of how the account of the beginning came to be known and written down by Moses, but it is just as logical an explanation as any other, given what the Scriptures tell us about how they came to exist. Holy men of God wrote as they were led by the Holy Spirit.

The definition of 'holy' is to be set apart. So what the Scriptures tell us in other words is that men who were set apart to God wrote as they were led by the Spirit of God. So, let's understand that we're not talking about just any Tom, Dick or Harry that lived in ancient days. We're talking about men who were faithful to God and desired to know and to trust Him. These few men, such as the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel and Jeremiah were special people that God set apart from all the other people upon the earth to write down the many things that He revealed to them through His Spirit.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

Yes, that is possible. As soon as you find any evidence to support that possibility, then let's look at it. At this point, your claim is just as valid as one who would say that it's certainly possible that pigs could fly if God had created them to do that.

I have provided my evidence that shows that God obviously did reveal to one writer of His Scriptures things of which he could not possibly have had any understanding or knowledge of at the time. Let's see yours.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

In this thread? I must have missed it. But I have seen such lists before and none of them have been convincing. I have no such list myself because I see no scientific knowledge revealed in the Bible that the authors could not have known for themselves.

 

[miamited]

In this thread? I must have missed it. But I have seen such lists before and none of them have been convincing. I have no such list myself because I see no scientific knowledge revealed in the Bible that the authors could not have known for themselves.

Hi speedwell,

Yes, you missed it in this thread. (hint #21)

I don't understand why you're stuck on labeling the knowledge that Moses had to record the beginning account as 'scientific knowledge'. The Scriptures are not a science book. They are merely a writing of truths to be known about our Creator that we couldn't otherwise know if He didn't love us enough to tell us.

As to your not having seen scientific knowledge revealed in the bible that the authors could not have known for themselves, that's not what my evidence is about. I'm just speaking of knowledge of things that some of the writers of the Scriptures wrote that they couldn't possibly have had any knowledge or understanding of them.

I don't doubt that you aren't convinced. That's ok. I'm just explaining the reasons that I believe as I do. You obviously have other reasoning for believing as you do. The question, as always, is what is the truth?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[JacksBratt]

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?

So, you are saying that due to the fact that people don't have knowledge of the physical anatomy of the circulatory system........they, then, cannot possibly understand where humans came from?

Really? Seriously?

How about this.....

The main driving person at launcher of the TOE, Chucky Darwin, had absolutely no idea of the complexity of every single living cell of any living being. Nor was he aware of DNA and the complexity and vast amount of information which it contains, or the fact that all this information for the organism it is in, is in every single cell of that organism....

So, the question to you is:

Would Darwin continued with his assumptions about the origin of species if he knew the complexity of each living cell and the DNA that is within every living cell? He already had his doubts...

I bet he would have canned the whole silly concept.