Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Astrophile]

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis.—Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up “the heavens,” was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth’s surface during the first “day,” or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third “day” of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5,12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:16.

No doubt this will lay me open to a charge of crass literalness, but do you really think that the Sun only became distinctly visible from the Earth after the evolution of grass and fruit trees, or that grass and fruit trees were the first photosynthesising organisms?

 

[AV1611VET]

If we could go back in time and ask the people who wrote the Bible 2000 and more years ago what shape the Earth is and whether it is stationary or in motion, do you think that they would reply that it is nearly spherical and that it is in orbit around the Sun?

What if they did?

In fact, I happen to think they thought that.

But I don't think they wrote about it.

They were God's amanuenses (secretaries) and wrote about what they were told to write about.

 

[dad]

When the evidence is against you, all you seem to be able to do is call people names. Go figure.

Don't abuse the language, evidence is safe when it is far from you.

 

[dad]

If we could go back in time and ask the people who wrote the Bible 2000 and more years ago what shape the Earth is and whether it is stationary or in motion, do you think that they would reply that it is nearly spherical and that it is in orbit around the Sun?

Maybe, maybe not, but at least they would be less likely to kill their own kids or fire off womd.

Besides, God wrote it.

 

[dad]

Gah, you're still debating *if* rather than *when*! Oy Vey.

Once we see that there is no way around the world and man being created, the when becomes elementary.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't abuse the language, evidence is safe when it is far from you.

And more insults.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There's a terrible Elvis joke in here somewhere. Can anyone help me fish it out? Anyone?

Return to sender?

 

[Michael]

Once we see that there is no way around the world and man being created, the when becomes elementary.

Since Catholics and many Christians embrace the concept of an ancient Earth, that's isn't actually the case at all.

 

[dad]

Since Catholics and many Christians embrace the concept of an ancient Earth, that's isn't actually the case at all.

To pretend to embrace the fact that Jesus formed and created Adam, and then the woman, as well as created the sun after the world, while embracing the demonic teachings of the big bang and evolution of man, is to be disingenuous.

 

[dad]

And more insults.

Don't mistake truth for insults. Especially truth that comes in a polite package.

 

[Michael]

To pretend to embrace the fact that Jesus formed and created Adam, and then the woman, as well as created the sun after the world, while embracing the demonic teachings of the big bang and evolution of man, is to be disingenuous.

No Christian who embraces an ancient Earth agrees with you. The only thing that is actually disingenuous is to pretend that there is only one legitimate way to interpret the Bible, and that the Bible should be used exclusively to determine matters of "science".

 

[Hoghead1]

Dad, where did you get the idea that Jesus is creating Adam? That is not at all said in Genesis. Also, those of us who hold that God works through evolution do not take the Genesis accounts literally. I find Genesis to consist of two conflicting accounts, to start with. The Protestant Reformation emphasized that the Bible is not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness, to start with. Hence, Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, stated that God did not intend to teach us astronomy. God speaks in a way to accommodate himself to our intellects, and the biblical writers had limited intellects and could not understand science, so God largely talked "baby talk" to them. The flat earth, etc., are the biblical version of the stork story of how babies come. Also, Augustine, centuries earlier, in a work titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense<" argue that it is nonsense to take the Genesis account literally.

 

[dad]

No Christian who embraces an ancient Earth agrees with you.

I was more concerned about what Jesus said and Scripture, than what the bank, or hardware store, or 'christian groups' say or think.

So what would you have us believe -- that Jesus never really formed Adam, and made Eve from his body later? That we 'really' evolved from pond slime? That Jesus never really created the earth, or sun and stars-- but that some hot little soup spewed forth the universe for no apparent reason? Should we also slap Moses on the wrist for writing in Genesis that the sun was made after the earth? How about the garden of Eden, and the fall of man? Is that some fable with o meaning too? Keep us posted now.

The only thing that is actually disingenuous is to pretend that there is only one legitimate way to interpret the Bible, and that the Bible should be used exclusively to determine matters of "science".

Origins is not and never was a matter of science! The only way to 'determine' them is to believe in Jesus. Science so called, that claims to deal in beginnings, is a Satanic counterfeit account of origins. Those who know Jesus know He created it all. That means no evolution of man or big bang. Period.

 

[Hoghead1]

Since you asked me to keep you posted: I do not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That idea went out the window in modern biblical scholarship years age. No sane, rational biblical scholar believes that. There is no mention of Jesus doing anything in the genesis account. The Spirit of God is talked about, but no Jesus enters the picture, just God and the Spirit. Indeed, if Jesus is the one doing all the creating, what are the Father and Spirit doing?
The way I see it, God works in and through evolution. In fact, I think creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization, a point stressed in the Christian mystical texts.
I think Genesis presents two conflicting accounts of creation, two conflicting chronologies, to start with. I think Gen. 2 is much older than Gen. 1. I think the biblical editors included these two contradictory accounts together, since there simply were two different creation traditions in Judaism. Fact is, there are loads of contradictions in the Bible. I hold that the inerrancy of Scripture is simply a human-made theory or collections of speculations about how God may have interacted with Scripture. When tested out, it does not work. I have no trouble reconciling God with an errant Scripture. If you do, and obviously you do, then that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Job8]

Since you asked me to keep you posted: I do not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That idea went out the window in modern biblical scholarship years age.

And modern biblical scholarship was thoroughly debunked ages ago. Why hang on to the dregs when you can have the truth? Jesus calls the Torah "Moses". That should suffice.

 

[Job8]

Dad, where did you get the idea that Jesus is creating Adam?

How about this passage (John 1:1-3 KJV)? If you don't know who "the Word" is just keep reading that chapter.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Hoghead1]

Debunked, huh? By whom? When? Evidence please. This sure would come as a big surprise to about 150 major biblical scholars who hold with the DH, for example. I recommend you study a bit more carefully before jumping the gun.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Since you asked me to keep you posted: I do not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That idea went out the window in modern biblical scholarship years age. No sane, rational biblical scholar believes that. There is no mention of Jesus doing anything in the genesis account. The Spirit of God is talked about, but no Jesus enters the picture, just God and the Spirit. Indeed, if Jesus is the one doing all the creating, what are the Father and Spirit doing?
The way I see it, God works in and through evolution. In fact, I think creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization, a point stressed in the Christian mystical texts.
I think Genesis presents two conflicting accounts of creation, two conflicting chronologies, to start with. I think Gen. 2 is much older than Gen. 1. I think the biblical editors included these two contradictory accounts together, since there simply were two different creation traditions in Judaism. Fact is, there are loads of contradictions in the Bible. I hold that the inerrancy of Scripture is simply a human-made theory or collections of speculations about how God may have interacted with Scripture. When tested out, it does not work. I have no trouble reconciling God with an errant Scripture. If you do, and obviously you do, then that is your problem, not mine.

God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are the Trinity. In the Genesis account, God speaks in the plural about creating man in "our" image, and makes several references to "us". Since they are all one, then yes, Jesus created Adam.

If, however, you dismiss the entire Bible because you believe it contains errors, then it doesn't matter anyways. You cannot take the chunks you like, and discard the chunks you don't. If God said he did something, you either believe Him, and the way He says He did it, or you don't. But be careful, because that is rejecting Him and who He is.

You can't believe in the Bible and also believe it is errant. Belief in the Bible requires belief that it is in harmony with itself.

 

[bhsmte]

And modern biblical scholarship was thoroughly debunked ages ago. Why hang on to the dregs when you can have the truth? Jesus calls the Torah "Moses". That should suffice.

Debunked by whom?

Debunked with what evidence?

 

[myownmynativeland]

The Scientific Method neither threatens nor is threatened by the Bible. OTOH, there is a class of 'scientist' who loathe both Christians and the Bible. These zealots will twist data into pretzels in their quest to attack the Faith.