Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[durangodawood]

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.

There is that class, though I dont think they perpetrate fraud nearly so much as you suggest.
.
OTOH most scientists dont care about what the Bible says about science issues one way or the other, except when its used by religious extremists to undermine science education.

On the other other hand, we see Christians right here, all the time, who's view of the bible is threatened by scientific inquiry.

 

[dad]

.
OTOH most scientists dont care about what the Bible says about science issues one way or the other, except when its used by religious extremists to undermine science education.

All so called scientists are religious extremists.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't agree, Sister in Christ. God speaking in the plural in Genesis is probably a throwback to an earlier polytheism. Granted, you may be reading in some sort of social theory of the Trinity, the notion that God consists of a cosmic society of three unique personalities who work in harmony. But that still smacks of polytheism, popular as it may be in Christian circles. Also, you seem to have fallen into what I call either-or thinking. Either Scripture is all inerrant or it is all errant and useless. I hold reality is more of a shade of grey. When we read Scripture, yes, we do have to cherry pick, just as when we read any book. Some things my be true, some not. And if you are dealing with Genesis, then the problem you have is that you are dealing with two contradictory chronologies, to start with. I can send you an itemized list on this, if you want.

 

[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.

So claims the guy in the minority position with respect to Biblical interpretation, who must also shun the validity of empirical physics altogether.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I don't agree, Sister in Christ. God speaking in the plural in Genesis is probably a throwback to an earlier polytheism. Granted, you may be reading in some sort of social theory of the Trinity, the notion that God consists of a cosmic society of three unique personalities who work in harmony. But that still smacks of polytheism, popular as it may be in Christian circles. Also, you seem to have fallen into what I call either-or thinking. Either Scripture is all inerrant or it is all errant and useless. I hold reality is more of a shade of grey. When we read Scripture, yes, we do have to cherry pick, just as when we read any book. Some things my be true, some not. And if you are dealing with Genesis, then the problem you have is that you are dealing with two contradictory chronologies, to start with. I can send you an itemized list on this, if you want.

God speaking in Genesis can't be a throwback because there was nothing before that.

The Trinity states God is one and three. It's not polytheism that states there are different gods over different things.

You must accept an either-or mentality with regards to the Bible; mostly because the Bible requires it. It clearly states you're either with God or against Him. Middle-ground and grey area is not with Him.

The two accounts are not contradictory. However, feel free to send me the list you spoke of, as I would be interested to see what is on it.

 

[Michael]

You must accept an either-or mentality with regards to the Bible; mostly because the Bible requires it.

If by "either-or" you refer to a literal vs. a metaphorical interpretation, I agree.

If however you mean one is required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, the fact that various sects are not consistent in that "interpretation" would suggest that the Bible doesn't require it, even if you personally do.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

If by "either-or" you refer to a literal vs. a metaphorical interpretation, I agree.

If however you mean one is required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, the fact that various sects are not consistent in that "interpretation" would suggest that the Bible doesn't require it, even if you personally do.

It does require it. It states that Christians are to be consistent in their beliefs.

Parts of the Bible were written metaphorically, and parts literally. Some are both, and there is always a metaphorical lesson to be learned from a literal story.

All that aside, if you place the Bible on the same level as any other book, you are not showing faith that God's Word is God's Word.

 

[Michael]

It does require it. It states that Christians are to be consistent in their beliefs.

And yet they are not consistent with each other in their beliefs as demonstrated by the various sects, and their different "interpretations" of the Bible.

Whether they are internally consistent is another matter. Why you personally chose to interpret some of Christ's own statements as metaphors, yet chose to interpret Genesis completely literally isn't necessarily "consistent", even if seems that way to you. I'm "consistent" in my beliefs, and they even jive with empirical physics.

Parts of the Bible were written metaphorically, and parts literally. Some are both, and there is always a metaphorical lesson to be learned from a literal story.

Agreed. We just seem to disagree about which parts should be translated literally and which should not.

All that aside, if you place the Bible on the same level as any other book, you are not showing faith that God's Word is God's Word.

I'm sure that Catholics have just as much faith as you do in the validity of the Bible. They simply tend to "lack faith" in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

And yet they are not consistent with each other in their beliefs as demonstrated by the various sects, and their different "interpretations" of the Bible.

Whether they are internally consistent is another matter. Why you personally chose to interpret some of Christ's own statements as metaphors, yet chose to interpret Genesis completely literally isn't necessarily "consistent", even if seems that way to you. I'm "consistent" in my beliefs, and they even jive with empirical physics.



Agreed. We just seem to disagree about which parts should be translated literally and which should not.



I'm sure that Catholics have just as much faith as you do in the validity of the Bible. They simply tend to "lack faith" in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The passages written about continuity in the church were written because the church is only consistent in its inability to find common ground.

The fact still remains that the creation account was written in a literal style.

It is also required by the Bible that you see it not as a book, but as the Word of God. You don't, because you believe the Bible contains errors. You can't believe in an inerrant God that wrote an errant book, and justify it by testing it with flawed measures of an imperfect, sinful population.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

They are insults.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Do you think that you can take facts you like, discard facts you don't like, and pretend as if your narrowly interpreted version of the Bible is true?

 

[dad]

So claims the guy in the minority position with respect to Biblical interpretation, who must also shun the validity of empirical physics altogether.

False. Physics is quite valid here and now at least for physical beings. I forget what position you claim is a minority one, but I guess who really cares.

 

[dad]

They are insults.

No. Watch and see how the truth is not an insult. So called science is a lying sack of fables that opposes creation by Christ and common sense and all that is good and decent. Why would anyone be insulted by what should be simple and obvious?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Watch and see how the truth is not an insult. So called science is a lying sack of fables . . .

Observable facts are not lies.

Want to try again?

 

[Vicomte13]

The word "earth" never appears in the Bible. The word in the Bible is "ha'aretz", which means "the land".

The only thing in the Genesis creation story is "the land".

"The land" is a pretty generic term. It need not mean "the earth". It need not mean "all the land anywhere". We use "the land" generically, and not synonymously with "planet earth".

Indeed, "land" explicitly does NOT mean the whole planet, because "land" is DEFINED by the Hebrew as being the DRY land after the waters are collected into the seas on the third day.

So "earth" is wrong as a definition. The LAND in Genesis means DRY land, it is so defined by God (who speaks the definition out loud in the text), and the DRY land of each continent actually DOES have ends in every direction: it ends at the sea. The continents are islands that do end.

In Hebrew, the first few words of Genesis is exactly translated:

In head [when] powers A-T filled the land and the skies, the land was topsy-turvy...

 

[dad]

Observable facts are not lies.

Want to try again?

You do not observe a present state in the future. Really. You do not do so for the far past either. You lose.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do not observe a present state in the future.

I observe evidence that is consistent with a same state past. Not once have you been able to refute that statement.

 

[Vicomte13]

The fact still remains that the creation account was written in a literal style.

True.

And it was written in Hebrew pictographic glyphs that say only approximately what they have been translated into English to say. The differences are fundamental.

Read in their full literal Hebrew meaning, with each word understood as a hieroglyphic sentence, there is an astounding amount of detail about creation, and about the god-head itself, in the Hebrew of Genesis 1.

A translation is but an echo.

 

[dad]

I observe evidence that is consistent with a same state past. Not once have you been able to refute that statement.

You impose circular thinking and beliefs onto rocks. Your dream past is refuted.

 

[Loudmouth]

You impose circular thinking and beliefs onto rocks. Your dream past is refuted.

What circular thinking?