• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Does Science Agree With the Bible?

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"For the INVISIBLE THINGS of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse:" (ROMANS 1:20, KJV).

Here is the definitive answer to the question, "is science and the Bible really compatible
". The Scripture explicitly states, the invisible nature of God can be CLEARLY OBSERVED according to what has been CREATED, (Romans 1:20). In scientific terms, this is called the principle of "scientific observation", it is the cornerstone of modern science. When Sir Issac Newton dropped an apple, he OBSERVED the force of gravity working on the apple.

Therefore, the Scripture is saying "scientific observation" is the way to understanding the unfathomable nature of God. Especially concerning the creation itself, as described in the Book of Genesis.
Nope. Not even close. The things of the future are quite different and unseen now. The invisible things we can see are things like love. WE don't see angels. We don't see a lot of things. Yes God's power is always seen regardless of the nature of the day. It was seen in Eden and will be seen in heaven, and we see it here. That does not mean we are in heaven or have the same laws. You are way out in left field.
Did you know science and the Bible actually agree on how the universe began ?! Science says it started with the BIG BANG. A cosmic explosion of unimaginable power. What does the Bible say ?

"And the earth was without form, and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light" (Genesis 1:2-3, KJV).
Absurd and totally false. God moved over the earth and the stars were not made. Big Bang religion says the earth came long after. Pick one or the other. If God be God then serve Him. Let God be true but every man a liar.

What is "earth without form" ?! Obviously the Scripture is talking about sub atomic matter.
You just made that up actually. That is what is obvious. How would you know that the unformed earth did not mean something more like 'the planet was here, foundations complete, but the surface was not formed as He wanted it yet'? You are trying to twist Scripture to fit a lack of belief in it.


What are the faces of water ?! Solid (ice), Vapor (Steam), Liquid (Water).
Hilarious. Who said there was even any ice yet at that time?? Who says that the face of the water means anything but 'over the water'? You are claiming God really meant certain things when you have zero clue what you are babbling about.
How about it's molecular designation H20, One part Hydrogen two parts Oxygen. What happens whenever an atom of Hydrogen is moved upon or split ?! An awful amount of energy is released, isn't it. Energy in the form of what ? "And God said, Let there be light" !!! In other words, the BIG BANG. Sounds compatible to me.
Hey who needs God? Sounds like you just want to imagine some present state chemical reaction happening. Why try to stick God in there? Where was God at your big bang, sleeping? On vacation?
According to the scientific principle of entropy and astrophysics, science states that one day billions and billions of years from now the last existing star will die a cold and dark death, as the last matter is transformed into energy and that energy dissipates, (Discover Magazine, January 2016).

Scientific principle of astrophysics? You must be kidding. You do realize adults post here?
The Bible also states one day the heavens and the earth will pass away, (Matt.24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). Once again science and the Bible are in agreement. They both agree how the universe began, and that one day it will certainly come to an end.
No, the earth passes exactly at the end of the one thousand year reign of Christ here. Not in some fantasy billions of years in the future.
Albert Einstein was once asked whether or not he believed in God. He answered, "Anyone who can not imagine the unfathomable, is already dead" (end quote). I hope that concession by the renowned scientist and professed atheist was enough to get him past St. Peter and into the gates of heaven, because I'd very much like to have a conversation with him when I get there.
Sheer lunacy. We are saved only by Christ, not by some second rate witticism.
Perhaps no words will be necessary, and the two of us will just nod our heads at one another in friendship and exchange a knowing smile.
Sure...you and Al...

Ho hum.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If we were debating "honestly" dad, you would begin by acknowledging that there are multiple ways to interpret the book of Genesis, and your literal interpretation isn't necessarily "right" by default.
Absurd. We cannot interpret Genesis that Abraham never really was promised stuff by God, or that Jacob had no coat of many colors! Nor can we interpret that Sarah was but ugly. Nor was Lot a house builder in Sodom, but a judge. Adam was Adam and one cannot pretend he was a monkey first! All the basics of Genesis are above your petty fuzzy wuzzy routine.

The laws of physics exist because we have discovered that nature behaves in a consistent manner over time.
No. They exist because God set them up. The laws in heaven exist for the same reason. The laws of the lake of fire too. Not all laws are present state laws. Get over it.

You're basically trying to ignore that point, and claim that somehow such "laws" aren't reliable past say 10,000 years ago. You're arbitrarily abandoning physics when it suits you, even though you rely upon physics to even post to this forum.
There was no 10,000 years ago. That is religion.
And yet you really have no way to demonstrate that your literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is correct. At least the Pope's position with respect to a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is also consistent with the laws of physics, whereas your literal interpretation is not.
Didn't a pope embrace evolution of man recently? Nothing left to do but flush.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Absurd. We cannot interpret Genesis that Abraham never really was promised stuff by God, or that Jacob had no coat of many colors! Nor can we interpret that Sarah was but ugly. Nor was Lot a house builder in Sodom, but a judge. Adam was Adam and one cannot pretend he was a monkey first! All the basics of Genesis are above your petty fuzzy wuzzy routine.

No. They exist because God set them up. The laws in heaven exist for the same reason. The laws of the lake of fire too. Not all laws are present state laws. Get over it.

There was no 10,000 years ago. That is religion.
Didn't a pope embrace evolution of man recently? Nothing left to do but flush.

Can't you chaps get your story straight? It's not really surprising that the disparity in interpretations two people can get from the same source is so huge when that source is so vague. The creation narrative can mean whatever you want it to mean so as a source of facts it's worthless.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,207
52,658
Guam
✟5,150,674.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can't you chaps get your story straight?
Sure thing.

We all believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

So what's your excuse for not believing it?

If you want to throw our "disparities" at us, we'll throw our "similarities" right back atcha!

Care to comment?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,207
52,658
Guam
✟5,150,674.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I went to church regularly as a child but the whole thing struck me as nothing more than fanciful stories of a bygone time.
Okay ... you're an adult now.

So now what's your excuse?
 
Upvote 0

carsade

New Member
Jul 12, 2015
1
0
35
✟22,611.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.

The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds.

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)

Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights.

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.
hmm could you explain why any of those verses used suggests that the earth is flat? what constitutes being flat? is it only flat objects that has corners? if anything, if u take that verse of the four corners of the earth literally, it only suggests that the earth is not circular. how does "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" implies that something is flat? sigh in looking at those verses none of them resonates the idea that the earth is flat but rather spherical and has multiple dimensions (the heavens being one of the dimension and the hemisphere). Anyways I never once interpret any of those verses as literally describing the shape of the earth as majority of it is metaphorical ie ends of the earth meaning all over the earth. perhaps the language then was limited and such phrases encompassed various meanings. also owing to the fact that english was not the original language the bible was written in and therefore perhaps the literal translation to english is that phrase. furthermore the english language is very complex compared to a range of other languages etc etc...
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Absurd. We cannot interpret Genesis ....

...any differently than you personally do, or risk being ridiculed or falsely accused!

That's basically your argument in a nutshell. In spite of the fact that majority of Christians reject your interpretation of Genesis, you seem to insist your way is the only right way, and you elevate *yourself* to a source of "infallibility".

There was no 10,000 years ago. That is religion.

No dad, it's physics. We have no evidence that the laws of physics have ever been any different than they are today, and many sources of information that demonstrate that the Earth is quite ancient.

Your beliefs are a form of "religion" as evidenced by the fact that your entire beliefs system is predicated upon your own personal interpretation of a few paragraphs from a religious document.

Didn't a pope embrace evolution of man recently? Nothing left to do but flush.

You seem to "flush" physics in general, along with any interpretation of the Bible that you personal reject. Yawn. It's essentially a personal feedback loop that you're stuck in and you have no external reference point to even cross check your "subjective interpretation" of the few paragraphs that you base your belief system on.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Can't you chaps get your story straight? It's not really surprising that the disparity in interpretations two people can get from the same source is so huge when that source is so vague. The creation narrative can mean whatever you want it to mean so as a source of facts it's worthless.
It is straight. Some believe the simple and obvious truth and record and others bust their head trying to be more clever than God.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
...any differently than you personally do, or risk being ridiculed or falsely accused!
I only take issue with folks who disbelieve God really created the stars and man, and all things, and that there was a Noah, and etc. That is not interpretation.
That's basically your argument in a nutshell. In spite of the fact that majority of Christians reject your interpretation of Genesis, you seem to insist your way is the only right way, and you elevate *yourself* to a source of "infallibility".
I was part of the majority of Christians at one time. Then I got saved and read the bible, and tried to believe.

No dad, it's physics. We have no evidence that the laws of physics have ever been any different than they are today, and many sources of information that demonstrate that the Earth is quite ancient.
Evidence it was not difference? Evidence it always will be the same. A big zero for you.
Your beliefs are a form of "religion" as evidenced by the fact that your entire beliefs system is predicated upon your own personal interpretation of a few paragraphs from a religious document.
Opposite of the truth. First I met Jesus, and then He started to open my eyes and His words. Try it.


You seem to "flush" physics in general, along with any interpretation of the Bible that you personal reject. Yawn. It's essentially a personal feedback loop that you're stuck in and you have no external reference point to even cross check your "subjective interpretation" of the few paragraphs that you base your belief system on.
Your looped repetitive blather ignores the truth that you have zero idea what Eden and it's laws were...if you so much as believe in it. You have zero idea what laws apply to spirit beings or materials. You have zero facts on what the laws of heaven will be. You have no clue what nature was really like in Noah's day even, if you even believe in that.
Sorry but there is no choice here but to give you a big GONG!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I only take issue with folks who disbelieve God really created the stars and man, and all things, and that there was a Noah, and etc. That is not interpretation.

You keep ignoring the fact that we are debating *when*, not *if*, and the when part is an "interpretation".

I was part of the majority of Christians at one time. Then I got saved and read the bible, and tried to believe.

Being "saved" has nothing to do with believing in an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old as evidenced by the fact that most Christians reject that idea entirely.

Evidence it was not difference?

You mean besides those ice core samples I cited earlier that show 800,000 years worth of seasonal snowfall? Evidence it was different?

Evidence it always will be the same. A big zero for you.

It's not like you have any evidence to the contrary however. Big zero for you too.

Opposite of the truth. First I met Jesus, and then He started to open my eyes and His words. Try it.

Been there, done that. You won't find any red letter parts of the Bible claiming that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Jesus didn't say anything like that, and your literal interpretation of Genesis flies directly in the face of Christ's own use of metaphor during his lifetime and his teachings.

Your looped repetitive blather ignores the truth that you have zero idea what Eden and it's laws were...if you so much as believe in it.

I have zero evidence to support the idea that the laws of physics ever changed, past present or future. Whatever laws apply now most likely applied since the universe began.

You have zero idea what laws apply to spirit beings or materials.

I know they apply to "materials" like atoms and photons.

You have zero facts on what the laws of heaven will be. You have no clue what nature was really like in Noah's day even, if you even believe in that.
Sorry but there is no choice here but to give you a big GONG!

The only "gong" is the fact that your beliefs are the minority position even within "Christianity", and they are at odds with reality and physics. The Pope has no such problems yet he also loves and reveres Jesus. :)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
It is straight. Some believe the simple and obvious truth and record and others bust their head trying to be more clever than God.

If it was "straight" as you claim, you wouldn't be in the minority even among fellow "Christians". :) It's not God that is being debated, it's your *personal interpretation* of a couple of paragraphs that are being debated. :)
 
Upvote 0

Sister_in_Christ

Active Member
Dec 26, 2015
167
42
35
Midwest
✟15,527.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If it was "straight" as you claim, you wouldn't be in the minority even among fellow "Christians". :) It's not God that is being debated, it's your *personal interpretation* of a couple of paragraphs that are being debated. :)
A lot of the Bible is full of the majority being wrong. Jesus came and rebuked the pharicees and saducees for having twisted scripture into something it never said. The minority of those who chose to follow Jesus were not popular. Then, look at Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Noah, etc. All in the minority, all speaking the truth, all ridiculed and mocked by the majority. Yet, they were all right in their speaking.

Then there's revelations, which talks about whole groups of churches being led astray. Many epistles warn about teachers acquiring worldly wisdom and the deception in using that over biblical wisdom. Still other epistles warn of testing the spirits because those who deny Christ are false.

Other passages warn that a true Christian will be unpopular, hated, and judged by the world.

In other words, saying that you're on the side of the majority, and therefore correct, is not exactly a gloating issue biblically.
 
Upvote 0