Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[AV1611VET]

It really doesn't matter what *most* Christians believe. Just like *most* Jews believed Jesus was a liar; but thst didn't mean He wasn't who He said He was.

You have to accept the Bible for what it claims. It states six literal days. Very clearly. If you believe God is all-powerful, then He is. He could have created anything in any timeframe.

General consensus does not make a truth. I'm sure Noah felt alone in his beliefs.

You're preaching to the choir here!

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hebrew word is not day.

Well bully for the Hebrew word.

The English word is "day."

Aside from that how does Day in the modern sense make any sense at all before there was a sun?

Because the plants did have the sun (Sun).

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Aka, the Sun of Righteousness.

Malachi 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

You don't believe what the Bible says, you believe what uneducated people taught you.

What have you taught her?

And the Bible says educated people are "highminded."

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

It does not. The Hebrew word is not day. Aside from that how does Day in the modern sense make any sense at all before there was a sun?

You don't believe what the Bible says, you believe what uneducated people taught you.

The Hebrew word for day, used in the creation account, is used over two thousand times in the Bible. Every time that it appears in the same literary context (first or second day, evening and morning, etc.), it refers to an actual, literal day.

Also, the Mosaic law that sets up observance of the Sabbath was set upon the creation example of six days of work, and one day of rest.

Nowhere in the Bible is the six literal days suggested to be an error or figure of speech. It is actually confirmed to have been a full, literal week.

Light forms are possible without the sun. The hebrew words for light in the third and fourth day differ somewhat. One refers to light in general, and the other to a specific source recognizable by man. Either way, not having a sun doesn't mean God was limited to the presence of the sun to count it as a day.

 

[Kylie]

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

What about Job 9:6, Psalms 75:3, and 1 Samuel 2:8, all of which speak of the pillars of the Earth?

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

Job 36:27 just says that raindrops are small and come from clouds. Ecclesiastes 1:7 just says that rivers flow to the sea. Isaiah 55:10 just says that rain comes from the sky and makes plants bloom. Amos 9:6 can be interpreted to mean that rain originally comes from the sea, but it does not specify the connection - it could be talking about waves as well. There is nothing in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously describes the water cycle.

Also, can you give a citation for the claim that the ancient Greeks thought all rivers came from underground water? Given that it is easily noticed that rivers rise after heavy rain, I find it hard to believe that this conclusion escaped a culture that produced some of the world's greatest thinkers.

The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

I find it interesting that the verse immediately before this one states that the foundations of the Earth "should not be removed for ever", despite the fact that we know for a fact that the earth's crust is being created and destroyed by tectonic activity.

Also, the passage you quoted is easily explainable as being written by someone who believed in a literal Noah's flood, and hence would not have required any movement of the mountains. And verse 8 is describing the movement of water, not mountains.

Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

And yet no descriptions of germs are given in the Bible, nor is the instruction that people should wash their hands before they eat their lunch.

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

First of all, there are many Biblical literalists who would disagree with you.

Secondly, didn't a guy named Ussher figure out the dates all of this stuff happened using Biblical clues?

In any case, Adam and Eve were created on the Sixth day. God then spent the seventh day resting. Then he comes and finds out that Adam and Eve were naughty, kicks them out of Eden and then Adam goes on and dies aged 930 (Genesis 5:5). So, that 930 years must include a part of the sixth day, all of the seventh and then some time after the end of the seventh day. So the seventh day must have been shorter than 930 years.

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.

Actually, the Bible says that God MADE the sun and moon on the fourth day. Not "removed the cloud cover so they could be seen from Earth", but MADE. Since plants were made on the third day, they definitely did exist before the sun according to the Bible.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again.” However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words “sunrise” and “sunset,” yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Doesn't mean that the people back then knew about it. The idea that the sun went around the Earth persisted for a very long time. Do you have any evidence to show that people living thousands of years ago were of the idea that the Earth went around the sun?

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Matthew 4:8 says that the Devil took Jesus to a high mountain where they could see the entire world. Given that the earth is a sphere, there is no location from which the entire Earth's surface is visible.

So this is not convincing me of your position.

Also, you might want to do more than a cut and paste job. If you can't put an argument into your own words, it often suggests that you don't understand it enough to make it. Besdies, we want to hear your ideas, not someone else's.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

 

[dad]

Well, not *just* me. It's the consensus among *most* Christians.

That says nothing. What matters is Jesus and the bible, not any other opinion of nations who claim to be christian or anyone else.

Even if we both assume that he did, that still doesn't tell us *when* that might have occurred, and you're still in the minority viewpoint in terms of your "interpretation" of Genesis, even among "Christians" worldwide.

Doesn't matter when, the fact that Jesus formed Adam from the ground and made the sun and moon and other life means no evolution, and no big bang. To deny that is to deny Jesus is God. But isn't that what it is really all about anyhow?

Do you think that Catholics disagree with you on that topic?

Why would anyone care what they think?

None of that is necessary of course, in fact it's a red herring. Catholics do not toss out the book of John, Paul, Genesis or Moses, and they have no problem reconciling their faith in Christ with "science".

Are you Catholic? Or are you just trying to hide under their skirt? At least Catholics believe Jesus is God.

Essentially you're attempting to dress

The bible is Christian. We either believe it or not and part of it...a big part, from start to end...is knowing Jesus created all things, the earth, the heavens and all that is in them. To adopt some belief in Christ that is less than this is to adopt a very limited belief.

 

[dad]

The Hebrew word for day, used in the creation account, is used over two thousand times in the Bible. Every time that it appears in the same literary context (first or second day, evening and morning, etc.), it refers to an actual, literal day.

Excellent point.

Also, the Mosaic law that sets up observance of the Sabbath was set upon the creation example of six days of work, and one day of rest.

Nowhere in the Bible is the six literal days suggested to be an error or figure of speech. It is actually confirmed to have been a full, literal week.

Only in denying a literal week can some people still pretend to honor Scripture, and swallow science lies. Manpleasers. They should decide if God is God or not.

Light forms are possible without the sun. The hebrew words for light in the third and fourth day differ somewhat. One refers to light in general, and the other to a specific source recognizable by man. Either way, not having a sun doesn't mean God was limited to the presence of the sun to count it as a day.

Absolute proof of this is found in Revelation, where we have light all over the place...a city of light even..and no need at all for the sun.

 

[keith99]

The Hebrew word for day, used in the creation account, is used over two thousand times in the Bible. Every time that it appears in the same literary context (first or second day, evening and morning, etc.), it refers to an actual, literal day.

Also, the Mosaic law that sets up observance of the Sabbath was set upon the creation example of six days of work, and one day of rest.

Nowhere in the Bible is the six literal days suggested to be an error or figure of speech. It is actually confirmed to have been a full, literal week.

Light forms are possible without the sun. The hebrew words for light in the third and fourth day differ somewhat. One refers to light in general, and the other to a specific source recognizable by man. Either way, not having a sun doesn't mean God was limited to the presence of the sun to count it as a day.

You don't get that argument. A literal day is defines as one cycle of sunrise to sunset, such cannot occur without any sun.

Yes the word can mean a literal day, but it does not have to. The argument about the same literary context is circular.

 

[AV1611VET]

A literal day is defines as one cycle of sunrise to sunset, such cannot occur without any sun.

Only the Bible doesn't define it that way, does It?

It says "morning and evening," not sun-this and sun-that, doesn't It?

The truth is, there was no sun for the first three days of the creation week, but there was morning and evening?

Can you explain this scientific anomaly?

 

[keith99]

Only the Bible doesn't define it that way, does It?

It says "morning and evening," not sun-this and sun-that, doesn't It?

The truth is, there was no sun for the first three days of the creation week, but there was morning and evening?

Can you explain this scientific anomaly?

See Transposition by C.S. Lewis.

And again the words used mean beginning and ending in Hebrew. The English translation does not control, the original texts do.

BTW the translation is actually good if one views that Genesis account as poetic as opposed to clinical. It captures the poetry and a good translation captures the essence of what it translates. The flaw is with those who force the text into a clinical box. Especially when they rely upon a translation to do so.

 

[Michael]

That says nothing. What matters is Jesus and the bible, not any other opinion of nations who claim to be christian or anyone else.

Funny, but I don't recall Jesus making any claims at all about the age of the Earth in any of the red letter parts of the Bible. Perhaps you could quote him for us?

Doesn't matter when, the fact that Jesus formed Adam from the ground and made the sun and moon and other life means no evolution, and no big bang. To deny that is to deny Jesus is God. But isn't that what it is really all about anyhow?

Clearly that's not what it's all about, particularly since Catholics and other Christians like myself accept the divinity of Christ without necessarily believing in a young Earth. You're simply misusing religion as some sort of religious "guilt trip", while blatantly ignoring the fact that you're in the minority position even within the Christian community. It's a cheap debate tactic IMO.

Why would anyone care what they think?
Are you Catholic? Or are you just trying to hide under their skirt? At least Catholics believe Jesus is God.

I'm not Catholic, but Catholics do represent the single largest "sect" of "Christianity", they accept the divinity of Christ and the concept of God as father, son and Holy Spirit just as you do, yet their beliefs do *not* conflict with "science". You have a credibility problem as it relates to exclusive interpretation of a single book, and a huge credibility problem as it relates to empirical physics.

The bible is Christian. We either believe it or not and part of it...a big part, from start to end...is knowing Jesus created all things, the earth, the heavens and all that is in them. To adopt some belief in Christ that is less than this is to adopt a very limited belief.

Translation: You're hiding behind the skirt of Jesus and misrepresenting the meaning of "Christianity" itself. Nobody is obligated to agree with YEC simply because they read the Bible and have faith in Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

See Transposition by C.S. Lewis.

And again the words used mean beginning and ending in Hebrew. The English translation does not control, the original texts do.

BTW the translation is actually good if one views that Genesis account as poetic as opposed to clinical. It captures the poetry and a good translation captures the essence of what it translates. The flaw is with those who force the text into a clinical box. Especially when they rely upon a translation to do so.

Does all this mean that you can't explain this scientific anomaly?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

You don't get that argument. A literal day is defines as one cycle of sunrise to sunset, such cannot occur without any sun.

Yes the word can mean a literal day, but it does not have to. The argument about the same literary context is circular.

A literal day is 24 hours. The Hebrew word is yom. It can be used to mean beginning and end. However, whenever it is used in conjunction with the phrase, "on the first" or, "evening and morning" it means a literal, 24 hour day. It is important to make those distinctions. We have the same thing in English. Plain can mean a type of topography, or bare. We rely on surrounding words for context. We would never interpret "plain cheeseburger" to mean an open, flat field of a giant cheeseburger.

Also, you have to remember that the curse brought death. Regardless of how long you believe creation took, fossils can't be your evidence for it. Death occurred after Eve sinned. Before that, there was nothing to be fossilized.

 

[lesliedellow]

Death occurred after Eve sinned. Before that, there was nothing to be fossilized.

So, before Eve sinned, nothing was ever so unfortunate as to have a rock fall on it. Or is gravity a result of the fall, along with micro organisms, entropy and anything else you care to name?

 

[The Cadet]

Also, you have to remember that the curse brought death. Regardless of how long you believe creation took, fossils can't be your evidence for it. Death occurred after Eve sinned. Before that, there was nothing to be fossilized.

...But we have fossils dating back billions of years. Humankind isn't anywhere near that old.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

So, before Eve sinned, nothing was ever so unfortunate as to have a rock fall on it. Or is gravity a result of the fall, along with micro organisms, entropy and anything else you care to name?

Nothing died before the fall.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nothing died before the fall.

So no gravity before the fall.

If you say so. I wonder why everything wasn't launched into space through the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation, though.

 

[JackRT]

Nothing died before the fall.

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated.

Have you ever even read the Bible?

 

[lasthero]

Nothing died before the fall.

How did Venus flytraps work before the fall?

 

[JackRT]

Have you ever even read the Bible?

Yes I have. Many times over the past seventy years. Why would you ask?