Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[keith99]

It claims six literal days of creation, followed by 4,000 years of genealogy, interrupted by the crucifixion, then followed by 2,000 years until the present.

Every other theory relies on twisting scripture into something that it doesn't say.

And again, popularity does not validate anything. At one point the earth was considered flat by everyone. Did them believing it have any bearing on fact?

Or knowing how Jewish genealogies work. Read The Chronicles of Narnia for a clue that persists still.

 

[JackRT]

At one point the earth was considered flat by everyone. Did them believing it have any bearing on fact?

Yes, everyone including the authors of the bible believed a flat earth cosmology.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Or knowing how Jewish genealogies work. Read The Chronicles of Narnia for a clue that persists still.

How does that have anything to do with the Bible?

 

[keith99]

How does that have anything to do with the Bible?

The way you choose tom read it nothing. But since the OT is a Jewish account most people who strop and think for a second would realize that how Jewish writing in general works makes a huge difference into just what conclusions one should draw from Scripture.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

The way you choose tom read it nothing. But since the OT is a Jewish account most people who strop and think for a second would realize that how Jewish writing in general works makes a huge difference into just what conclusions one should draw from Scripture.

Agreed. Jewish literary style should be taken into account. And their genealogy is pretty dead on.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Yes, everyone including the authors of the bible believed a flat earth cosmology.

Yet the Bible never claims that the earth was created flat. It mentions common phrases like "corners of the earth" but never claims that God made the earth to be flat.

 

[Michael]

It claims six literal days of creation,

How exactly were you counting "days" prior to a sun again? You might start by explaining why you're so sure those are "human days" rather than say "God days" (aka relative to God's concept of a day).

followed by 4,000 years of genealogy,

Starting from when? How do you know with absolute certainty that it's an entirely inclusive list of genealogy in the first place?

interrupted by the crucifixion, then followed by 2,000 years until the present.

Well, at least we'll agree on that much.

Every other theory relies on twisting scripture into something that it doesn't say.

How do you know that a literal translation isn't "twisting scripture" in the first place again? Most folks interpret some or all of it metaphorically, including most Catholics, and most other Christians, including myself.

And again, popularity does not validate anything. At one point the earth was considered flat by everyone. Did them believing it have any bearing on fact?

Then again, your *assumption* we *absolutely must* interpret every passage literally is going to run headlong into Christ's use of *metaphor* once we get to what he actually said while walking on the planet 2000 years ago.

 

[Michael]

Agreed. Jewish literary style should be taken into account. And their genealogy is pretty dead on.

I doubt most Jews believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

How exactly did you intend to square your highly personal belief system about a single book with the rest of physics and life in general?

How do you deal with radiometric dating techniques, all of which demonstrate that the Earth is ancient? How does your belief system work with galaxies that are currently measured in millions and billions of *light years* of distance from us, in a universe that's less than 10,000 years old again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, everyone including the authors of the bible believed a flat earth cosmology.

You interviewed them, did you?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I hear that the commies in the revolution used things like acid to try to destroy remains.

In Tibet the Buddhist monks would purify their intestines off all bacteria. So when they died the body did not decompose. Even they say some of the remains were up to 500 years old. The Gov did not like this and they wanted the remains deposed of. A lot of the problem is that there is a huge amount of resources in the Tibet mountains. The China government just wants to go in and take what they want. The Tibetan people are not happy about the modern world moving into their country, but there really is not a lot that they can do about it.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

How exactly were you counting "days" prior to a sun again? You might start by explaining why you're so sure those are "human days" rather than say "God days" (aka relative to God's concept of a day).



Starting from when? How do you know with absolute certainty that it's an entirely inclusive list of genealogy in the first place?



Well, at least we'll agree on that much.



How do you know that a literal translation isn't "twisting scripture" in the first place again? Most folks interpret some or all of it metaphorically, including most Catholics, and most other Christians, including myself.



Then again, your *assumption* we *absolutely must* interpret every passage literally is going to run headlong into Christ's use of *metaphor* once we get to what he actually said while walking on the planet 2000 years ago.

You use the argument that *most catholics and Christians" agree as if it's relevant to truth.

That aside, the Bible employs many different literary styles. Jesus spoke in parables. Some verses are metaphors. Some passages are poetry. Then some are literal.

The literary style of the creation account is consistent with the Hebrew style of factual, historical record.

The Bible also states there was light on the first day. All that is needed for a literal day is light and the earth's rotation. Since the very first thing God created was light, then there was a literal day from the very beginning.

 

[AV1611VET]

How exactly were you counting "days" prior to a sun again?

Will {one rotation of the earth on its axis} help?

Is the sun necessary for a {day} to transpire?

 

[Michael]

You use the argument that *most catholics abs Christians" agree as if it's relevant to truth.

I'm simply noting that different "sects" of "Christianity" interpret the Bible differently, and your personal interpretation tends to be in the minority position. In terms of "science", most folks rely upon a variety of sources when forming their "belief systems", they rarely rely upon a single source as you seem to be insisting on doing for some reason.

It gets super subjective the moment you start "interpreting" various passages *literally*, while Jesus himself used a variety of metaphor in his teachings. Even when we get to the red letter parts of that book, we find that Christ himself used metaphor that wasn't meant to be interpreted literally.

That aside, the Bible employs many different literary styles. Jesus spoke in parables. Some verses are metaphors. Some passages are poetry. Then some are literal.

So like every 'Christian', you're subjectively picking and choosing which passages to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically. How do you know you got *every single one* right, particularly since you're sporting the *minority* viewpoint, and none of it squares with empirical physics?

The literary style of the creation account is consistent with the Hebrew style of factual, historical record.

I seriously doubt that even all Jews believe that the books of Moses were always intended to be interpreted literally. How many Jews do you think believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

The Bible also states there was light on the first day.

Sunlight, or background starlight from stars that are currently presumed to be millions and billions of light years from Earth?

I've yet to hear you explain how any light from any other "sun", could have reached Earth to measure a "day", when the very closest one is *light years* away from Earth, and the furthest ones are *billions* of light years from Earth?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I doubt most Jews believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

How exactly did you intend to square your highly personal belief system about a single book with the rest of physics and life in general?

How do you deal with radiometric dating techniques, all of which demonstrate that the Earth is ancient? How does your belief system work with galaxies that are currently measured in millions and billions of *light years* of distance from us, in a universe that's less than 10,000 years old again?

Radiometric dating goes on the assumption that the earth is old. They completely throw out the idea of a young earth or flood, and interpret everything as if it was a fact that the earth was billions of years old. Yet, when they test things with known ages, they have been off by millions of years.

As to lightyears, Einstein explains time dilation in reference to the earth being in a gravitational well, the affect of that on time.

 

[Michael]

Will {one rotation of the earth on its axis} help?

Is the sun necessary for a {day} to transpire?

If you're standing on Earth, and no starlight has reached Earth, how would you even measure a "rotation cycle" in the first place?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I'm simply noting that different "sects" of "Christianity" interpret the Bible differently, and your personal interpretation tends to be in the minority position. In terms of "science", most folks rely upon a variety of sources when forming their "belief systems", they rarely rely upon a single source as you seem to be insisting on doing for some reason.

It gets super subjective the moment you start "interpreting" various passages *literally*, while Jesus himself used a variety of metaphor in his teachings. Even when we get to the red letter parts of that book, we find that Christ himself used metaphor that wasn't meant to be interpreted literally.



So like every 'Christian', you're subjectively picking and choosing which passages to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically. How do you know you got *every single one* right, particularly since you're sporting the *minority* viewpoint, and none of it squares with empirical physics?



I seriously doubt that even all Jews believe that the books of Moses were always intended to be interpreted literally. How many Jews do you think believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?



Sunlight, or background starlight from stars that are currently presumed to be millions and billions of light years from Earth?

I've yet to hear you explain how any light from any other "sun", could have reached Earth to measure a "day", when the very closest one is *light years* away from Earth, and the furthest ones are *billions* of light years from Earth?

So, every other book can use different styles of literature, but we must not assume the Bible has those same styles?

If the Bible is the standard of truth, and you believe in God's Word as truth, then it should be the foundation for all beliefs. Drawing in other claims to form truth is not necessary.

Science, history, archaeology, logic, philosophy, etc. are not at odds with the Bible. People are.

And, again, most people believing something has no bearing on anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're standing on Earth, and no starlight has reached Earth, how would you even measure a "rotation cycle" in the first place?

It dosen't matter if I exist or not.

Say there's no life at all on the earth.

One rotation of the earth on its axis constitutes a day.

How long is a day on Venus?

 

[JackRT]

You interviewed them, did you?

Interview? No. But I did read what they had to say in scripture and I studied what their contemporaries in surrounding nations thought at the time.

 

[Michael]

Radiometric dating goes on the assumption that the earth is old.

Not exactly. It goes on the *observation* (from the lab) that various radioactive isotopes decay at a very consistent rate over time. They measure and use those decay rates to come up with the dates of various items based upon it's unique isotope composition. Even Carbon dating can accurately track dates back to about 50,000 years (and does), but other isotopes (like in rocks) show that various rocks are billions of years old.

They completely throw out the idea of a young earth or flood, and interpret everything as if it was a fact that the earth was billions of years old.

They don't even consider such ideas to start with, since "science" doesn't tend to concern itself with religious concepts or beliefs. It's simply the study of our physical universe based on things that we can measure and manipulate empirically. Your cell phone is an example of a useful consumer product that is based upon "science".

Yet, when they test things with known ages, they have been off by millions of years.

I'm certain that a few "tests" have been botched by various individuals over the years, but the technique as a whole works quite well, and it's helped date things *very* accurately. Some of it is even cross checked against ice core samples which by the way go back in excess of 80,000 years in terms of annual layering.

As to lightyears, Einstein explains time dilation in reference to the earth being in a gravitational well, the affect of that on time.

How does that apply in this case in your opinion?

 

[Tiny Bible]