Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Loudmouth]

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.

What you are describing requires us to twist reality into something it doesn't say.

 

[Michael]

“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
.

Oh the irony as it relates to cosmology theories.

 

[digitalgoth]

Oh the irony as it relates to cosmology theories.

I'd provide a counter argument, but with Venus in retrograde and Saturn rising, this is not a good time to have discord in my life.

 

[Michael]

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

I assume it has "styles" too. We just seem to disagree when the style is "metaphor" and when it's "literal" apparently.

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.

It's certainly not a comprehensive document when it comes to medicine, electronics, or physics in general. Why wouldn't we look to external sources when trying to understand whether we should interpret various passages *literally*, vs. metaphorically?

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

And likewise, 'science' isn't at odds with the Bible, just some individual "interpretations" of it.

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

So your belief also has no bearing on anything, and we're back to trying to figure out if your beliefs are valid or not. How did you intend to do that if not by looking to *external* information about the universe we *actually* live in?

 

[Michael]

I'd provide a counter argument, but with Venus in retrograde and Saturn rising, this is not a good time to have discord in my life.

LOL!

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Did that perchance include the scientists of the time?

(Time to queue the No True Scotsman Principle, folks. )

 

[keith99]

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[/b]. 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.

Bolding mine.

Hardly. Radiometric dating makes no such assumption. In fact the best known radiometric method is useless on things millions or years old, let alone billions.

 

[Astrophile]

It is true that fundamentalists can be as hopeless as atheists when it comes to crass literalness, but they are both pretty hopeless. I can certainly recognise figures of speech which are still in use today, such as ends of the Earth.

It seems to me that you are, as somebody put it, straining at a gnat. Presumably you do not think that the validity of Christianity depends on whether the authors of the Bible genuinely thought that the Earth was flat or were merely using figurative language that appeared to imply the flatness of the Earth. If the authors of the Bible genuinely thought that the Earth was flat, that proves only that the Bible is not inerrant, not that its essential message is false.

 

[dad]

Pretty much every Catholic, as well as the majority of "Christians".

There you go talking about Catholics again. More vague appeal to some imagined popularity.

Nowhere in the book does it claim that God created the Earth or anything else just 10K years ago.

We know when Noah lived. We know when others lived also. There is no reason to believe that Jesus created Adam at a different time than the world. Weknow the years from Adam, more or less.

 

[dad]

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.

Also, in the present world we have some creatures that specialize in disposing of bones and etc. Example...the snotworm.

"Lacking stomach and mouth, Osedax rely on symbiotic species of bacteria that aid in the digestion of whale proteins and lipids and release nutrients that the worms can absorb. Osedax have colorful feathery plumes that act as gills and unusual root-like structures that absorb nutrients. The Osedax secrete acid (rather than rely on teeth) to bore into bone to access the nutrients.[2] Between 50 and 100 microscopic dwarf males live inside a single female and never develop past the larval stage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osedax

 

[dad]

It seems to me that you are, as somebody put it, straining at a gnat. Presumably you do not think that the validity of Christianity depends on whether the authors of the Bible genuinely thought that the Earth was flat or were merely using figurative language that appeared to imply the flatness of the Earth. If the authors of the Bible genuinely thought that the Earth was flat, that proves only that the Bible is not inerrant, not that its essential message is false.

They never thought that.

 

[Michael]

There you go talking about Catholics again. More vague appeal to some imagined popularity.

I'm just pointing out that there are *many* ways to interpret the Bible, and you're in the minority position by interpreting Genesis 'literally'.

We know when Noah lived. We know when others lived also. There is no reason to believe that Jesus created Adam at a different time than the world. Weknow the years from Adam, more or less.

The Bible doesn't say anything about the date(s) of creation however. You're *assuming* it based upon a highly subjective interpretation of a single book, and your interpretation isn't even the majority position. Most folks look to *external* sources when discussing scientific topics, and they use external references when trying to figure out which passages to interpret literally and which passages to interpret as metaphor. You apparently have no external cross check for your own subjective interpretation.

 

[dad]

I'm just pointing out that there are *many* ways to interpret the Bible, and you're in the minority position by interpreting Genesis 'literally'.

Believing is a minority thing. Trying to pretend we can twist Scripture to mean that Jesus did not 'literally' create man and the world is simply wrong. Trying to pretend Moses or Noah did not live when they lived is just not sound or biblical. The big bang could never ever fit with a real creation as per the bible. Nor could life evolving rather than being specifically created. Period. Should we change the Niocene creed to read something like

'I believe in one God, not any creator of heaven or earth. We really believe in evolution not creation. The sun is a direct product of the big bang...etc etc.'

The Bible doesn't say anything about the date(s) of creation however. You're *assuming* it based upon a highly subjective interpretation of a single book, and your interpretation isn't even the majority position.

Who even mentioned dates? First you hide behind the Catholics, next you try to confuse issues by diverting to some supposed required exact dates.

Most folks look to *external* sources when discussing scientific topics, and they use external references when trying to figure out which passages to interpret literally and which passages to interpret as metaphor. You apparently have no external cross check for your own subjective interpretation.

What tripe. What shallow twaddle. External to what..Scripture!?

 

[Michael]

Believing is a minority thing. Trying to pretend we can twist Scripture

Since you're in the minority viewpoint, how can you be sure that it's not you that is "twisting Scripture" to suit yourself? Christ used metaphors quite often in his speeches while walking the Earth. Why then would I attempt to "interpret" every single word of Genesis "literally" simply because you choose to do so, *without* any means to cross check your own person subjective interpretation in terms of empirical physics?

to mean that Jesus did not 'literally' create man and the world is simply wrong.

It's a debate about *when* dad, not *if*.

Trying to pretend Moses or Noah did not live when they lived

Again, neither Catholics, nor myself debate their existence, or even necessarily when they lived. We do however part company when you insist on suggesting that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and you dissociate yourself from empirical physics, and enter your own personal feedback loop. In the final analysis, you have "faith", but only faith in your own highly subjective personal interpretation of a single document, to the exclusion of every other reference point in existence.

External to what..Scripture!?

The fact that you and the Catholics part company in terms of your interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that it's not "scripture" that's being debated, just your personal interpretation of it.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Since you're in the minority viewpoint, how can you be sure that it's not you that is "twisting Scripture" to suit yourself? Christ used metaphors quite often in his speeches while walking the Earth. Why then would I attempt to "interpret" every single word of Genesis "literally" simply because you choose to do so, *without* any means to cross check your own person subjective interpretation in terms of empirical physics?



It's a debate about *when* dad, not *if*.



Again, neither Catholics, nor myself debate their existence, or even necessarily when they lived. We do however part company when you insist on suggesting that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and you dissociate yourself from empirical physics, and enter your own personal feedback loop. In the final analysis, you have "faith", but only faith in your own highly subjective personal interpretation of a single document, to the exclusion of every other reference point in existence.



The fact that you and the Catholics part company in terms of your interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that it's not "scripture" that's being debated, just your personal interpretation of it.

You do realize that historically, we see the same pattern repeat itself, in that the majority that denies scripture is wrong.

The creation account was written in the Hebrew style of literal historical record. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of anyone who is an expert in Hebrew literature.

All science can be explained within the scope of the Bible.

If you truly believe in the Bible, then you have to believe when it says it's the perfect Word of God. Not the almost-perfect, up-for-debate, might-be-historical Word of God.

It addresses the issue of validating with outside sources. On the one hand, it is good to have a ready defense when someone asks why you believe. On the other, worldly knowledge that separates God from His Word and what He claims is a fool's errand, and highly arrogant.

This is not the first time in history that science has tried to disprove God. Nor is it the first time most of the world has doubts about God because the world told them too. If we follow the course of history, pretty soon God will show us just what He is capable of. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen. If I were you, I would be more nervous than proud that I was in the majority.

 

[Jimmy D]

You do realize that historically, we see the same pattern repeat itself, in that the majority that denies scripture is wrong.

It's your interpretation that's being questioned, is there not a possiblility you could be reading it wrong? Are you infallible?

The creation account was written in the Hebrew style of literal historical record. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of anyone who is an expert in Hebrew literature.

Not everyone it seems, maybe you should explore sources other than Creationist websites pushing their agendas.

The feverish concern of the "scientific creationists" to protect a literal reading of the story in Genesis 1 reflects a conviction that devotion to the Bible requires one to interpret it -- particularly Genesis 1 -- literally and accept it in its literal sense. But, as Steven Katz notes in his "Afterword" to Jastrow (p. 159), "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.

Dr. Jeffrey Tigay is A.M. Ellis Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of Pennsylvania.

It addresses the issue of validating with outside sources. On the one hand, it is good to have a ready defense when someone asks why you believe. On the other, worldly knowledge that separates God from His Word and what He claims is a fool's errand, and highly arrogant.

If it wasn't for that 'worldly knowledge' where would we be now? A view of religion that promotes ignorance has got something wrong with it.

This is not the first time in history that science has tried to disprove God. Nor is it the first time most of the world has doubts about God because the world told them too. If we follow the course of history, pretty soon God will show us just what He is capable of. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen. If I were you, I would be more nervous than proud that I was in the majority.

How is science trying to disprove God? I haven't seen that.

How do you know that God is going to show us "what he's capable of"? What's he going to do?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Since you're in the minority viewpoint, how can you be sure that it's not you that is "twisting Scripture" to suit yourself? Christ used metaphors quite often in his speeches while walking the Earth. Why then would I attempt to "interpret" every single word of Genesis "literally" simply because you choose to do so, *without* any means to cross check your own person subjective interpretation in terms of empirical physics?

You can not interpret the Hebrew words. You either know what they mean or you don't. For example: Moses said we are to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Jesus said: "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." How is it that going from the Hebrew to the Greek the word "strength" got changed into the word: "mind"?

 

[The Cadet]

This is not the first time in history that science has tried to disprove God.

But nothing about the scientific endeavor to understand the natural world had a goal of disproving god. Nobody was trying to disprove god. If your god is disproven by an honest understanding of the natural world, that's your problem; science doesn't really care.

However, given that science is fundamentally nothing more than the most useful tool we have for determining what is true or false about reality, what does it say when your god is disproven by science?

 

[joshua 1 9]

But nothing about the scientific endeavor to understand the natural world had a goal of disproving god. Nobody was trying to disprove god. If your god is disproven by an honest understanding of the natural world, that's your problem; science doesn't really care.

Just the opposite: Science proves the God that created the Natural world. Without Science the Bible would be little more then Poetry. It is Science that tests the Bible to show that it is true. For example the story of Jericho is a nice story. It is science that has discovered the ruins of Jericho to see that the wall in Jericho really did fall down and at least that part of the story is accurate and true.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

You can not interpret the Hebrew words. You either know what they mean or you don't. For example: Moses said we are to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Jesus said: "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." How is it that going from the Hebrew to the Greek the word "strength" got changed into the word: "mind"?

Because the Greek word for mind means with the entire center of your being. Mentally and physically.