Does Science Agree With the Bible?

Sister_in_Christ said:

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

Click to expand...

I think Galileo would have a different opinion on that claim.

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.

Click to expand...

Then the Bible was not inspired by the deity who created this universe, if in fact there was one. The evidence found in the creation demonstrates that a literal interpretation of Genesis is false.

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

Click to expand...

I have yet to see anyone do that.

joshua 1 9 said:

Just the opposite: Science proves the God that created the Natural world.

Click to expand...

What is that proof?

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.

Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that God tore those walls down?

Sister_in_Christ said:

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

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that Catholics or most Christians believe the scripture is "wrong" when they choose to interpret the book of Genesis metaphorically, anymore than they believe Jesus was wrong when they interpret some of his statements metaphorically. The personally subjective decision to choose a metaphorical interpretation over a literal one doesn't require one to pass judgement on the scripture itself.

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.

Click to expand...

I've met a lot of Jewish folks in my life, but I've never met one that used the book of Genesis to suggest the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

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

Click to expand...

That's not really under debate, but not every "interpretation/explanation" is necessarily consistent with "science". YEC is about as inconsistent as it gets in fact.

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.

Click to expand...

And yet I'm forced to "interpret" a number of Christ's statements as *metaphors*, not literally, so I see no evidence that I should *necessarily* try to interpret every passage literally even if I feel comfortable with the value and usefulness of it's content.

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.

Click to expand...

In terms of arrogance, how would I decide if Catholics are more or less arrogant than any other "Christian" simply based upon their preference to interpret Genesis metaphorically rather than literally?

From my perspective, it seems a little arrogant to attempt to interpret that single book based on a host of personal and subjective opinions, without trying to validate one's "scientific" beliefs via some external reference. It ends up being a circular feedback loop from where I sit, particularly since the book can be interpreted in many ways, and no human is "infallible". An external cross check seems *necessary*, otherwise one is simply having faith in *themselves* and their own personal interpretations and beliefs, not necessarily Christ or the validity of the Bible itself.

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

Click to expand...

Science isn't even trying to disprove God in any way. It's technically incapable of doing so in fact. The scientific/empirical method might disprove a specific *personal interpretation of Genesis*, but science could never actually hope to disprove the concept of the existence of an intelligent creator.

If I were you, I would be more nervous than proud that I was in the majority.

Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that Christ will forgive some false beliefs on my part, and will judge me based upon how I've loved him, and how I've treated others. I'd be a lot more nervous trying to make a bunch of scientific claims strictly based upon my own personal interpretation of Genesis without a single external way of cross checking my beliefs.

joshua 1 9 said:

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"?

Click to expand...

Ya, but YEC is a minority viewpoint even among Jews, so apparently the English translation is "good enough" even if it's not "exact" in terms of the meaning of various words.

Most of the apparent Bible /science conflicts can be resolved by getting 'poetic' or 'mythical' with those Bible verses.

durangodawood said:

Most of the apparent Bible /science conflicts can be resolved by getting 'poetic' or 'mythical' with those Bible verses.

Click to expand...

Wanna make a poet out of even the most die-hard scientist?

Give him a verse of Scripture out of Genesis 1 and ask him to interpret it.

Wanna make a literalist out of even the most die-hard allegorist?

Give him a verse of Scripture about the sun & moon standing still, or the earth being unmoveable, or the four corners of the earth or whatever, and ask him to interpret it.

AV1611VET said:

Wanna make a poet out of even the most die-hard scientist?

Give him a verse of Scripture out of Genesis 1 and ask him to interpret it.

Wanna make a literalist out of even the most die-hard allegorist?

Give him a verse of Scripture about the sun & moon standing still, or the earth being unmoveable, or the four corners of the earth or whatever, and ask him to interpret it.

Click to expand...

Wanna watch AV1611VET run for the hills? Start presenting scientific evidence.

Loudmouth said:

Wanna watch AV1611VET run for the hills? Start presenting scientific evidence.

Click to expand...

Scientific evidence can take a hike.

AV1611VET said:

Scientific evidence can take a hike.

Click to expand...

Science with all its warts is the most successful thing mankind has ever done. I was about to say "accomplished" but science is far from accomplished.

AV1611VET said:

Scientific evidence can take a hike.

Click to expand...

And the sprint to the hills begins.

JackRT said:

Science with all its warts is the most successful thing mankind has ever done.

Click to expand...

Well, one of its warts consists of sterilizing the Scriptures.

And that wart needs to be removed.

Other warts are: antisemitism, antizionism, blasphemy and witchcraft.

Those warts need to be removed as well.

Science also has a nasty habit of changing key words into those used in witchcraft.

Such as saying "poofed," instead of "created;" and "magic," instead of "miracles."

Loudmouth said:

And the sprint to the hills begins.

Click to expand...

Who's taking the hike now.?

AV1611VET said:

Other warts are: antisemitism, antizionism, blasphemy and witchcraft.

Click to expand...

Science by its very nature cannot address the supernatural. Science cannot even say if the supernatural exists. Individual scientists do indeed have their personal views on such matters but these are personal views and not "science".

Michael said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no interpretation to Jesus creating man and the earth etc. None at all. In no way is it negotiable to insert evolution of man and the big bang into the creation spoken of by God and angels and prophets. rather than hide behind catholics, of whom I am one by birth, come out and talk of your universalism position..

JackRT said:

Science by its very nature cannot address the supernatural. Science cannot even say if the supernatural exists. Individual scientists do indeed have their personal views on such matters but these are personal views and not "science".

Click to expand...

If science can have warts, science can address the supernatural.

AV1611VET said:

If science can have warts, science can address the supernatural.

Click to expand...

OK, present the evidence.

JackRT said:

Science by its very nature cannot address the supernatural. Science cannot even say if the supernatural exists. Individual scientists do indeed have their personal views on such matters but these are personal views and not "science".

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Well, I'm afraid I beg to differ. Science can indeed address the "hypothetical", and from the standpoint of empirical (lab tested) physics, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. M-Theory is as "far out" as any concept of "God". It involves 7 additional spacetime dimensions, all of which could be hiding an "intelligent creator" of some kind. Science actually can and does study hypothetical entities on a regular basis. Atheists just get all miffed the moment anyone proposes a hypothetical entity with the label "God", then the double standards start flying.

Michael said:

Ya, but YEC is a minority viewpoint even among Jews, so apparently the English translation is "good enough" even if it's not "exact" in terms of the meaning of various words.

Click to expand...

The Hebrews have the oral tradition that Christians do not have. A lot of what Paul teaches makes sense when you study some of what he studied from the Hebrew traditions. There is a lot of oral tradition that goes along with this passage in Deu: "Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you." They make a clear distinction between: "The days of old" and the "generations".

Loudmouth said:

Wanna watch AV1611VET run for the hills? Start presenting scientific evidence.

Click to expand...

Do you mean the scientific evidence that shows thalidomide is safe and effective?

dad said:

There is no interpretation to Jesus creating man and the earth etc. None at all.

Click to expand...

I thought we agreed that we are debating *when* it happened, not if?

In no way is it negotiable to insert evolution of man and the big bang into the creation spoken of by God and angels and prophets.

Click to expand...

Except of course that BB theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, and later noted by the Pope, so apparently it's negotiable with other sects of "Christianity". And of course you're still in the minority camp without an external cross reference to your name.

rather than hide behind catholics, of whom I am one by birth, come out and talk of your universalism position..

Click to expand...

FYI, I was in fact baptized in the Catholic Church. I was raised as a Lutheran, and I'm more of a universalist Christian at this point in my life.

As it relates to topics of "science", unlike you, I do not have to hide from the light of empirical day. I'm not stuck in a personal feedback loop, and I can fully embrace empirical physics, just like *most* Christians.

What I honestly do not understand is why you need more than your faith in Christ as it relates to the Bible. John clearly explained that Jesus is the "living word" of God, not some lifeless book. You're elevating a lifeless book to near idol worship, and wrapping up a bunch of irrelevant pseudoscientific nonsense into your "requirements" to be a "good Christian". All Christians love Christ, and trust him. Not all of them trust your literal interpretation of Genesis however.