[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] Bible and science

[Hank]

When I read through some posts I can't help wondering

a: why would the Bible be used as a science book?
b: if the Bible is not a science book, why use science to try to prove/disprove it?

Science tells us how things are. The Bible, Koran, and what not, give accounts of people claiming to have interacted with God. Their message should be on trial. I have yet to read anywhere where a prophet tried to tell me that E=hv and is the Plank constant. Therefore I put the message and integrity of the messenger in question since I think

c: science can't disprove the Bible, Koran or whatever.

Yes my not so humble opinion.   

 

[wb3]

The reason the Bible anyway is used as a sciance book is because up to yet it has only been proved correct. For example the walls of Jericho were recently found(early 1900's). As the what is suspected to be Noah's ark has been found.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Of course, Jericho was much much much smaller then described in the bible. It was also inhabited at a different time then the bible indicates. Such things as King David, Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, the Exodus, the Flood etc. have not been supported by archeological evidence. OF course this does not mean the bible is wrong - just that it is not an accurate account of history. Many of the myths and legends in the bible come from older sources, and archeology helps but those biblical stories in an accurate historical context.

Noah's Arc has been found?????? Really - wow. Considering that such a discovery would be akin to discovering a whole new continent in the Pacific it sure has not garnered much attention.

 

[Finrod]

Originally posted by Hank
When I read through some posts I can't help wondering

a: why would the Bible be used as a science book?
b: if the Bible is not a science book, why use science to try to prove/disprove it?

Science tells us how things are. The Bible, Koran, and what not, give accounts of people claiming to have interacted with God. Their message should be on trial. I have yet to read anywhere where a prophet tried to tell me that E=hv and is the Plank constant. Therefore I put the message and integrity of the messenger in question since I think

c: science can't disprove the Bible, Koran or whatever.

Yes my not so humble opinion.   

a: It shouldn't.

b: Science is only an intellectual honest search for the truth. If someone claims they are using the scientific method to disprove the Bible...they are only fooling themselves.

c: Agreed, and it doesn't try to.

 

[Hank]

Hey, pretty good so far.

 

[foolsparade]

Science in my opinion is not about God and for God, sceince is about US and for US. I have a friend who is a Christian, he says that God gave science to the beings he created, to help themselves. This is fine with me, for what purpose does it serve for me to debunk a belief that helps one find their center?   this excludes those with an agenda or promoting propaganda.

 

[Morat]

  What walls of Jericho? It not only had no walls even remotely within the correct timeframe, but was uninhabited when supposedly conquered anyways.

  I found many places purporting the above information was wrong. However, those objections seem to have boiled down to two specific types: 1) A claim of "Anti-Isreali" or "Anti-Christian" bias and 2) Claims that the original archealogists (notably Kenyon) were wrong in unspecified ways. (Mainly claims the archealogists were either not thorough, or that their dating was 'off' in someway.).

   The first claim is, of course, dismissable without evidence. The second is equally useless without specific objections to the methods used by modern archealogists. "They didn't date it right" is utterly useless as an objection, and thus dismissable. "Their samples contained the following four indicators of yadda-yadda, which throws of radiocarbon dates thusly (see references X, Y, Z).." is a valid objection that can be addressed.

  Wood's work is a little better, but inconclusive at best. Kenyon's field work was quite solid and she came to the conclusion the last Caaninite layer was in the late Bronze age, Circa 1500-1600 BCE., whereas the Biblical date is 1400. Wood disagrees, but his disagreement is limited pretty much to a disagrement over certain pottery samples and a single scarab.

   A more recent paper, by Bruins and van der Plich ((1995) "Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived
cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle
Bronze Age," _Radiocarbon_, Vol 37, #2 pp 213-220) offers equal probablity for the last Caaninite occuption either from 1601-1566, or 1561-1524.

   Still more than a century off the 'Biblical' date.

   Still, as Late_Cretacous mentions, so what? The Illiad described Troy, but do you think Achilles was half-God? That Troy was destroyed because of a Goddess' jealousy?

 

 

[Sky]

The Bible is not a science book, it is the Word Of God. The Bible can't be used to explain science, just like a science book can't be used to explain God.

 

[Duane Morse]

You are SO sure, Sky?
It must be nice understanding the fullness of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

a: why would the Bible be used as a science book?
b: if the Bible is not a science book, why use science to try to prove/disprove it?

A: Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.
B: The Bible is the biggest hinderance to evolution; and reading It can generate faith in God in the reader -- so Satan wants It sterilized before his two men (the Antichrist [or False Scientist] and the False Prophet) show up.

 

[crjmurray]

A: Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.
B: The Bible is the biggest hinderance to evolution; and reading It can generate faith in God in the reader -- so Satan wants It sterilized before his two men (the Antichrist [or False Scientist] and the False Prophet) show up.

Hey this is an old thread who res... oh freakin crap

 

[Goonie]

 

[Pink Spider]

__________________________
__________________________

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been permanently
closed by CF-Staff as it is veering in
a 'General Apologetics' direction.

MOD HAT OFF
__________________________
__________________________​