Science in the Bible at odds with other arguments?

[jackmt]

I'd be more concerned about Greg's quote from the Gospel of Thomas than mine from Luther as well

Sorry, I was referring to Greg's quote. Would that then make him a Gnostic? Greg? Are you reading this?

I think I'm a little off my game today. I'm going to take a nap, now.

 

[jackmt]

I do not believe I am belittling, I am trying to show that the Bible is not interpreted literally by those who hold Creationist views and round earth/heliocentric views. I also do not believe that it is a sin to interpret the Bible in a non literal sense, something which Christians have been doing since Christ.


That's all good and well, I try to read the Bible from their understanding and I encourage it as the way in which we are to read it. I have strong opposition to 21st Century literalism which is neither true literalism nor imo proper hermeneutics.

I generally agree, but I give the edge to what Scripture says over what the writers probably thought. Inspiration is abundantly clear to me.

 

[Keachian]

Sorry, I was referring to Greg's quote. Would that then make him a Gnostic? Greg? Are you reading this?

I think I'm a little off my game today. I'm going to take a nap, now.

Greg has openly declared in another thread that he is Gnostic, Kabalistic, Hellenistic and a few other things. So he declares that he uses these ideas before using "Darwinism" to interpret.

Unlike what he suggests most TEs don't use science to interpret the Bible.
I only say most because there are people who claim to be TEs that do

 

[Keachian]

I generally agree, but I give the edge to what Scripture says over what the writers probably thought. Inspiration is abundantly clear to me.

Well that's also my point, regardless of their cosmological views the writers are primarily concerned with talking about God and the yearning of both us and God to see Emmanuel

 

[metherion]

[FONT=&quot]Sorry I took a while, I had a few days’ worth of graduate instrumental chem to do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, without ado,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
That said, the earth is built on foundations; the core, the mantle, and the crust. I cannot help how men of old understood what God said.

Except the core, mantle, and crust ARE part of the earth, so they cannot be the foundations. And isn’t the earth also hung upon nothing, in Job? Hasn’t the argument that the earth is going through outer space, shown by science, been used to support science the ancients didn’t know in Job? So then, where ARE the foundations? Or, if the core, mantle, and crust ARE the foundations of the earth, then how can the earth be hung upon nothing, as it is obviously hung upon the crust, the mantle, and the core?

The funny thing is that geocentricism was engendered by natural philosophy and theists were told to view the bible according to geocentricism because that's "science."

Really? Then how do you explain such things as the old arguments used to argue there could be no life on the other side of the antipodes, because if the earth were round, they would fall off, using the Bible?
From St. Augustine’s City of God,

NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library[/url]]
But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.

"Science" is just the Latin word for "knowledge." Whence "omniscient," "nescient," etc. It was adopted because the word "gnosos" from which we get our word "know" was too broad in its use and connoted all sorts of knowledge that is unverifiable empirically or otherwise insignificant or irrelevant. It has now, in my opinion, become too broad in usage to be used in a syllogistic argument without first giving it a severely restricted stipulated meaning for the purposes of the argument itself. Else, we will inadvertently commit the fallacy of (at least) 4 terms. This, I think, is the nature of the problem you raise. More later.

But the use of the word has changed, it is no longer just a root. However, if you want to be picky, I will use the following definition and subdefinitions from dictionary.com:
Science:
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
Natural science: a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature, as biology or physics, as distinguished from the abstract or theoretical sciences, as mathematics or philosophy.
Physical science: [FONT=&quot]any[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the natural sciences dealing with inanimate matter or with energy, as physics, chemistry, and astronomy. [/FONT]
So, now, it is clear I refer to and was referring to natural and physical sciences, such as chemistry, biology, astrophysics, and so on. And that’s what I WAS referring to. Such things as “the winds move in their courses (or the appropriate wording depending on the version) shows that the Bible contains information about jetstreams, and shows the validity of the Bible by scientific knowledge that ancients didn’t have.”, yet “Science must be wrong about the age of the earth because of the genealogies in Genesis”, and so on.
Metherion

 

[SkyWriting]

Any thoughts? Have I gone wrong somewhere?

Metherion

Sure. The idea is that man makes mistakes that benefit his ideas and his ego,
& the Bible has no motives, yet is right.

 

[Keachian]

Sure. The idea is that man makes mistakes that benefit his ideas and his ego,

How does evolution stroke our egos? There is so much backlash from literalists against it that seems to come from them wanting to stroke their egos going "God created us special" when Evolution humbles us, tells us that we are so intricately animals.

the Bible has no motives, yet is right.

The Bible does have motives...

 

[jackmt]

Metherion,

Is not a foundation considered a part of (the rest of) the house that sits upon it? (20th century philosophy discovered that most of the remaining problems in philosophy were linguistic in nature, and that is the reason for my parenthetical above.) Even if the earth were flat, the water and land would have to have a bottom layer strong enough to support it; a foundation. A woman's makeup is said to have a foundation. an organization is said to be a foundation. The 21st century definition of a foundation cannot be applied retroactively 5,000 years.And since God is involved, we cannot limit our supposed understanding to the supposed understanding of those who penned His word. There is no contradiction in the earth's foundation being part of the earth and then hung on nothing.
You are limiting your understanding of God to your own experience.

Life is in the blood, says the Scripture. 21st century science proves that plant life has no blood. How do we reconcile? In God's taxonomy, it is wrong to say that plants have life. That is not to say that in another taxonomy plants cannot be said to have life, but that definition of life must be restricted to the paradigm in which it is defined and not applied to another paradigm to prove that other paradigm wrong. Similarly with science and "science."

Concerning "science'', your definition is still too broad, it is circular and it still commits the '4 terms' fallacy.

"Science" -> "branch of science" -> "science"

I will add more later.

 

[Assyrian]

Life is in the blood, says the Scripture. 21st century science proves that plant life has no blood. How do we reconcile? In God's taxonomy, it is wrong to say that plants have life. That is not to say that in another taxonomy plants cannot be said to have life, but that definition of life must be restricted to the paradigm in which it is defined and not applied to another paradigm to prove that other paradigm wrong.

Are grapes alive? Deut 32:14 and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape.

Lev 17:11 NRSV For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. Leviticus say the life of flesh is in the blood. Isn't that just talking about animals in the first place? Just because animals have their life in their blood, it doesn't mean plants don't have life somewhere else.

A bigger problem is that animal blood doesn't make atonement for our lives. Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Instead the Levitical sacrifices were simply a foreshadowing of the real atonement, Christ's death on the cross. Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities. Should we base our understanding of biology on a passage that is speaking figuratively?

 

[jackmt]

Assyrian,

To call the juice of grapes 'blood' is certainly a metaphor pointing to the Passover seder and one of the elements of communion. And human flesh is flesh as well.

As far as I can tell, none of the Hebrew words translated 'life' ever refer to plants. Again, if you want to call them life, then you give a different definition of it than God does. And that's okay, but you can't then use your definition to prove anything about what God says about life. He created it. He defined it.

And I said nothing about atonement in my remarks.

 

[Keachian]

Assyrian,

To call the juice of grapes 'blood' is certainly a metaphor pointing to the Passover seder and one of the elements of communion. And human flesh is flesh as well.

As far as I can tell, none of the Hebrew words translated 'life' ever refer to plants. Again, if you want to call them life, then you give a different definition of it than God does. And that's okay, but you can't then use your definition to prove anything about what God says about life. He created it. He defined it.

So obviously there was no grape death

And I said nothing about atonement in my remarks.

The normal understanding of God's act of giving Adam and Eve clothes of animal skin is blood atonement as well as clothing.

 

[jackmt]

The normal understanding of God's act of giving Adam and Eve clothes of animal skin is blood atonement as well as clothing.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's good to know I'm not the only one to notice that there was a substitutionary death "in the day [they would] eat thereof."

 

[Greg1234]

Um, no

Um.........yep.

Yep a simplification,

It's very simple. It's simply the earth (dry land).

too bad there is no evidence from scripture about whether the image is a simplification to address a point or not.

You mean the statutes?

 

[Greg1234]

I'd be more concerned about Greg's quote from the Gospel of Thomas than mine from Luther as well

So you're still playing sic 'em boy with Christians huh?

Greg has openly declared in another thread that he is Gnostic, Kabalistic, Hellenistic and a few other things. So he declares that he uses these ideas before using "Darwinism" to interpret.

If the bible were to be interpreted, yes, there are texts which take precedence over Darwinism.

 

[Greg1234]

Sorry, I was referring to Greg's quote. Would that then make him a Gnostic? Greg? Are you reading this?

I think I'm a little off my game today. I'm going to take a nap, now.

At the end of the day and at the end of my posts, if you think that I am a Gnostic or of whatever other faith, then I am so.

You identify yourself as a Christian and belittle the writers of the Bible.

I prefer "Christian Darwinist."

 

[Keachian]

If the bible were to be interpreted, yes, there are texts which take precedence over Darwinism.

You know very well that I don't interpret the Bible through 'Darwinism' and object profusely to anyone who does, (see my arguments with Cupid Dave)

 

[Keachian]

It's very simple. It's simply the earth (dry land).

You mean the statutes?

I don't think even you know what you're saying here.

 

[Keachian]

So you're still playing sic 'em boy with Christians huh?

Nah, I normally rip arguments to shreds myself

 

[Assyrian]

So you're still playing sic 'em boy with Christians huh?

You feel like a lion in a den of Daniels?

 

[Greg1234]

Nah, I normally rip arguments to shreds myself

ok