Science > or < Scripture?

[iambeeman]

I am a licensed professional Engineer. But I had to prove I was really an engineer by taking an exhaustive series of examinations because I was only formally educated as a scientist!

But to be a good engineer, a person has to by nature be detail oriented and highly precise. As a natural engineer, I approached my scientific studies in this fashion. And in my formal education as a scientist, I observed systematic gross oversimplification of observed data, and massive groupthink on a scale unimaginable, if it had not been right there before my very eyes. I read articles in scientific journals calling for discipline against those who dared to question the approved forms of groupthinking, and other articles stressing the need to indoctrinate students with rigor.

When climategate broke, many scientists wrote that it was massive deception on a scale hitherto unknown in the scientific community. I answered that such practice was already well known in the community of disbelievers in science's sacred cow, evolution.

Most of the evidence given for the theory of evolution is questioned as even accurate by experts in the various disciplines involved.

The most shocking example of the outright dishonesty involved in this debate that I personally observed was when we were taught (as freshmen) the theory of recapitulation. As advanced embryology students, we were later taught that this is actually "outside of the facts." The thing that particularly offended my brother, who was just a year behind me, was that he was taught these two things by the same professor! In his first year at the university, this professor used this theory to prove evolution, and in his third year the very same professor taught him that it was not true.

I was personally subjected to extreme pressure because I resolutely refused to click my heels together, raise my right arm, and cry out "Hiel Darwin."

Much later, I was required to sign a paper warning me that I would be discharged from my position if I shared my faith in Christ with anyone in any way connected with my employer, whether a co-worker or a supplier, on a 24 hour a day basis. And the company President ordered management to see to it that made I made no contact with any of their customers.

So don't waste your breath telling me that science is objective. I have personally observed the very opposite.

Thanks for chiming in.

The paper they made you sign though isn't that illegal? I can see maybe during work hours but on your time? That's a tough one to bare!

 

[Papias]

beeman wrote:

The paper they made you sign though isn't that illegal? I can see maybe during work hours but on your time?

This was a private employer, not the gov. - they probably have had customers scared away. That was an engineering firm, right?

That's a tough one to bare!

Wow, he didn't say any nudity was involved, hold on here.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Biblewrote:

The errors that the vast bulk of the manuscripts contain are obvious copying errors such as you have listed. (words misspelled, missed, or repeated, lines dropped, lines doubled, etc.) Scholars still debate about the actual original word in only about one word out of a thousand.

First, one word in a thousand would still amount to literally hundreds of words. A couple words changed here and there can make huge difference in meaning. Imagine the next time you read the Bible, which of the words you read is one that is suspect.

Secondly, and more importantly, the 1 in a thousand line only refers to what the words in the books that ended up in the Bibles in the proto-orthodox church in the second or third century said. Because we don't have copies from before that, most of the words could have been changed in an early copy, and later copies made from those altered versions and we would have no way of knowing. Because of that, thousands of words, even whole sections, could be altered or changed. That's especially true for those same books used by other Christian churches at the time. For instance, you can see the whole sections I mentioned earlier, like the added ending to mark, or others I didn't mention, like the later added last chapter of the Gospel of John.

There is much ado made about "the oldest manuscripts." But there are exactly two such manuscripts, and they both came from the same region. These two manuscripts differ from the mainstream in numerous places, and the systematic nature of the differences strongly suggest that the differences stem from willful editing, not copying errors.

Which two are specifically referring to? Do you mean the oldest (mostly) complete manuscripts, which date from the 4th century, and contain extra books, or do you mean scraps and fragments, which can be older? Do you mean codex vaticanus, Palatinus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, Alexandrinus, etc? I hope you don't mean the 11th century manuscripts used to make the KJV, as no really old manuscripts were used for that (only more recent manuscripts), and hence the KJV has more known alterations than other versions.

Papias

 

[solarwave]

I've been noticing what I see as a disturbing tendancy (not just here but other places as well) that christians are trusting in science more so than scripture.

I'm going to try to answer you in a rational way but forgive me if my passions get the best of me.

I think you'll find that some Christians trust the Bible where it is obvious, but the non-obvious passge need interpretation. How do we interpret, well by using everything we know abotu reality and science is part of that. So in this sense science is not being held above the Bible but is being used as a tool to help interpret the Bible.

Not that I have a great problem per se but when you see people say things like "scripture was writen by falible man" , and there fore not to be trusted entirely then asert that sceince is to be trusted entirely because of peer review it raises alarms in the back of my head.

I am sorry to say, but I am one of those Christians who say that about the Bible (I wasn't till about a year ago) but I don't think anyone who understands science would say science should be trusted entirely, but it has proven itself to give true facts throughout history.

Now I do realise most scientist are likely well meaning and dedicated, but just like everybody else they have a worldview that comes with presupositions, and to assume that it doesn't effect thier conclusions especialy on a subject with no direct observable evedence such as evolution is poor science in and of itself.

Dawin was a Christian and many people were when the theory got started. The true can be said of Christians too, with our upbringing and traditions getting in the way of knowing the truth.

If you criticise them for making very informed judgements on the past how do you justify believing what an old book tells you? Now I know it is more than an old book, I was just making a point.

Scripture has been some how religated dispite all this to a secondary sorce for truth, what ever happened to 2 Timothy 3 "15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"

Isn't that talking about the OT?

Or maybe some christians have fallen for the idea that all truth is scientific truth, which is a statement that fails it's own test.

If that were true they wouldn't believe in God and so wouldn't be Christian.

 

[iambeeman]

Wow, he didn't say any nudity was involved, hold on here.

Sorry my dyslexia running away with my words! What was the spelling I wanted? My weife told me it was right and rarely is she wrong (but don't tell her that!!!!!)

 

[Biblewriter]

beeman wrote:


This was a private employer, not the gov. - they probably have had customers scared away. That was an engineering firm, right?

No, it was not an engineering firm. It was a manufacturing firm that specialized in environmental projects. But it was a private corporation. An attorney literally begged me to let him file suit, but I refused.

Wow, he didn't say any nudity was involved, hold on here.

Papias

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewrote:


First, one word in a thousand would still amount to literally hundreds of words. A couple words changed here and there can make huge difference in meaning. Imagine the next time you read the Bible, which of the words you read is one that is suspect.

Secondly, and more importantly, the 1 in a thousand line only refers to what the words in the books that ended up in the Bibles in the proto-orthodox church in the second or third century said. Because we don't have copies from before that, most of the words could have been changed in an early copy, and later copies made from those altered versions and we would have no way of knowing. Because of that, thousands of words, even whole sections, could be altered or changed. That's especially true for those same books used by other Christian churches at the time. For instance, you can see the whole sections I mentioned earlier, like the added ending to mark, or others I didn't mention, like the later added last chapter of the Gospel of John.




Which two are specifically referring to? Do you mean the oldest (mostly) complete manuscripts, which date from the 4th century, and contain extra books, or do you mean scraps and fragments, which can be older? Do you mean codex vaticanus, Palatinus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, Alexandrinus, etc? I hope you don't mean the 11th century manuscripts used to make the KJV, as no really old manuscripts were used for that (only more recent manuscripts), and hence the KJV has more known alterations than other versions.

Papias

I was speaking of the Sinaiticus and the Vatacanus.

But you are forgetting that there were numerous quotations from various scriptural documents in the oldest commentaries that we know about today. These quotations almost all agree with the later copies we have.

I am not a King James only advocate. But there is a significant amount of useful information in their documentation, if you ignore the hyperbole.

I was not commenting on your discussion of what constitutes the proper canon of scripture. But since you press the point, I will only say that, to one used to studying the scriptures in detail, there is no comparison between the so-called apocryphal books and the inspired books. Someone once told me that it was like comparing Shakespeare to a comic book. When I began to personally read them, I basically agreed, although this was an exaggeration.

 

[Faith.Man]

I've been noticing what I see as a disturbing tendancy (not just here but other places as well) that christians are trusting in science more so than scripture. Not that I have a great problem per se but when you see people say things like "scripture was writen by falible man" , and there fore not to be trusted entirely then asert that sceince is to be trusted entirely because of peer review it raises alarms in the back of my head. Now I do realise most scientist are likely well meaning and dedicated, but just like everybody else they have a worldview that comes with presupositions, and to assume that it doesn't effect thier conclusions especialy on a subject with no direct observable evedence such as evolution is poor science in and of itself. Scripture has been some how religated dispite all this to a secondary sorce for truth, what ever happened to 2 Timothy 3 "15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" Or maybe some christians have fallen for the idea that all truth is scientific truth, which is a statement that fails it's own test.

I don't know I feel like I'm rambleing now. Whats your thoughs on all this?

Just for the record I am in no way pointing this thread at anyone, it's just a trend I noticed that disturbs me.

Some people see an either/or situation with Science and Scripture. I don't. As a Christian Fundamentalist for nearly 30 years and a Mechanical Engineer for nearly 40, I do not see a compromise in either my belief in the Bible accurately transmitting the word of God, or my belief in the Science of Newton and Einstein. I think some Christians associate scientific theory (like the theory of evolution, global warming, etc.) with science. There's a difference between unproven theory (or junk science) and scientific reality. Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact. The physics used in my engineering career is both predictable and repeatable. The physics that can send a man to the moon is both predictable and repeatable.

God created everything out of nothing through Jesus.

John 1:3 - It was through Him that everything came into existence, and apart from Him not a single thing came into existence. [Williams NT]

The universe is wonderful example of God's attention to detail. From the smallest subatomic particle to unseen objects we only know about because of their influence on others, millions of light-years away. The vastness of space is amazing.

Isaiah 42:5 - Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it, [NASB]

And the universe is still expanding!

 

[mark kennedy]

I've been noticing what I see as a disturbing tendancy (not just here but other places as well) that christians are trusting in science more so than scripture. Not that I have a great problem per se but when you see people say things like "scripture was writen by falible man" , and there fore not to be trusted entirely then asert that sceince is to be trusted entirely because of peer review it raises alarms in the back of my head. Now I do realise most scientist are likely well meaning and dedicated, but just like everybody else they have a worldview that comes with presupositions, and to assume that it doesn't effect thier conclusions especialy on a subject with no direct observable evedence such as evolution is poor science in and of itself. Scripture has been some how religated dispite all this to a secondary sorce for truth, what ever happened to 2 Timothy 3 "15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" Or maybe some christians have fallen for the idea that all truth is scientific truth, which is a statement that fails it's own test.

I don't know I feel like I'm rambleing now. Whats your thoughs on all this?

Just for the record I am in no way pointing this thread at anyone, it's just a trend I noticed that disturbs me.

First of all, it's not science it's arguments of science falsely so called. More importantly you should be disturbed. I'm convinced that the whole evolution debate is a farce, it's never really invited creationism in just set it up as a tackling dummy. In the spirit of the forums I say this, 'the truth will prevail'.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Dawin was a Christian and many people were when the theory got started. The true can be said of Christians too, with our upbringing and traditions getting in the way of knowing the truth.

No he was not a Christian, he never made anything close to a profession of faith. He signed off on one boilerplate doctrinal statement and undermined the faith of millions. Darwin rejected God as Creator and instead chose natural law as the explanation for our origins.

I accept neither the doctrines and commandments of man nor the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I'm a Bible believing Christian because there is no compelling reason to not be and every to be fully persuaded.

Darwin was a Christian? Not a chance...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Bible wrote:

I was speaking of the Sinaiticus and the Vatacanus.

Thanks. That makes sense. Yes, they do contain obvious additions as well as added books - and that kind of stuff is hardly rare in our earliest manuscripts. In fact, the earlier manuscript you get, the more errors and problems there are. p46 is a great example of that. That suggests, as do other factors, that there was plenty of change before our earliest manuscripts.

But you are forgetting that there were numerous quotations from various scriptural documents in the oldest commentaries that we know about today. These quotations almost all agree with the later copies we have.

Quotations do help to some extent. However, be aware of how they are done. They rarely say "as Paul writes in 2nd corinthians", instead, they usually don't say where it's from, and just use the quote. So finding "quotes" often amounts to taking a sentence fragment from one of our Bibles, and then searching ancient documents until one finds that sentence fragment used. Of course they will often be found!

And of course they will often match, because that's the fragment you searched for. So if an original had 50% of it's text removed, we wouldn't search for those parts, and our data now would be the same. And there are plenty of "close" fragments, so the certainly don't always match exactly.

Plus, on top of all that, they are scattered here and there not in order, and don't constitute the books. That's similar to the fact that I can find all the letters to the alphabet on my keyboard, but that doesn't mean they constitute, say, the declaration of independence.

The fragments from quotes can help a little, but not a lot.

I am not a King James only advocate. But there is a significant amount of useful information in their documentation, if you ignore the hyperbole.

Yes, I agree.

I was not commenting on your discussion of what constitutes the proper canon of scripture. But since you press the point, I will only say that, to one used to studying the scriptures in detail, there is no comparison between the so-called apocryphal books and the inspired books. Someone once told me that it was like comparing Shakespeare to a comic book. When I began to personally read them, I basically agreed, although this was an exaggeration.

What is that other than personal opinion? Martin Luther himself, when he removed the book of Revelation from the Bible, said it sounded like "the ravings of a lunatic". Not only did the Apostles use those books, but for the majority of Christians today, the aren't "the apocrapha", but instead are books in their Bibles.

Papias

P.S.

beeman wrote:

Sorry my dyslexia running away with my words! What was the spelling I wanted? My weife told me it was right and rarely is she wrong (but don't tell her that!!!!!)

I was mostly joking, but the correct phrase is "Bear with me."

Bear: To withstand or endure. Also, same spelling for the animal.

Bare: Naked, as in without clothes or without a coating or covering (....bare people should not sit on bare furniture lest they get splinters.)

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Darwin was a Christian? Not a chance...

I have to mostly agree with Mark here. Darwin was raised a Christian and was nominally Christian (in that he never renounced Christianity nor his upbringing, and his kids were raised Christian in their family), but he drifted towards agnosticism/deism in his later days. I think a description as a "soft deist" is probably most accurate. I wouldn't call him a Christian.

That is, unless one is going to believe the creationist hoax from Lady Hope that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, becoming a Christian.

Papias

 

[solarwave]

No he was not a Christian, he never made anything close to a profession of faith. He signed off on one boilerplate doctrinal statement and undermined the faith of millions. Darwin rejected God as Creator and instead chose natural law as the explanation for our origins.

I have to mostly agree with Mark here. Darwin was raised a Christian and was nominally Christian (in that he never renounced Christianity nor his upbringing, and his kids were raised Christian in their family), but he drifted towards agnosticism/deism in his later days. I think a description as a "soft deist" is probably most accurate. I wouldn't call him a Christian.

I know he wasn't when he died but he was a Christian from his early to middle years and was training to be a priest at one point. I was just trying to say that when he came up with the theory he was a Christian.

 

[Biblewriter]

I know he wasn't when he died but he was a Christian from his early to middle years and was training to be a priest at one point. I was just trying to say that when he came up with the theory he was a Christian.

This, also, is error. A Christian ts not someone who belongs to a church that calls itself Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Christ.

An agnostic or a Deist is not a Christian.

 

[Papias]

Wow, another instance of pretty much agreement on the internet!

It looks like we all agree that Darwin was raised a Christian, was a Christian for most of his younger years, trained to be a minister (Anglican), and then drifted away to soft deism in his later years.

So, if one claims that he was a Christian (as in "before his middle age years"), then that seems to be true. So his idea was formulated then, for what that's worth.

Not that it matters anyway. The source of an idea in science is irrelevant, even if irreverent. For instance, our numbering system is Islamic, as is our Algebra (the name is even Islamic, "Al-jeb ra"), and Isaac Newton was a brazen heretic who denied the trinity.

Papias

 

[solarwave]

This, also, is error. A Christian ts not someone who belongs to a church that calls itself Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Christ.

An agnostic or a Deist is not a Christian.

Well though I think it is fair to assume he was Christian in his younger years you may disagree, but even if you do he still had christian beliefs and that is all that is necessay for the point I am trying to make.

My point is that when he came up with the theory is wasn't some conspiracy to escape God.

 

[mark kennedy]

I know he wasn't when he died but he was a Christian from his early to middle years and was training to be a priest at one point. I was just trying to say that when he came up with the theory he was a Christian.

Darwin accepted Christian doctrine but never comments on it except in the most general terms. He had Paley's book on Intelligent Design memorized and seemed to enjoy it a lot but never expresses what it is about the book he found so interesting. He says he never gave up being a Christian until in his forties but I have yet to see a quote where he made a direct statement about Jesus Christ, personal or otherwise until he was a confirmed agnostic.

Being a Christian is about a relationship with God in Christ and I see nothing in his writings or many biographies indicating that he ever had anything like that. I think he was a religious Christian of the most superficial kind and his unbelief and indifference to the things of Christ is what leads me to conclude he never was a Christian.

His Dad, his brother and his grandfather were atheists:

&#8220;I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.&#8221; (Charles Darwin)​

Here is a rare quote that actually mentions Jesus Christ:

&#8220;I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.&#8221; (Charles Darwin, from an 1880 correspondent)​

It seems to me the only way he was a Christian is for it to be as easy as looking in a mirror, waving and saying, 'hi I'm a Christian'. It looks like he made a seamless transition from being a theistic evolutionist to a devout agnostic.

Honestly I don't believe that he was an evil man but based on what I know about Christianity he was never a believer in any way that really matters.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[marktheblake]

I've been noticing what I see as a disturbing tendancy (not just here but other places as well) that christians are trusting in science more so than scripture.

The issue is that many Christians are trusting what Scientists are telling us about our origins, without giving any regard to the framework that these scientists are interpreting the world through.

Biologists (in particular) will likely be interpreting the world through the framework of materialism, that there is no god, and all that exists is matter. This is quite the opposite of a christian, who beleives that God does exist, and created everthing, and most definitely there is more that exists than just matter.

So basically you should not really trust someone to provide 'scientific' proof of our origins when their knowledge is based on a diametrically opposed framework - which is a philosophy anyway.

 

[solarwave]

Darwin accepted Christian doctrine but never comments on it except in the most general terms. He had Paley's book on Intelligent Design memorized and seemed to enjoy it a lot but never expresses what it is about the book he found so interesting. He says he never gave up being a Christian until in his forties but I have yet to see a quote where he made a direct statement about Jesus Christ, personal or otherwise until he was a confirmed agnostic.

Being a Christian is about a relationship with God in Christ and I see nothing in his writings or many biographies indicating that he ever had anything like that. I think he was a religious Christian of the most superficial kind and his unbelief and indifference to the things of Christ is what leads me to conclude he never was a Christian.

His Dad, his brother and his grandfather were atheists:

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” (Charles Darwin)
​

Here is a rare quote that actually mentions Jesus Christ:

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.” (Charles Darwin, from an 1880 correspondent)
​

It seems to me the only way he was a Christian is for it to be as easy as looking in a mirror, waving and saying, 'hi I'm a Christian'. It looks like he made a seamless transition from being a theistic evolutionist to a devout agnostic.

Honestly I don't believe that he was an evil man but based on what I know about Christianity he was never a believer in any way that really matters.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Because I don't want to argue for something I know little about I'll just assume your right even though I am unsure. I do have to say though that the fact that you can't find he wrote about Jesus doesn't prove he wasn't a Christian since part of being a Christian isn't that you must write about Jesus and have those writings preserved 200 years.

Even if you are right the point I was trying to make is that Dawin had Christians beliefs even if he wasn't Christian in your sense of the word. So my point is that evolution can come from Christian beliefs, not a conspiracy to further atheism.

So basically you should not really trust someone to provide 'scientific' proof of our origins when their knowledge is based on a diametrically opposed framework - which is a philosophy anyway.

The thing is there is evidence and Christians can see this too.

 

[mark kennedy]

Because I don't want to argue for something I know little about I'll just assume your right even though I am unsure. I do have to say though that the fact that you can't find he wrote about Jesus doesn't prove he wasn't a Christian since part of being a Christian isn't that you must write about Jesus and have those writings preserved 200 years.

In order to be a Christian, you must believe something, specifically regarding Jesus Christ. I realize that Darwin may have been a religious Christian of some kind but the have no opinion with expressing regarding the person and work of Christ seems to be a strong indication to me that Darwin was not a Christian.

Even if you are right the point I was trying to make is that Dawin had Christians beliefs even if he wasn't Christian in your sense of the word. So my point is that evolution can come from Christian beliefs, not a conspiracy to further atheism.

Darwinism is based on a preference of natural law over supernatural interpolation, it says that expressly in the preface to On the Origin of Species. The book is one long argument against special creation specifically and by direct interence, God. I have studied this my friend, these people are unambiguous. We have the same problem in the modern age, all you have to do is look in a mirror and say, 'hi I'm a Christian'. No standards, not qualifications, no point of reference, no rational basis for the profession.

The thing is there is evidence and Christians can see this too.

Christians look at the same evidence and still conclude a creator, it's as simple as that. From the Darwinian camp it is scientifically untenable that God acted in time and place but reality will not be silenced. What Darwinism does is to organize the evidence around naturalistic assumptions. That's not science, that's supposition.

Grace and peace,
Mark