Whales are not fish: Nephesh

[Wiccan_Child]

Yep

This says oh-so much about why you can't interpret the Bible.

 

[Huram Abi]

I think the obvious has been completely overlooked here.

Dragons aren't mammals.

 

[Jazer]

This says oh-so much about why you can't interpret the Bible.

It is not up to me. The Holy Spirit is our Teacher to Guide us and to Lead us into all Truth.

 

[Jazer]

I think the obvious has been completely overlooked here.

Dragons aren't mammals.

Dragonflies?

 

[Huram Abi]

Dragonflies?

Pretty sure dragonflies aren't mammals, either.

 

[Incariol]

I wish this forum focused more on science and less on Jazer's theories of Scripture interpretation. There are literally a good dozen subforums where that would actually be on topic, so we could at least try not to get into it here.

 

[USincognito]

I wish this forum focused more on science and less on Jazer's theories of Scripture interpretation. There are literally a good dozen subforums where that would actually be on topic, so we could at least try not to get into it here.

Thank you.

 

[Tiberius]

This had to do with a question about Jonah and the Big Fish that swallowed him. There was a question if the Bible makes a distinction between fish and whales and the answer is yes, there is a special word used for air breathing mammals in the Bible. But what swallowed Jonah was just a big or a great fish. Not a whale.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Whale. Jesus said Jonah was in a whale.

Now, was Jonah swallowed by large sea creatures on more than one occasion, or was Jesus wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

What difference does it make? There is a lot in the Bible Science can back up.

And there's a lot in the Bible that science says is impossible. So it seems that creationists are quick to embrace science when it agrees with them, but the second that science says something that contradicts their beliefs, creationists are quick to point out the many so-called flaws in science to explain why it is unreliable.

So is science reliable or not? it seems the creationist answer is, "Only when I like what it says."

It does not seem to make a difference if science proves the Bible it true.

Science has never proven the Bible true. Science has shown that some things in the Bible are true, but these are by and large the things that would have already been known to the people of the time.

People want to reject God, and they are willing to reject science if they have to in order to reject God.

Creationists want to accept a literal Bible, and they are willing to reject science if they have to in order to accept a literal Bible.

So I am not worried about what science can not prove or accomplish.

Of course. If you don't simply discount all of science, then you are put in the position of explaining why science disagrees with your beliefs.

People would just reject it anyways, no matter how much evidence there is.

Okay, you seem to be saying that science has proven that the Bible (such as the flood, the existence of God, the miracles of Jesus etc) is true. I'm not aware of anything in science that says such things.

So could you clarify for me? What specific claims from the Bible has science proven true, and please show me the scientific source which shows this.

 

[Jazer]

And there's a lot in the Bible that science says is impossible.

Nothing, not a thing can you prove in the Bible not to be true. You can be deceived, you can try to deceive others, you can deny the truth all you want. But the truth is going to go right on being true if you want to abide in the truth or not. You have the choice and you have to option to deny truth, to even try to twist and warp the truth.

So many people here claim to embrace science but they are a traitor because they deny truth and so they deny science.

Science has never proven the Bible true. Science has shown that some things in the Bible are true

Ops you just contradicted yourself. You need to decide, you can not sit on the fense.

Creationists want to accept a literal Bible, and they are willing to reject science if they have to in order to accept a literal Bible.

I am a GAP Creationist and I accept a Literal Bible. No problem. This maybe more difficult for OEC and YEC, but I believe that both can be shown to be true with a literal understanding of the Bible.

science disagrees with your beliefs.

Science does not disagree with my beliefs. Science confirms that what I believe is true. Not all of the Bible, but enough of the Bible can be proven by Science so that we can trust in what is not yet proven to be true.

So could you clarify for me? What specific claims from the Bible has science proven true, and please show me the scientific source which shows this.

Perhaps you should read some of my posts. I have a huge amout of scientific evidence for the Bible that I have posted.

By all means try to come up with a rebutal. Because so often people do not respond and they do not say anything to a lot of the research I post on this forum.

 

[Jazer]

This says oh-so much about why you can't interpret the Bible.

So your going to insult me now. I take it you do not need any more help from me sense you seem to think I can not "interpret the Bible". Well good luck, I hope it all works out for you.

 

[Tiberius]

Nothing, not a thing can you prove in the Bible not to be true. You can be deceived, you can try to deceive others, you can deny the truth all you want. But the truth is going to go right on being true if you want to abide in the truth or not. You have the choice and you have to option to deny truth, to even try to twist and warp the truth.

This is patently false. For example, how old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22 when he began to reign, but 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42. Which is it?

Ops you just contradicted yourself. You need to decide, you can not sit on the fense.

And you take my quote out of context. The Bible claims Egypt exists. Is this true? yes. But if you read what I wrote immediately after, then you will see that I said that the things the Bible says are true are all things that could have been known by the people of the time!

I am a GAP Creationist and I accept a Literal Bible. No problem. This maybe more difficult for OEC and YEC, but I believe that both can be shown to be true with a literal understanding of the Bible.

What about when the Bible contradicts itself, as with the above example with Ahaziah?

Science does not disagree with my beliefs. Science confirms that what I believe is true. Not all of the Bible, but enough of the Bible can be proven by Science so that we can trust in what is not yet proven to be true.

Science also says things that happened if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible are impossible.

Perhaps you should read some of my posts. I have a huge amout of scientific evidence for the Bible that I have posted.

Yeah, I'm really going to go through how many thousands of posts trying to find specific claims you've made.

By all means try to come up with a rebutal. Because so often people do not respond and they do not say anything to a lot of the research I post on this forum.

Post a specific claim, or link to a post where you made such a claim, and I will respond.

So your going to insult me now. I take it you do not need any more help from me sense you seem to think I can not "interpret the Bible". Well good luck, I hope it all works out for you.

Lemme get this straight...

You try to find mention of a "slug" in the Bible, so you type "slug into a search box and simply post the first result you get, even though "sluggard" is in no way related to slugs. And then when someone points out to you that this is a rather silly way of finding information, you come and cry that you are being insulted?

 

[SkyWriting]

For example, how old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22 when he began to reign, but 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42. Which is it?

What about when the Bible contradicts itself, as with the above example with Ahaziah?

Lets assume for a minute that someone already checked into that before today. That's not asking too much.

One answer is that, in those days, two ages were commonly ascribed to a king. In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.

Science also says things that happened if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible are impossible.

Sure. Science says that water doesn't turn to wine and that Jesus didn't instantly heal anybody. We don't always trust what science says about past events. That's why the scientific method only deals with re-testable events. Not historical ones.

 

[Tiberius]

Lets assume for a minute that someone already checked into that before today. That's not asking too much.

One answer is that, in those days, two ages were commonly ascribed to a king. In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.

lol, that website was a laugh. They say, "the Bible is the Perfect Word (Ps 119:140) of a Perfect God (Tit 1:2) and given to man in a Perfect Manner (2 Pet 1:21, 2 Tim 3:16) and preserved in a Perfect Form (Ps 12:6-7)."

In other words, "the source tells us that the source is flawless, so it must be true." You do see that this logic doesn't really hold up, don't you? In any case, if we are to assume that the different ages are for different things, then why is the phrasing in both passages exactly the same?

The solutions given (more than one, so even they can't give a definite answer!) are pure speculation.

Sure. Science says that water doesn't turn to wine and that Jesus didn't instantly heal anybody. We don't always trust what science says about past events. That's why the scientific method only deals with re-testable events. Not historical ones.

But science does say that water can't turn into wine. You are perfectly willing to dismiss (and other things that disagree with your beliefs) this in order to hold your beliefs, but you are quick to grab at anything science has that supports your beliefs.

Like I've said, the validity of science is not determined by how much you agree with it.

 

[SkyWriting]

lol, that website was a laugh. They say....

Try to stay on topic. You have your answer.

In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.

Like I've said, the validity of science is not determined by how much you agree with it.

That's exactly how it's determined. We call that the peer review process.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/pethroughpg/a/peer_review.htm

 

[Tiberius]

Try to stay on topic. You have your answer.

In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.

That's not an answer, that's speculation.

That's exactly how it's determined. We call that the peer review process.
Peer Review - A Definition of How Academic Peer Review Works in the Social Sciences

I fear you misunderstood what I meant.

When I said "agree", I meant "based on what you have already decided is true." For example, if you decide the Bible is true and dismiss some piece of science for the reason that it disagrees with something in the Bible, then you are sciencing wrong.

The validity of science is determined by how well it stands up to scrutiny. If some piece of science withstands all scrutiny, then you should accept that it is true (or at least, closer to the truth than other views), even if it means discarding some other opinion you have held for a long time.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting Try to stay on topic. You have your answer. In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.

That's not an answer, that's speculation.

Because my answer is impossible to verify? Sure. I'll give you that.
I'm afraid it still qualifies as perfectly valid answer though.

....ined by how well it stands up to scrutiny. If some piece of science withstands all scrutiny, then you should accept that it is true (or at least, closer to the truth than other views), even if it means discarding some other opinion you have held for a long time.

Well, that's how I became a Creationist! The Bible always came out on top.
If you think historians who write stuff down are flakey, imagine people who imagine they can see into the past using machines and deep thoughts. Way flakier.

 

[Jazer]

What about when the Bible contradicts itself, as with the above example with Ahaziah?

That is a very rare copy error. The printing press came out around 500 years ago. So for 3,000 years the Bible was copied by hand. What you point out is the miracle that there are not more copy errors than just this one. They are very very rare. Thanks that you bring this up because this helps to show just how accurate and true the Bible is after 3500 years. Not in a state of decay but alive and more real then ever.

 

[Jazer]

imagine people who imagine they can see into the past

As long as when they look they see Raquel Welsh as in the movie 1 million BC then I am a happy camper. I still think that she is the most beautiful women that ever lived. Of course the point is that Science makes up a lot of stories about the past. Just like Saint Nicholas was a real person. But they wanted to make up their own story about a Santa Claus. When it comes to cranking out stories and myths science is the true winner. No doubt because it is a lot easier to make up a story than to be faithful to stick to the truth.

 

[Tiberius]

Because my answer is impossible to verify? Sure. I'll give you that.
I'm afraid it still qualifies as perfectly valid answer though.

Then magical gravity fairies who attach invisible and intangible rubber bands to everything to keep things on the ground is a perfectly valid answer too. Let's see how much ceredence you give that idea though.

Well, that's how I became a Creationist! The Bible always came out on top.
If you think historians who write stuff down are flakey, imagine people who imagine they can see into the past using machines and deep thoughts. Way flakier.

And testable evidence... The Bible has very little of that, particularly where it matters.