Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, right, that's what we would expect to see if there was some divine inspiration. But that's not what we see at all. Instead what we see are the few glimmers of insight that exist appear to be entirely within reason for the people of the time to have understood, combined with a large variety of gruesome inaccuracies (and inconsistencies).
Well, it's very, very slightly more than observation in that they make the logical deduction that the water from the rivers that flows into the sea must get back to the rivers somehow. I don't know why you think there's anything that cannot be directly inferred from observation there.
An amazing collection of "after-the-fact" contributions of scripture toward understanding modern science. Keep pounding those square pegs into round holes!
Why? His reasoning was valid: the sea doesn't fill up. What we don't know, because he doesn't mention it, is how he thought the water got back to the river. That, as I keep saying, would have been an excellent way for a god inspiring the text to provide some really amazing insight. This, as I keep saying, did not happen.
Amusing. So, your defense at having completely and utterly failed to dazzle me with the "amazing science" in the Bible is that I'm biased against it? Have you checked your own biases?
Yay, Whack-a-mole!
Okay, the "heavens" are big. So? They also used the "depth of the grave" as a comparison, so that seems to indicate that they had no idea that the heavens were any bigger than the Earth. Just "big".
Most of us that live in modern cities don't realize this, but light pollution today hides most of the stars from view. If you've ever been out in the countryside on a clear night, especially in a dry and/or high-altitude area, the number of stars visible to the naked eye is truly marvelous. So I don't see why poets of the time before electricity was invented would fail to point out this obvious fact.
This one's hilarious! Sure, it says "each star is unique", but it also says that a star is a distinctly different sort of "wonder" than a star! It explicitly goes against what we know about the nature of stars.
Er, these verses talk about the Sun and the Moon, which are pretty darned regular. It doesn't say anything at all about precision.
What!? Who could seriously fail to recognize that wind patterns in a given area are pretty regular?
How the hell is this related to anything like a protective effect?
Been over this. Rain is not mentioned. This one perhaps stands out as actually displaying a logical deduction, but it is still pretty obvious.
.
What? What on Earth does this have to do with fluid dynamics? It just mentions, in passing, the wind and the waters. Do you think that poets of that age would have failed to notice that wind blows, or that water flows? That they would have failed to make use of that imagery?
Huh? How? Neither energy nor mass is even alluded to here. These verses say that God holds everything together, which is a completely different concept from mass-energy equivalence.
Er, no. It just says that the Sun warms everything. How is that a stunning insight? And it's also wrong, because the poles are completely hidden from the Sun for nearly six months at a time.
Er, the "elements" mentioned in that verse are not what we think of when we think of elements. These were the classical elements: earth, wind, fire, water. It's just saying that the Earth will be destroyed in fire. There is no reason to believe that this will occur as yet, and the verse certainly doesn't allude to it being a man-made disaster, but implies it would be a divine cause (it's called the "day of our Lord", after all).
Huh? This is God claiming he has mastery over lightning bolts. It has nothing at all to do with transmission of information, just God claiming he's amazing.
How are people going to "refuse burial" to somebody when they're just watching on TV?
This says nothing about rapid transportation, just transportation in general, which people had back then. It was slow, but people did indeed travel.
quite a list. lets break these down one by one.Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
- Hydrologic Cycle = Ecclesiastes 1:7 and Isaiah 55:10
- Evaporation = Psalm 135:7 and Jeremiah 10:13
- Condensation Nuclei = Proverbs 8:26
- Condensation = Job 26:8 and 37:11,16
- Precipitation = Job 36:26-28
- Run-off = Job 28:10
- Oceanic Reservoir = Psalm 33:7
- Snow = Job 38:22 and Psalm 147:16
- Hydrologic Balance = Job 28:24-26
- Springs in the Sea = Job 38:16
Here are some more:
- Size of Universe = Job 11:7-9; 22:12; Isaiah 55:9; Jeremiah 31:37
- Number of Stars = Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22
- Uniqueness of Each Star = 1 Corinthians 15:41
- Precision of Orbits = Jeremiah 31:35 - 36
- Circulation of Atmosphere = Ecclesiastes 1:6
- Protective Effect of Atmosphere = Isaiah 40:22
- Oceanic Origin of Rain = Ecclesiastes 1:7
- Relation of Electricity to Rain = Job 28:26 and Jeremiah 10:13
- Fluid Dynamics = Job 28:25
- Mass-Energy Equivalence = Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3
- Source of Energy for Earth = Psalm 19:6
- Atomic Disintegration = 2 Peter 3:10
- Electrical Transmission of Information = Job 38:35
- Television = Revelation 11:9-11
- Rapid Transportation = Daniel 12:4
rain and snow come down and water the earth and feed plants, and dont return to the heavens. they knew that precipitation feeds plants (plants cant use froze water, but it does contribute upon springtime when it melts so that snow comment could go either way). returneth not thither is not accurate. whether it runs off into a body of water or gets into the groundwater and flows through the water table or is absorbed by plants and escapes through transpiration. the water cycle cycles. it returns thither, even if it takes tens of thousands of years.Isaiah 55:10 said:
This sort of talk gets you nowhere, as I could say the exact same to you. But since I'm not (except in response), but am merely arguing my position, well, you might want to look up psychological projection sometime.
He didn't just say that. He also gave his reasoning: the sea doesn't fill up. This is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make. Why do you insist that the author of this text was so stupid that he couldn't make such simple deductions, but had to have God help him out?
Then why don't you post one? Come on, post the single example that you think is the best example of something that really shows that God wrote the Bible.
Psalm 135:7 said:
the acknowledgement that water vapor exists tells us nothing. it doesnt say that the vapor returns thither as rain. rather what i expect from psalms (the jeremiah verse is similarly so) it is poetic. these verses arent even meant to tell us anything about the workings of the universe, only to say that God is in control. God brings forth the rain and the lightning and the winds. thats what these verses are saying.Jeremiah 10:13 said:
CactusJack isn't discussing the same verse as you are with Chalnoth. At least try to keep up, please?
