- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,900
- 52,588
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Juvenissun, do you have a Defender's Study Bible?The amazing part of this simple example is that King Solomon was able to say this "without" the understanding of hydrologic cycle.
Except they were ignorant. At least one of the authors of the book of Kings did not know the nature of pi. Other authors of the Old Testament did not appear to be aware that the Earth was a sphere.Again, do not think ancient people are ignorant. They knew their living environment better than you know your backyard.
Which, since they didn't mention rain at all, is why I suspect they were talking about a literal flow from sea to sea.The point is that King Solomon probably did not have any idea about the hydrologic cycle. I wonder when did people start to actually suspect the existence of this cyclic process. I guess it was probably later than A.D.1000, or even A.D.500. It isn't easy. It takes the understanding on the origin of cloud and rain. Many key links in this cycle are invisible features.
If the author talked about rain, you might have a leg to stand on.The amazing part of this simple example is that King Solomon was able to say this "without" the understanding of hydrologic cycle.
LOL --- this PRATT always gives me a chuckle.At least one of the authors of the book of Kings did not know the nature of pi.
Why would you say it's a circle, and also give both the circumference and diameter? One or the other is sufficient. It doesn't help that they gave both, and got the answer wrong.LOL --- this PRATT always gives me a chuckle.
Isn't the value of Pi that number that they readjusted about 10 times before someone got it right?
And yes, I realize the value of ≠ the nature of, but then you can't show me that Pi was even being considered in that passage.
I'm liable to make the same statement, myself, if I were to describe a birdbath to someone.
actually a fairly good observation. rivers always flow into the sea but the sea doesnt fill. i would leave it at good observation though. it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process. if the bible were to demonstrate knowledge of the hydrologic cycle, the flood waters would have been an excellent opportunity and their origin and subsequent recession arent feasibly explained.Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
That's always you guys' trump card, isn't it? It doesn't describe science in minute detail.Do you see modern scientific understanding in this verse? (in case you don't, here is the explicit term: hydrological cycle)it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process.
LOL --- this PRATT always gives me a chuckle.
That's always you guys' trump card, isn't it? It doesn't describe science in minute detail.
ETA: Oh, and I highlighted the term change that you guys are so good at doing.
The Hydrological Cycle --- in my opinion --- is the term used for all the Hydrological Processes combined.The hydrological cycle IS a processes.. or diden't you know that?
The Hydrological Cycle --- in my opinion --- is the term used for all the Hydrological Processes combined.
Hydrological Process + Hydrological Process = Hydrological Cycle
Again --- in my opinion.
Right, which makes me wonder what mechanism they thought was going on here. It would have been impressive (though not unbelievable) if they actually thought that the water from the sea evaporated and formed clouds. But they didn't demonstrate this. The author just showed a vague notion that he was aware that the sea didn't fill up, and thus the water must go back to the river somehow.actually a fairly good observation. rivers always flow into the sea but the sea doesnt fill. i would leave it at good observation though. it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process.
But this is precisely the point: the Bible has opportunities all over the place to dazzle us all with its amazing insights into the nature of reality. It fails again and again to do so, because it is a bronze-age text written by an ignorant desert tribe.if the bible were to demonstrate knowledge of the hydrologic cycle, the flood waters would have been an excellent opportunity and their origin and subsequent recession arent feasibly explained.
Juvenissun, do you have a Defender's Study Bible?
Except they were ignorant. At least one of the authors of the book of Kings did not know the nature of pi. Other authors of the Old Testament did not appear to be aware that the Earth was a sphere.
So, as I said before, it is possible that these people had some vague notion of the hydrological cycle just due to their own experience. But they also were wrong on a great many other things, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were mistaken here as well.
Which, since they didn't mention rain at all, is why I suspect they were talking about a literal flow from sea to sea.
If the author talked about rain, you might have a leg to stand on.
More impressive? How is not mentioning a process ever more impressive than mentioning one? It's much better, after all, to be partially right than to not even try.You are wrong again. Since the verse does not mention rain, it is even more impressive on what it says.
If you ever visit the land of Judea, you would understand that rain in an obvious, but is NOT the most impressive source of water for rivers. Judea is in a semi-arid climate, rain is rare in the summer. So, if one traced a river up to the hill top, one would see the running water gradually changes to merely a wetted ground at the up slope. Most of the river water is, in fact, supplied by the groundwater.
So during the dry season, here is what they can see:
River water flows into the sea.
River water "appeared" near the hill top.
That is it.
actually a fairly good observation. rivers always flow into the sea but the sea doesnt fill. i would leave it at good observation though. it doesnt really describe any hydrologic process. if the bible were to demonstrate knowledge of the hydrologic cycle, the flood waters would have been an excellent opportunity and their origin and subsequent recession arent feasibly explained.
I'll bet you'd love one --- the notes are from the late Dr. Henry M. Morris, and one of his apendices is a page and a half of science mentioned in the Bible.No. I don't. But since you mentioned it, I may pay an attention to it.
I'll bet you'd love one --- the notes are from the late Dr. Henry M. Morris, and one of his apendices is a page and a half of science mentioned in the Bible.
If I have some time later on, I'll post some.I am collecting this category of information. I already have a significant bunch. But I want to find more and more of it. Thanks for the info.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?