• 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.

Why should I beleive a book, over empiricall knowledge?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
I don't understand why I should believe what is written in a 2000 year old book (the bible) over the many writings of science, and empirical investigation.

I've noticed people even on this site, showing holes in the theory of evolution, but it seems to me that it has far less holes than the Bible does.

To me it makes far more sence that God created tiny little cells, in a world fit for them to evolve into what we are now, over millions of years. Than for God, 6000 years ago to suddenly create all animals in their present form (fixity of species).

So again, why should i believe one book over piles of scientific evidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: burningowl
K

Keturah

Guest
You don't have to believe in young earth creation to be a Christian. The view that God created everything in 6 days around 6000 years ago is just one of many views that Christians hold regarding how we got here.

Other views include old earth creation, gap theory, day-age theory and theistic evolution. From your post, theistic evolution maybe a view that would make sense to you.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I don't understand why I should believe what is written in a 2000 year old book (the bible) over the many writings of science, and empirical investigation.

Science, eh?

Is Pluto a planet?

I've noticed people even on this site, showing holes in the theory of evolution, but it seems to me that it has far less holes than the Bible does.

Name one.

So again, why should i believe one book over piles of scientific evidence?

For one thing, you haven't shown any evidence at all.

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."

8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).

9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.

11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called "behemoth." Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.

13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

14. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

15. "During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine)." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence." (11:3 continued)

((apologies to gretamelina))
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallingWaters
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
Name one.


There are countless wholes in a literal enterpratation of the Bible. Such as fixety of species, the fact that the earth is apparently 6000 years old, that Jesus managed to defy physics by performing miracles, the fact that Noah and his father got older at different rates (if you check the age that Noah's father was when Noah was born, then compare it to Noah's age when Noah's father died and his age, you will see that about 200 years suddenly goes missing)

Their is no evidence supporting the majority of things written in the Bible in a literal sence.

In a meaningful enterpratation of the Bible then it becomes very relevant, and Christianity itself becomes relevant. But i dont see why I should reject Scientific fact, becouse of a Book, that is taken far too literally by people.


As for evidence about evolution and such, read Richard Dawkins the Watchmaker, or Hawkings, or Hick, or countless other scientists that prove that the Bible is incorrect if taken literally.
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
You don't have to believe in young earth creation to be a Christian. The view that God created everything in 6 days around 6000 years ago is just one of many views that Christians hold regarding how we got here.

Other views include old earth creation, gap theory, day-age theory and theistic evolution. From your post, theistic evolution maybe a view that would make sense to you.

I was aiming that question more at people who take the bible as the literal truth.

Theistic evolution is a theory which i relate to well. It makes sence to me. Creation does not.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
the fact that the earth is apparently 6000 years old
Where does the Bible say that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

the fact that Noah and his father got older at different rates (if you check the age that Noah's father was when Noah was born, then compare it to Noah's age when Noah's father died and his age, you will see that about 200 years suddenly goes missing)

Source?

Their is no evidence supporting the majority of things written in the Bible in a literal sence.

Like what?

In a meaningful enterpratation of the Bible then it becomes very relevant, and Christianity itself becomes relevant.

Christianity is very much relevant.

But i dont see why I should reject Scientific fact

Nor do I.

For about eighty years, science proclaimed that Pluto is a planet. Now science says that it isn't a planet.

Was science wrong then, or are they wrong now?

becouse of a Book

Did you study science in school? Did you read about it from a book?

that is taken far too literally by people.

Why don't you show us a passage from scripture that we interpret literally, and tell us how we should interpret it.

As for evidence about evolution and such, read Richard Dawkins the Watchmaker, or Hawkings, or Hick, or countless other scientists that prove that the Bible is incorrect if taken literally.

Show me one argument that says that the Bible is incorrect if taken literally.
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
Where does the Bible say that the Earth is 6,000 years old?



Source?



Like what?



Christianity is very much relevant.



Nor do I.

For about eighty years, science proclaimed that Pluto is a planet. Now science says that it isn't a planet.

Was science wrong then, or are they wrong now?



Did you study science in school? Did you read about it from a book?



Why don't you show us a passage from scripture that we interpret literally, and tell us how we should interpret it.



Show me one argument that says that the Bible is incorrect if taken literally.

The Bible itself doesnt say it's 6000 years old, however thats the estimation brought up by calculating how old each bibilic figure is.

as for the source of the Noah thing, the Bible, is the source.

Like Fixety of Species

Science is only correct until it's disproved, becouse one aspect of scientific thinking was then updated and proved to be wrong, doesnt mean all science is incorrect. Religion and Science deal with different things, to mix them up leads to trouble.

The Science i've studied has not merely been from a book, i've done experiments, proving empirically that things are true. I've never seen anyone experiment on the Bible.

If you take the Bible literally you would believe, for example, that Dinosaurs and Humans were around at the same time. If thats true, how do you explain that Dinosaurs have been fossilised, yet humans have not?
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
The Bible itself doesnt say it's 6000 years old

Then your point is moot.

as for the source of the Noah thing, the Bible, is the source.

Where in the Bible?

Chapter and verse, please.

Science is only correct until it's disproved

If it isn't proven, then how do you know it's correct?

The Science i've studied has not merely been from a book

So then, you never read science books in school?

i've done experiments, proving empirically that things are true. I've never seen anyone experiment on the Bible.

I've never seen anybody experiment on the Chilton's Repair Manual. Doesn't mean that it isn't true.

If you take the Bible literally you would believe, for example, that Dinosaurs and Humans were around at the same time. If thats true, how do you explain that Dinosaurs have been fossilised, yet humans have not?

Actually, we do have human bone fossils.

"Fossil" doesn't necessarily mean old.
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
Then your point is moot.



Where in the Bible?

Chapter and verse, please.



If it isn't proven, then how do you know it's correct?



So then, you never read science books in school?



I've never seen anybody experiment on the Chilton's Repair Manual. Doesn't mean that it isn't true.



Actually, we do have human bone fossils.

"Fossil" doesn't necessarily mean old.

For the Noah Story: According to Gensis 5:28, Noah was born when his father Lamech was 182 years old.
In Genesis 5:31-32, Lamech died when he was 777 years old and Noah was 500 years old when Lamech died.

However if Lamech died when Noah was 500 years old like the bible says, Lamech would have to have been 682 years old when he died, not 777. I figured this out by adding 500 (noahs age at Lamech's death) to 182 (Lamech's age when noah was born). This simple addition gives you the number 682, not 777.

I don't know that Science is correct, but surely it makes more sence to believe something that you can empiracally verify, than something with no empirical evidence at all.

I've read parts of science books in school, but all that i've read, we've gone on to experiment, to prove empirically.

If you use the manual to repear something, then thats proof enough, empirically, that it works.

Carbon Dating shows that Dino's and Humans didnt exist at the same time.
 
Upvote 0

BelindaP

Senior Contributor
Sep 21, 2006
9,222
711
Indianapolis
✟28,388.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I take the Bible, including the Genesis account, literally. However, I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, either. You should study up on the gap theory. There is nothing in Genesis that contradicts it.

Also, the days in creation may very well have been God's days. Since he created time in our universe, he is not subject to it. Days to Him are completely different from days to us. Who knows how long one of God's days is? That's how it is possible to be a theistic evolutionist and still take Genesis literally.

This isn't a debate forum, however, so I won't go into the arguments that prove it. I just wanted to point out that both the Bible and science can be correct.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I've read parts of science books in school

Did you believe them?

If you use the manual to repear something, then thats proof enough, empirically, that it works.

Likewise, if you follow the Bible's teaching and are born again and reconciled to God, then that should be proof enough that it "works".

Carbon Dating shows that Dino's and Humans didnt exist at the same time.

Really? Tell me this: why is carbon dating not allowed in most courtrooms?
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
Did you believe them?



Likewise, if you follow the Bible's teaching and are born again and reconciled to God, then that should be proof enough that it "works".



Really? Tell me this: why is carbon dating not allowed in most courtrooms?

Yes, I believe the thigns i've read in Science books, becouse i've gone on and experimented on it. I know water boiles at 100 degree's celcuis as i have watched it boil, at the same time as having a thermostat show that it is 100 degree's celcius.

The Bible, if taken properly is very meaningful, but it is impossable to be literally true.

Carbon dating has wild results, but not results so wild that Dinosours and Humans could ever have existed together. And courtrooms would accept carbon dating if the results were as conclusive as they are in this instance. It's only when the results are a few hundred years different that they are disputed.

In the end, it makes far more sence to believe in Evolution than creation. There is countless evidence supporting Evolution, evidence i've actually witnessed. The only evidence supporting creation is a book, written thousands of years ago.

Im not saying the Bible is wrong, thats a personal belief. What im saying is it is not literally true. And im not even going to say, "in my opinion" on that, becouse it's not my opinion, it's fact.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, I believe the thigns i've read in Science books, becouse i've gone on and experimented on it. I know water boiles at 100 degree's celcuis as i have watched it boil, at the same time as having a thermostat show that it is 100 degree's celcius.

The Bible, if taken properly is very meaningful, but it is impossable to be literally true.

Why? Why is it, that when you examine the things in your science books, you find them to be true, but you don't believe that we've examined the Bible and found it to be true?

What is your background in Bible study?

Carbon dating has wild results, but not results so wild that Dinosours and Humans could ever have existed together. And courtrooms would accept carbon dating if the results were as conclusive as they are in this instance. It's only when the results are a few hundred years different that they are disputed.

So then carbon dating is not allowed as evidence in most courts because it's inaccurate.

In the end, it makes far more sence to believe in Evolution than creation. There is countless evidence supporting Evolution, evidence i've actually witnessed.

You've witnessed a process that you takes, according to it's defenders, millions of years? How old are you?

The only evidence supporting creation is a book, written thousands of years ago.

And this only goes to show that you have not fairly considered creation.

Im not saying the Bible is wrong

I see. So then, if the Bible isn't wrong, then you must be wrong.

And im not even going to say, "in my opinion" on that, becouse it's not my opinion, it's fact.

Actually, it is your opinion.
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
It is utterly rediculous to believe in a Literal interpretation of the Bible. Your not even thinking for yourself, just sit and think about it. The Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by PEOPLE. Why would these people just 'know' what has to be written down as literally true.

Does it not make far more sence to believe that the Bible is a collection of stories to be taken as a metaphor, for love? The Bible was NEVER intended to be taken literally, even when the first people read it they didnt take it literally, they took it as a meaningful metaphor. As, at the time of both testements, most books were to be taken.

It is rediculous to believe in creation over evolution, and countless other theories that contradict a literal interpratation of the bible. Quite honestly if you take the bible literally, you are missing the whole point, and i pity you, becouse you are missing out on a real relationship with a meaningful God.
 
Upvote 0

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2002
9,600
654
✟13,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
It is utterly rediculous to believe in a Literal interpretation of the Bible.

Why?

Your not even thinking for yourself, just sit and think about it.

Actually, I am thinking for myself.

I examined the Bible and found it to be true.

The Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by PEOPLE.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Does it not make far more sence to believe that the Bible is a collection of stories to be taken as a metaphor, for love?

OK. I'll bite. When God tells us that we're sinners and that we're seperated from Him, deserving of Hell, which part of that is a "metaphor for love"?

I asked you once before and I notice that you did not tell us, but what is your background in Bible study?

The Bible was NEVER intended to be taken literally, even when the first people read it they didnt take it literally, they took it as a meaningful metaphor.

Then Jesus would not have quoted the scriptures as though they are to be taken literally.

Then Paul and the other NT writers would not quote the scriptures as though they're to be taken literally.

It is rediculous to believe in creation over evolution

And yet you choose not to tell us why.

I can look at an ordered universe and see that it necessitates a designer.

You can't show me one example for evolution.

Quite honestly if you take the bible literally, you are missing the whole point, and i pity you, becouse you are missing out on a real relationship with a meaningful God.

What is the point?

OK. Do you believe that there was a historical figure named Jesus Christ?

Do you believe that God is Holy? Righteous? Just?

I know that you tend to ignore my questions to you, but I'm asking you to answer these so that we can have a meaningful conversation.
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
What empiricall knowledge?

If it contradicts the word of God as written in The Bible it's wrong.

I dont get how you can genuinly believe that.

I really really feel sorry for you all, how can you have a meaningful relationship with God, if you take the Bible literally. Remember Jesus was [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off with the Jews at the time he was about becouse they were too strung up on enterprating the Bible literally, than the true meaning behind it. By the sounds of the people on this site, Jesus needs to come back again.
 
Upvote 0

BelindaP

Senior Contributor
Sep 21, 2006
9,222
711
Indianapolis
✟28,388.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus wasn't happy with the Pharisees because they were adding to the law, not taking it literally.

For example, God specified that they were not to cook a calf in its mother's milk. They added to the law by saying that any meat could never be eaten with any dairy product.

Jesus would have been thrilled if all they were doing was taking the scriptures literally.
 
Upvote 0

jmothecat

Active Member
Nov 2, 2006
33
2
35
✟212.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
UK-Labour
Jesus wasn't happy with the Pharisees because they were adding to the law, not taking it literally.

For example, God specified that they were not to cook a calf in its mother's milk. They added to the law by saying that any meat could never be eaten with any dairy product.

Jesus would have been thrilled if all they were doing was taking the scriptures literally.

He wasn't.

Jesus was [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off becouse people were taking the Bible too literally, and forgetting about the underlying message of love. Love of all people, no matter what.

The Bible was never intended to be taken literally. And many of the acounts written in the New Testement (as im sure you are aware of) were exadurated to convince Jews to follow the word of Christ.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.