Science And The Bible

[theVOID]

And how do you know that it was misrepresented as opposed to incorrect?

[David Henson]

And how do you know that it was misrepresented as opposed to incorrect?

Intense study and exhaustive research, of course. Lets take hell, for example. What does the old English word mean? What does the Hebrew and Greek words commonly translated as hell mean? How do those two compare? How does the Bible use the idea or concept compared to the doctrine? What evidence is there of an adoption of pagan teachings?

The same questions can be applied from the YEC teachings as well. How is the English word day used? What are the Hebrew, Greek and Latin (From the Masoretic, Septuagint and Vulgate) words and how are they used? What influence did thinking in the dark ages have on modern perceptions compared to more primitive ones?

[tackattack]

And no one in today's society has said, "What a beautiful sunrise" or "the sun rising in th esky" is never used poetically?? I'm pretty sure the same people that use that phrase DON'T believe the earth revloves around the sun.

[David Henson]

And no one in today's society has said, "What a beautiful sunrise" or "the sun rising in th esky" is never used poetically?? I'm pretty sure the same people that use that phrase DON'T believe the earth revloves around the sun.

Exactly. Or when the creation account says seven days while using the word "day" (Hebrew yohm) as being 1) the daylight hours metaphorically, 2) the day as being a literal 24 hour period metaphorically, 3) the entire creation period of 6 days as 1 day the word "day" is up for consideration. Especially when the seventh day is still going on thousands of years later, to this day. If, likewise, I use the term "my grandfather's day" in a way that doesn't beg the conclusion that my grandfather lived exactly a single 24 hour period and compare that to the thousand year "Judgment day" of the Bible a literal 144 hour creation is pretty irresponsible. After years of study I am confident it is also uninformed.

[lukec]

Good point. Perhaps "day" is a figure of speech in this case. Now your thoughts on why there is no scientific evidence for a global deluge?

[Purple Rabbit]

Galileo didn't interpret scripture to come up with the heliocentric view, he simply followed the evidence. He then argued against a literal reading of scripture, since the scripture was literally wrong.

What I said was that Galileo supported his heliocentric concept with a more accurate interpretation of scripture. He wrote to a pupil: “Even though Scripture cannot err, its interpreters and expositors can, in various ways. One of these, very serious and very frequent, would be when they always want to stop at the purely literal sense." The scripture was not literally wrong it was taken literally wrong.

The point is that the information which lead to the heliocentric view was empirical and not derived from scripture. There is no science in scripture. There is no empirical basis in scripture that matches the information Galileo used. Scripture does not mention the moons of Jupiter. Scripture is a really bad source for knowledge on the universe in general. This is mainly because it is fabulation of iron age tribes. There is no basis for the authority of scripture on the state of the universe whatsoever. You cannot fly to the moon on basis of the bible, you cannot predict or explain the motion of the planets from it, you cannot cure diseases with it. It basically has the same authority on knowledge of the universe as a bunch of fairy tales. To assert that the bible holds any information on the constitution of the cosmos is completely ridiculous and the confrontation of the church with Galileo made this very painfully clear.

Galileo was forced by the church to try to reconcile scripture with his evidence based findings. The ambiguous character of the bible at some points left some room for this. This is not a strength of the information in the bible but a weakness rather that he tried to use in his advantage. There was no other option for Galileo in his time than to embark on the reconciliation path. This was a matter of life and death.

Also observe that the ambiguous character of scripture did not bring him in conflict with scripture itself but with self-acclaimed authorities on bible interpretation. These authorities demanded an explanation from early scientists to reconcile their findings with scripture, not the other way around. It was the church who prior to Galileo had cuddled up with the best knowledge on the universe around (Aristotle's view) that with Galileo's findings was confronted with a problem and sought to stick to the old interpretation. It was dogmatic religion who sought confrontation with the emerging scientific method. For your information: religion lost the battle right there with Galileo's case.

[Darwinian]

Are you saying that the Bible is completely accurate about all its statements?

You mean, inerrant? No. In agreement with most of science, though not a science book? Yes. Vastly misunderstood by believers and unbelievers? Yes.

When the Bible uses terms like four corners of the earth it is misunderstood by most critics to have said the earth is flat. When it says the sun is rising theologians have misinterpreted it to mean the sun revolves around the earth. Things like that.

But surely that's just your own personal interpretation of what it says. You are reading it from the perspective of someone who knows that the Earth is not flat and the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth.

And how is it then that a book, which is supposed to be the revealed word of the creator of all reality is so easy to misinterpret? What does that say about the success that God has had in getting, what must be considered a very important message, across to his creation.

It does, for example, quite clearly say that God created everything in 6 days. Either it means that or it doesn't. If it doesn't, why say it?

Surely it's much easier, more satisfying and sensible to concede that it was written by people who, desperately wanting answers to these important questions, simply didn't have the 'tools' at their disposal to discover the truth, and so just made it all up believing they where somehow being inspired by a supernatural force.

So, a challenge for you would be to clearly demonstrate that when it states 'four corners of the Earth' it actually doesn't assume a flat Earth.

I'll open with the following snippets that suggest that the Biblical authors thought the Earth was flat, or at least, certainly had no knowledge that it is a free floating sphere.

Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1 Enoch 33:1-2)

I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2)

Revelations 7:1: And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

[chatpilot]

Science is completely incompatible with the bible and anyone who says otherwise is in my opinion completely deluded. There is no science in the bible and what the bible tries to pass as science is pathetic.

[Minimalist]

Willfully deluded, C/P?


Ever wonder why these same xtian shits who whine about creation in six days and insist that such absurd bullshit be taught in our schools never require that medical students be taught to drive out "demons?" After all, their fucking god made it a big point of driving out demons everywhere he went.

Yet, none of them insist on "Demon Driving Out 101" in med school? Now why do you suppose that is?

[Purple Rabbit]

I am starting a new religion that denies the existence of the electron. It's just little green men, helpers of the Purple Rabbit god shoving energy around to the socket in your wall and beyond that into the PC or laptop you're working on right now. Give those poor kids in school a chance to hear out this alternative for regular science and decide for themselves who to believe.

BTW my neighbour is starting a new religion also, it denies gravity. It is all a delusion of the inaccurate human mind as far as he's concerned. The great part is that I can have my belief and my neighbour can have another one and we would be equally right. Absolute truth, isn't it a beautiful thing!