Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Alternative Views - Click Here to Start New Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-31-2016, 10:24 AM   #501
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.[/COLOR]The point being God worked for 6 days, like us, and then takes a rest. Since the act of creation could not possibly take 6 days (where did days come from if not from creation?)
So, because you don't know where the days came from, it isn't possible? Haven't you read that for God everything is possible? That's what's meant when it is said that God is omnipotent. Don't you believe in God's omnipotence?


Quote:
and the Bible is very clear that there is "one creation", not six, not a million, just one.
Right and it clearly states in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 that God created everything in six days. Since there is only one creation, did God create man in Genesis 1:1 or on the sixth day? If you say on the sixth day, then don't you have two creations according to your gap theory?

Quote:
This also supports my assertion that "God made man from the dust of the ground" refers to the process of evolution. Yes, God spoke not being as being, yes there was an instant in which the creation took place, after which we have time (remember "time will be no more", hence it is part of the creation). But that was not the end, after that God "made", "He worked for six days" like us. This process could have taken billions of years, what is that to God?
None of that is in the Bible. You're just making stuff up.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 10:41 AM   #502
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Right and it clearly states in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 that God created everything in six days. Since there is only one creation, did God create man in Genesis 1:1 or on the sixth day? If you say on the sixth day, then don't you have two creations according to your gap theory?
God created the heavens and Earth in the beginning.

He then made many, many, many things including man. Where did the stuff that evolved into man come from? Science has no explanation, only the Bible does, God created it.

What the Bible clearly says is:

1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth).
7 And Elohim made the raki’a, and divided the waters under the raki’a from the waters which were above the raki’a; and it was so.
16 And Elohim made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the kokhavim (stars) also.
21 And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov.
25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and G-d saw that it was tov.
26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).
27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

Now how do you explain the "created the universe...make man...so He created man". It was a two step process, but when looked at in total God created man. First he created the stuff from whence He would make man, then he made man, like at artist creates, finally when summing up -- So God created man.

When we look at the two Hebrew words, the word Bara translated create is only used with God, no mention of Man ever "bara" something. However the word Asah is used with both God and man making stuff.

Now it is true that both words Bara and Asah are used with God for certain items. So He created the stars and He made them.

God is a mystery, until we understand what it is to create something out of nothing that is the way it is going to stay. But I see no contradiction in saying that God both created and made man, or that He created and made the stars.

For example, if an artist paints a painting we can refer to that as being creative. But what if the artist first creates the paint out of nothing? He then paints the painting. Did he paint it or create it? He did both.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 10:52 AM   #503
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
None of that is in the Bible. You're just making stuff up.
I read somewhere that: Reason is the natural order of truth;
but imagination is the organ of meaning.

Maybe that will help.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 12:39 PM   #504
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
It's a Local Church point of view, not a "Bible" one.
How do you get that Exodus 20:11 is saying anything other than that God made the heavens and the earth ex nihilo in six days?

Right, that's how the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't say he restored the heaven and earth in six days. It says he made them in six days.
Both here and in Genesis, the scripture delineates between "made" and "create," for a reason. The fact it does may not match your biased world view, but it's there.

For a guy who attempts to discredit the Biblical record with every post, I'm surprised you would even quote scripture.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 05:16 PM   #505
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
37 And Jacob took him rods of fresh [o]poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had peeled over against the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink; and they conceived when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks brought forth ringstreaked, speckled, and spotted.
If you don't laugh you have no sense of humor, or you are taking the Bible way too serious.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 06:05 PM   #506
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Zpanaah: All those explain aways are great examples of moving the goal posts.

Lets see.

You've backed up on flood geology, saying "I don't know" after claiming its been proven. No, it has not been proven-because a global flood did not happen. If you want it to be a regional flood-then you need to modify the original text.

Insects have six legs. It doesn't matter if the back two are used for hopping. It might make sense if the creatures only walked about with the front four and reserved the back two for only hopping-but alas they use all six to "walk about" I can't think of any four legged insects(because they don't exist)-was this a roundabout way of saying that all insects are ok to consume? Goeth upon four is pretty much just that.

On the rabbits your caveat is exactly my point. I suppose if they labeled it "these animals are unclean because they do gross stuff" that would work..but they label it as chewing the cud. If you think bringing something up from the stomach to chew on again versus grabbing it out of a butthole to eat is the same-I don't know what to tell ya-why didn't the Bible just say that for accuracy? The Bible is not a scientific textbook. To use it as such is ridiculous.

As for seeds, that passage you picked makes no mention of seeds sown except the mustard seed. It does make mention that it is the smallest of seeds that are "upon the earth"...of which there are a wide variety. The mustard seed was, indeed, probably the smallest seed Palestinian farmers planted....but not, as Jesus said, the smallest seed in the world(or even of plants in Palestine). And the whole thing is a parable-so it need not to be accurate to the world. Hey! Maybe that goes for everything else in the Bible. If Jesus was speaking allegorically here, then why should we be so bothered that other portions of the Bible are factually inaccurate?



I'm not even going to bother with the supernova one...wow

With Jacob's story, he is picking the best animals, sure. But their is no mention in those verses of a pen. Why not just say he put them in a pen? When I read that it implies that the carefully prepared branches do something to the animals color...why else would the first verse in that passage be so concerned that he peeled them down to make the white on the rods appear and that the animals need to be around the special rods as they are conceiving? The Bible is also a pretty poor instruction booklet, too. Maybe I should write a book "How to breed livestock the Laban way".

Anyway, Jacob did not discover Mendelian genetics. It looks like you need to read what Gregor Mendel actually discovered so you actually understand-it was a bit more complicated than like makes like. Jacob had an idea that like produces like, but pretty much all people who have domesticated animals(or who noticed they resembled their parents and siblings) figured this one out. So your claim is incorrect.

Why don't we move the goalpost on the whole Bible? Say it is not a scientifically accurate text for understanding how the world works, but a collection of writings by people long ago that could be cherished for other reasons...

I see nothing wrong with that if people are willing to admit to it.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 09:35 PM   #507
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Once again you have proven yourself to be a deceitful worker who does not handle the word right. You misquote and intentionally attempt to deceive. You need to repent.
Now, now bro ZNP. Knock it off. Apology is in order. You're better than this.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 09:56 PM   #508
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Now, now bro ZNP. Knock it off. Apology is in order. You're better than this.
It does seem too strong and if this was a new one asking a question it would be completely out of line. But this is a person who strongly asserts that these verses have been disproven by science. He then completely misquotes the verse saying the Bible called stars "little things" which it never did and that they "fall to earth" again something they don't do.

So what am I supposed to do? Treat him like a child that cannot read the Bible and say "now, now, it didn't say that" or treat him like an adult who knows exactly what he is doing? If you want me to treat him like a child I will go ahead and apologize for treating him like an adult who knows what he was doing.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2016, 10:55 PM   #509
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Perhaps they were speaking poetically in revealation 6:13, where stars are compares to figs falling from a tree in the wind.

Ok, I don't get how a supernova is a star falling in heaven....as you stated. Exploding maybe.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 08:16 AM   #510
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
It does seem too strong and if this was a new one asking a question it would be completely out of line. But this is a person who strongly asserts that these verses have been disproven by science. He then completely misquotes the verse saying the Bible called stars "little things" which it never did and that they "fall to earth" again something they don't do.

So what am I supposed to do? Treat him like a child that cannot read the Bible and say "now, now, it didn't say that" or treat him like an adult who knows exactly what he is doing? If you want me to treat him like a child I will go ahead and apologize for treating him like an adult who knows what he was doing.
I know it's hard, but don't deal with "him" at all. You/we don't know him personally. Deal with the facts. For example, the falling stars. Does the Bible anywhere say the stars fall to earth? If not he's wrong, or mistaken. If it does somewhere then it needs to be explained. Do that.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:01 AM   #511
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zpanaah: All those explain aways are great examples of moving the goal posts.

Lets see.

You've backed up on flood geology, saying "I don't know" after claiming its been proven. No, it has not been proven-because a global flood did not happen. If you want it to be a regional flood-then you need to modify the original text.
Since when is speaking the truth "moving the goalpost"? That is despicable.

I will create a new thread focused solely on the science supporting the account of Noah. The bottom line is that "I don't know" and neither do you. What I do know is that Scientific inquiry decided to disprove the account of Noah's flood by looking at the historical accounts of other civilizations. It seemed straightforward until they discovered that every ancient society had an account of the flood. I say "the" flood, not unrelated floods. The oldest chinese word for boat literally means 8 souls, i.e. Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their three wives. The chances that this would be coincidence is off the charts. In science once the odds are greater than 1/20 we don't, as a matter of convention, chalk it up to chance. The odds that the chinese account is chance is much, much greater than 1/20. But then instead of finding that the Noah account was unique but rather the rule has served to confirm, not deny this account. So genuine scientists, without bias, agree that we don't really know what they are talking about. However, there have been a number of interesting finds, I will bring that out in the new thread.

I agree that the account in Noah cannot be explained with a regional flood.

6:17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

However, I think it will hijack this thread so I don't want to discuss it here. I said that Science has not disproved the account of Noah's flood, that is true. I also said I don't know what happened, that also is true.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:28 AM   #512
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
When we look at the two Hebrew words, the word Bara translated create is only used with God, no mention of Man ever "bara" something. However the word Asah is used with both God and man making stuff.
That's an incomplete exegesis of these words, that will prove you wrong if looked into.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:34 AM   #513
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
That's an incomplete exegesis of these words, that will prove you wrong if looked into.
There is a difference of opinion, some feel that there is no difference between the words because they are both used for the creation of man. One verse says "God made man" another says "God created man".

I am of the persuasion that every word in the Bible is meaningful.

But to discuss this further here would be to hijack this thread.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:44 AM   #514
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zpanaah:
You did not answer my questions.

You said that:
Mankind began in the Middle East, No.

To which I replied that in the Bible man includes the ability for written language. This is the basis for our civilization, our history, our religion, our culture, what makes us man and not just an animal.

And I asked you:

So go ahead, enlighten us, what written language predates the Sumerian language?


You also said:
Mustard seed is not the smallest.

To which I replied by supplying the verse:

Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon the earth,

And then asked you:

Great, what seed was sown by farmers at the time Jesus was speaking which is smaller?

If you want any more responses from me I want an answer to my two questions.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:10 PM   #515
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I know it's hard, but don't deal with "him" at all. You/we don't know him personally. Deal with the facts. For example, the falling stars. Does the Bible anywhere say the stars fall to earth? If not he's wrong, or mistaken. If it does somewhere then it needs to be explained. Do that.
12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; 13 and the stars of the heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree casteth her unripe figs when she is shaken of a great wind. 14 And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the [k]chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand?

This is also demands its own thread. I will have to get into the 7th seal which is precipitated by this event. I will then have to discuss the bowls of wrath which are also inevitable once this seal is open.

Basically, the star Betelguese is a red star, that means it is in the last "hour" of life before it explodes into a supernova. When a supernova explodes that is close enough to earth (Betelgeuse may or may not be there is some dispute on this) several things happen.

1st, it will burn up the ozone layer of the earth -- here it says "the heaven was removed as a scroll".

2nd without ozone to protect us from UV radiation we would have to hide ourselves from the sun in caves, under rocks, under mountains. Otherwise we would get skin cancer and go blind. That would be immediate.

3rd -- Governments would have to respond immediately to the impending economic collapse. In a catastrophic economic collapse that would ensue the only way the world will figure out to maintain order is to put the mark of the beast on everyone. That is the 7th seal.

4th People will get skin cancer (an ulcer upon the men with the mark of the beast), the fish of the sea will die. (The sea will become blood.) Likewise with fish in rivers and lakes, they also will die (become blood). And of course crops will be destroyed. And the sun scorches men with fire and great heat. The added energy from UV radiation that was not filtered out by the Ozone layer, plus the loss of all green things that were cycling the carbon out of the atmosphere + the fires that will burn up all this dead tinder will result in runaway climate change.

5th -- in this scenario it is not hard to imagine runaway blackouts. With rivers drying up many nuclear power plants will have to shut down, perhaps catastrophically, hydro electric will collapse, coal needs water as well. These power plants would be very difficult to maintain if people cannot come out during the day and if there is a general economic collapse.

However, over a period of 3 years the ozone layer will regenerate itself. So, if you can survive for 3-5 years you can make it through this "tribulation".

To do that you need oil. Lots of oil.

These events are described in the bowls of God's wrath.

As for "falling to earth". What happens in a supernova is that C60 is formed (commonly known as buckyballs). This is how we can find evidence of previous supernovas. These tiny little balls "fall to earth" and can be detected in the sediment. They come from exploding stars.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:39 PM   #516
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I am of the persuasion that every word in the Bible is meaningful.
Mark Twain once quipped something like : "The difference between the right word and the wrong word is like the difference between lightning, and the lightning bug."

All words are meaningful, since the advent of words. Aren't you saying, or meaning, that every word in the Bible has special meanings? Your words are meaningful, if only to you, so tell it like you mean it. Is it meaningful or specially meaningful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNP
But to discuss this further here would be to hijack this thread.
Thanks for that. You saved me from all the time & trouble to exegete 'bara' and 'Asah.' I'll put what I've got so far away. And thanks again, for your concern for this thread. What's the name of it again?

Oh, it's something like : In this corner, we have the Bible. And in this corner we have Science. Now come out swinging, but no hitting below the belt.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 08:50 PM   #517
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
You did not answer my questions.

You said that:
Mankind began in the Middle East, No.

To which I replied that in the Bible man includes the ability for written language. This is the basis for our civilization, our history, our religion, our culture, what makes us man and not just an animal.

And I asked you:

So go ahead, enlighten us, what written language predates the Sumerian language?

You also said:
Mustard seed is not the smallest.

To which I replied by supplying the verse:

Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon the earth,

And then asked you:

Great, what seed was sown by farmers at the time Jesus was speaking which is smaller?

If you want any more responses from me I want an answer to my two questions.
Zpanaah: I don't think Sumerian being the oldest written language(ignoring written proto languages or the inconvenient fact that other written languages arose independently around the world shortly after) is relevant. Are you saying that people without written language are not human?

As for your second question. I answered it already. But dude, reread that verse again. Did Jesus forget a word? Your argument would make total sense if it read.

"It is, like a grain of mustard seed, which, upon when sown, though it be less than all other seeds that are sown upon the earth"

Maybe we need to fix it.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 08:54 PM   #518
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
God created the heavens and Earth in the beginning.

He then made many, many, many things including man. Where did the stuff that evolved into man come from? Science has no explanation, only the Bible does, God created it.

What the Bible clearly says is:

1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth).
7 And Elohim made the raki’a, and divided the waters under the raki’a from the waters which were above the raki’a; and it was so.
16 And Elohim made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the kokhavim (stars) also.
21 And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov.
25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and G-d saw that it was tov.
26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).
27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

Now how do you explain the "created the universe...make man...so He created man". It was a two step process, but when looked at in total God created man. First he created the stuff from whence He would make man, then he made man, like at artist creates, finally when summing up -- So God created man.

When we look at the two Hebrew words, the word Bara translated create is only used with God, no mention of Man ever "bara" something. However the word Asah is used with both God and man making stuff.

Now it is true that both words Bara and Asah are used with God for certain items. So He created the stars and He made them.

God is a mystery, until we understand what it is to create something out of nothing that is the way it is going to stay. But I see no contradiction in saying that God both created and made man, or that He created and made the stars.

For example, if an artist paints a painting we can refer to that as being creative. But what if the artist first creates the paint out of nothing? He then paints the painting. Did he paint it or create it? He did both.
You left out an inconvenient verse: Genesis 1:21
Quote:
"And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov."
The word translated as "created" there is bara, the word that you and Ohio and the gap creationists have asserted is used uniquely to signify creation ex nihilo -out of nothing. Yet here it is on the fifth day of Genesis one, when, according to the gap theory God wasn't creating anything but rather restoring things after the putative "gap" which is not mentioned in the text at all.

"Bara" is used yet again in verse 27 with reference to the creation of mankind. Does it mean that like in Genesis 1:1 God is creating man out of nothing? Well, it might except that would contradict Genesis 2 where it says that man was formed out of the dust of the ground.

You asserted that there was only one creation. But, now, according to your reasoning, there appears to be at least three creations: 1) in Genesis 1:1 when God creates the heaven and the earth 2) in Genesis 1:21 when God creates the great sea creatures and 3) in Genesis 1:17 when God creates mankind. Such a conclusion supports neither the gap theory nor the literal six day reading of the text. Explanation?

In any case, the proposition that bara refers only to creation "out of nothing" is defeated by examination of how the word is used in the text.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 09:03 PM   #519
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zpanaah: I don't think Sumerian being the oldest written language(ignoring proto languages or the inconvenient fact that other written languages arose independently around the world shortly after) is relevant.

As for your second question. I answered it already. But dude, reread that verse again. Did Jesus forget a word? Your argument would make total sense if it read.

"It is, like a grain of mustard seed, which, upon when sown, though it be less than all other seeds that are sown upon the earth"

Maybe we need to fix it.
You may have answered it in your mind, but I still don't know your answer. Is Sumerian the oldest written language? If your answer is yes, your reply is very strange and hard to decipher, then do you think we could have human civilization without written language?

I agree with all scientists that human beings evolved from apes. But there is a very big difference between apes and people. Mankind is eusocial, apes are not. There are only 19 species worldwide that are eusocial and each one is a dominant species. These 19 species dominate the world. Of these 19, only man chooses to be eusocial, all the others it is written into their DNA. Apes are not eusocial and there is only one other mammal that is, the naked mole rat.

I would argue that a tribe of homo sapiens that are not eusocial are not the "Man" that God formed and created in the Bible. They might look like us, be able to breed with us, but they are much closer to a tribe of apes than man. I would also argue that the first man that choose to be eusocial was Adam. This choice was made possible as a result of the discovery of the written language. This is what makes Adam the first man and one of our truly great forefathers.

For example a psychopath is normal behavior for an ape, for a reptile, for a bird, for any species other than these 19 eusocial species.

As for the second question "when it is sown upon the earth is less than the least of all seeds"

The context of it being "less than the least" is "when it was sown".

Let me explain why I truly have no respect for your arguments. To my mind there is one verse in the Bible that I truly do believe is contradicted by modern science and I have wrestled with it for 30 years. I have my take on it, but if someone wanted to argue "science vs Bible" this verse is the "excalibur". Now you referred to this verse and yet completely missed it.

Instead you give me this drivel about insects with 6 legs because that garbage is easily gleaned from google and yet you miss the biggest, baddest argument out there.

If this were Karate you would be a white belt.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 09:09 PM   #520
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Both here and in Genesis, the scripture delineates between "made" and "create," for a reason. The fact it does may not match your biased world view, but it's there.
Please refer to my reply to ZNP in post 518. Yes there are different words for create and made. But, their usage does not support creation ex nihilo or the gap creation theory. My world view is open to the evidence. If the facts supported the gap theory, I would have no problem with it.

Quote:
For a guy who attempts to discredit the Biblical record with every post, I'm surprised you would even quote scripture.
I haven't discredited the Bible. But, the notion that the Bible is a "record" of historical events is a presupposition that you bring to it not something that the Bible claims for itself. How do you justify that?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 09:14 PM   #521
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
You left out an inconvenient verse: Genesis 1:21

The word there is bara, the word that you and Ohio and the gap creationists have asserted is used uniquely to signify creation ex nihilo -out of nothing. Yet here it is on the fifth day of Genesis one, when, according to the gap theory God wasn't creating anything but rather restoring things after the putative "gap" which is not mentioned in the text at all.

"Bara" is used yet again in verse 27 with reference to the creation of mankind. Does it mean that like in Genesis 1:1 God is creating man out of nothing? Well, it might except that would contradict Genesis 2 where it says that man was formed out of the dust of the ground.

You asserted that there was only one creation. But, now, according to your reasoning, there appears to be at least three creations: 1) in Genesis 1:1 when God creates the heaven and the earth 2) in Genesis 1:21 when God creates the great sea creatures and 3) in Genesis 1:17 when God creates mankind. Such a conclusion supports neither the gap theory nor the literal six day reading of the text. Explanation?

In any case, the proposition that bara refers only to creation "out of nothing" is defeated by examination of how the word is used in the text.
This thread is not about create vs form. It is about science vs Bible.

But since this is the second time it came up (Awareness also complained) and since I doubt anyone will really take issue with a detour lets address this.

I didn't completely skip it. I said "there are different interpretations". Anyone doing a search on the other interpretation would have immediately found this verse.

I look at the great sea creatures being created in the same way I look at man being created.

Step 1 -- God created the heavens and the Earth (the stuff of which everything is made, the step that science has no theory for).

Step 2 -- He then formed all life from this stuff he created. (evolution)

Step 3 -- the finished product has thus been both formed and created by God.

This is why the account of Man is so detailed. Sea creatures were given the cliff notes version because they are really peripheral to the Bible.

This may sound outrageous, but the key principle operating here is that no verse is of its own interpretation. The NT is very, very clear that there is "one" creation. Besides, if you agree that the sea creatures "evolved" then you agree with me. I am equating "God forming" with "evolution".

It is perfectly reasonable to say that the God who created the heavens and the earth also created the great sea creatures. That doesn't mean there were two or three creative acts.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 10:02 PM   #522
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Zpanaah: You are busy moving the goal posts again. I will play along, though-because your last post makes very little sense...(its also riddled with factual inaccuracies-but I am actually going to avoid correcting those for the sake of clarity to figure out your underlying argument).
--------------

Are bushmen, the Yanamamo, and numerous tribes without written language or civilization/eusociality (I'm going to assume you are merely switching eusociality for the definition of civilization-otherwise none of your post works) closer to a tribe of apes than man to you?

Why should one's humanity be dependent on creating the things that make up civilization? Some of it(stratified society) seems pretty unfortunate.

Your revisionist Bible history is oddly fascinating. How about this...

It looks like you've done away with literal days in the Bible. And you are now saying when God said create he meant evolved.

Does this mean that life evolved in the chronological order described in Genesis? Or is that order incorrect, as well? How do you explain that?
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 04:56 AM   #523
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zpanaah: You are busy moving the goal posts again. I will play along, though-because your last post makes very little sense...(its also riddled with factual inaccuracies-but I am actually going to avoid correcting those for the sake of clarity to figure out your underlying argument).
--------------

Are bushmen, the Yanamamo, and numerous tribes without written language or civilization/eusociality (I'm going to assume you are merely switching eusociality for the definition of civilization-otherwise none of your post works) closer to a tribe of apes than man to you?
It doesn't make any difference what I say. This thread is about the Bible vs Science.

I think it is abundantly clear in the record that there were other homo sapiens alive at the time of Adam, clear to the reader and obviously to the writer of Genesis. So when it says that God created Man and God formed Man that can not be the sole definition of what the Bible is referring to as Adam being the first man. Even a first grader can realize that.

Therefore in the sense of the Bible what is a man? What does the Bible mean when it says Adam was the first man? Knowing full well that Cain knew he would be killed when the others learned he had killed Abel? Not to mention Cain's wife, etc.

God breathed into man the breath of life and then man became a living soul. Not a living flesh, not a living organism. If we agree that the soul is the mind, the emotion and the will then we can easily see that the written word truly does activate our soul.

Simple bushman language pre Sumerian is not that different from communication between apes, or wolves, or other animals. It is not the same thing. Without the human language we would never have become this society today with super computers, telecommunications, smart devices, Watson, etc. Trace that back, when did it begin? It began with Adam and the start of the Sumerian language.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 05:00 AM   #524
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
It looks like you've done away with literal days in the Bible. And you are now saying when God said create he meant evolved.

Does this mean that life evolved in the chronological order described in Genesis? Or is that order incorrect, as well? How do you explain that?
I have said this repeatedly, this is at least the 3rd time I have said it. The days do not refer to the creation, they refer to the restoration after some kind of cataclysmic event like a super volcano or meteorite strike that put dust into the air. This is my interpretation.

The days do not in any way match the order in which life evolved on this planet. However, it does match very nicely how life would return after some kind of extinction event or glacial retreat.

In this sense the days refer to key steps in this restoration.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 05:10 AM   #525
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
You left out an inconvenient verse: Genesis 1:21

The word translated as "created" there is bara, the word that you and Ohio and the gap creationists have asserted is used uniquely to signify creation ex nihilo -out of nothing. Yet here it is on the fifth day of Genesis one, when, according to the gap theory God wasn't creating anything but rather restoring things after the putative "gap" which is not mentioned in the text at all.

"Bara" is used yet again in verse 27 with reference to the creation of mankind. Does it mean that like in Genesis 1:1 God is creating man out of nothing? Well, it might except that would contradict Genesis 2 where it says that man was formed out of the dust of the ground.

You asserted that there was only one creation. But, now, according to your reasoning, there appears to be at least three creations: 1) in Genesis 1:1 when God creates the heaven and the earth 2) in Genesis 1:21 when God creates the great sea creatures and 3) in Genesis 1:17 when God creates mankind. Such a conclusion supports neither the gap theory nor the literal six day reading of the text. Explanation?

In any case, the proposition that bara refers only to creation "out of nothing" is defeated by examination of how the word is used in the text.
Man's body was "formed" out of the dust of the ground, but man is not just a body. Man is also a soul, an individual person, "created" uniquely by God at conception with His own breath, which is how He "knows" even in the womb.

What is "formed" will die, be buried, and decompose back to dust. What is "created" will not die, rather live forever, and be resurrected with a new body.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 05:17 AM   #526
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Are bushmen, the Yanamamo, and numerous tribes without written language or civilization closer to a tribe of apes than man to you?

Why should one's humanity be dependent on creating the things that make up civilization? Some of it(stratified society) seems pretty unfortunate.
Well amen Intothewind. How about this :

Genesis, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, is a conflated story of the development of civilization by the Takers, or those that developed totalitarian agriculture and control by food, and who believe they have the one and only way to live a life.

The Takers are the ones that basically told God to get screwed (Cain), that they could take over providing their own sustenance, instead of, like the Leavers, who continued to trust God, or the gods, for their sustenance, like the Bushman and Yanomami.

At one time the world was populated by the Leavers, until the Takers took over, and now the Takers, with unlimited food supply (Totalitarian Agriculture), producing ever growing population (more food equals more population) have completely taken over the world (food control), so that now there's only maybe 1% of Leavers left, and the Takers are after them too. - (THE BOILING FROG by Daniel Quinn - http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm )

And their method : make in roads to remote indigenous tribes territory, so the Christians can go in, convince them their ways are satanic, and that they are fallen, and need to be saved, so they can be forced into the Taker way of life. (Like the oil companies did to the Huaorani in the Ecuadorian rain forest - Savages by Joe Kane - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7RBNU...ng=UTF8&btkr=1 )

So remember bro Intothewind, you are now, on this forum, dealing with the Takers, who even believe they have God trapped in a book. haha ...
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 05:27 AM   #527
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Please refer to my reply to ZNP in post 518. Yes there are different words for create and made. But, their usage does not support creation ex nihilo or the gap creation theory. My world view is open to the evidence. If the facts supported the gap theory, I would have no problem with it.

I haven't discredited the Bible. But, the notion that the Bible is a "record" of historical events is a presupposition that you bring to it not something that the Bible claims for itself. How do you justify that?
Jesus Himself refers to events and people in scripture as matter of fact. Jesus Himself endorsed the scripture as an accurate record of historical events. He never corrected one flawed verse or recorded event.

Jesus even endorsed the impossible, like when Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for three days, and then applied the story to Himself. He did the same with Noah and the great flood.

Contrary to the nature of this sub-forum, I happen to accept as fact the words Jesus spoke and the historial events He referred to.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 08:41 AM   #528
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Jesus Himself refers to events and people in scripture as matter of fact. Jesus Himself endorsed the scripture as an accurate record of historical events. He never corrected one flawed verse or recorded event.

Jesus even endorsed the impossible, like when Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for three days, and then applied the story to Himself. He did the same with Noah and the great flood.

Contrary to the nature of this sub-forum, I happen to accept as fact the words Jesus spoke and the historial events He referred to.
My attitude has always been, at least for the last 38 years or so, that Moses, Jesus and Paul are much smarter than I am. I find much of this dismissal of the Bible based on "science" to be arrogant.

It is obvious to me and was from the first time I read it that the writer of Genesis knew there were other "people" on Earth at the time of Adam, people that we could marry and have children with and that would come and kill Cain if they heard Cain had killed Abel. So then that alone could not possibly be what was referred to as God forming man and God creating man, otherwise why would the Bible say that Adam was the first man?

It is like a grandmaster chess player, I might not understand why he makes the move he does, it may not make sense to me, but I don't assume that he is more foolish than a 1st grader, yet all these who dismiss the Bible based on "science" always came across like that to me. They are like 1st graders who think they are smarter than a Grand master. How many books can stand the scrutiny of thousands of years with an army of critics with an agenda to find error or fault?

Once you change your opinion you realize the entire Bible is what it means that "God formed man". Our history, our ancestors, our poetry, our songs, our culture, our food, our feasts, our religion, our faith, this is what it means that God created Man in His own image and after His likeness.

This is why concerning all these arrogant snots it says "He will have them in derision". There is nothing more humiliating than thinking someone is an old fool, only to then learn you are the fool.

Can you imagine comparing man to an ape? Do they cook? Do they have songs and poetry? Can they tell you who their great ancestors were and why? Do they have faith? Is having five fingers and five toes really all there is to being a man?
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 08:45 AM   #529
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Well amen Intothewind. How about this :

Genesis, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, is a conflated story of the development of civilization by the Takers, or those that developed totalitarian agriculture and control by food, and who believe they have the one and only way to live a life.

The Takers are the ones that basically told God to get screwed (Cain), that they could take over providing their own sustenance, instead of, like the Leavers, who continued to trust God, or the gods, for their sustenance, like the Bushman and Yanomami.

At one time the world was populated by the Leavers, until the Takers took over, and now the Takers, with unlimited food supply (Totalitarian Agriculture), producing ever growing population (more food equals more population) have completely taken over the world (food control), so that now there's only maybe 1% of Leavers left, and the Takers are after them too. - (THE BOILING FROG by Daniel Quinn - http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm )

And their method : make in roads to remote indigenous tribes territory, so the Christians can go in, convince them their ways are satanic, and that they are fallen, and need to be saved, so they can be forced into the Taker way of life. (Like the oil companies did to the Huaorani in the Ecuadorian rain forest - Savages by Joe Kane - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7RBNU...ng=UTF8&btkr=1 )

So remember bro Intothewind, you are now, on this forum, dealing with the Takers, who even believe they have God trapped in a book. haha ...
With great power comes great responsibility. When God created man in His image He gave him great power, even for those who fell and rebelled. Who is going to overcome the takers? Need to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 09:37 AM   #530
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

This thread was started on a simple premise...is the Bible scientifically accurate? Whether you take it literally like Ohio or some odd mix like Zpanaah it is obvious it is not. Complain about me being nitpicky, but if scientists were Not such pains in the butt your computer wouldn't work. I've had to correct a lot of your "facts" on this thread about science. All you have done is reinterpret Bible passages.

I am intrigued/horrified at Zpanaahs definition of humanity, though it makes sense of history. You say these tribes are more like apes...yet they possess every trait you just listed, save for a highly stratified and specialized society. Dehumanizing and then claiming you can save people is the root of the ills of colonialism. What is amusing is that in the Genesis story Adam becomes civilized not when he communes with God...but after.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 09:42 AM   #531
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
This thread was started on a simple premise...is the Bible scientifically accurate? Whether you take it literally like Ohio or some odd mix like Zpanaah it is obvious it is not. Complain about me being nitpicky, but if scientists were Not such pains in the butt your computer wouldn't work. I've had to correct a lot of your "facts" on this thread about science. All you have done is reinterpret Bible passages.

I am intrigued/horrified at Zpanaahs definition of humanity, though it makes sense of history. You say these tribes are more like apes...yet they possess every trait you just listed, save for a highly stratified and specialized society. Dehumanizing and then claiming you can save people is the root of the ills of colonialism. What is amusing is that in the Genesis story Adam becomes civilized not when he communes with God...but after.
Yes but that process began with Adam. Jesus is the "Last Adam".

Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the Church. Therefore it is also reasonable to conclude that at the very end of the Bible we have "Adam and Eve", therefore this long 6,000 years is actually 6 days in which God formed a man.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 10:20 AM   #532
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
My attitude has always been, at least for the last 38 years or so, that Moses, Jesus and Paul are much smarter than I am. I find much of this dismissal of the Bible based on "science" to be arrogant.

It is obvious to me and was from the first time I read it that the writer of Genesis knew there were other "people" on Earth at the time of Adam, people that we could marry and have children with and that would come and kill Cain if they heard Cain had killed Abel.
Now I read this differently.

I read once that there was a tradition that Adam and Eve had 66 children. Adam lived 930 years, so it was conceivable that he literally saw a couple dozen generations of descendants. We are not sure that Cain and Abel were their first two children, (Cain probably was the first) nor do we know how much time had elapsed before the murder of Abel. It appeared like Cain was already married, perhaps marrying his sister, niece, grand niece, etc.

In Cain's mind he would live for ever, and after his conscience convicted him harshly, so playing the victim, he responded that he would be a marked man forever. Little did he know that soon after his descendant Lamech would repeat his deed, citing Cain.

In 4.25 the sequence of chronology is once again suspect since it appears like Seth was born after Lamech's murderous threats, which is doubtful to me. Eve's comment indicated Seth was born soon after Abel died.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 10:23 AM   #533
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
This thread was started on a simple premise...is the Bible scientifically accurate? Whether you take it literally like Ohio or some odd mix like Zpanaah it is obvious it is not. Complain about me being nitpicky, but if scientists were Not such pains in the butt your computer wouldn't work. I've had to correct a lot of your "facts" on this thread about science. All you have done is reinterpret Bible passages.

I am intrigued/horrified at Zpanaahs definition of humanity, though it makes sense of history. You say these tribes are more like apes...yet they possess every trait you just listed, save for a highly stratified and specialized society. Dehumanizing and then claiming you can save people is the root of the ills of colonialism. What is amusing is that in the Genesis story Adam becomes civilized not when he communes with God...but after.
The real question in this thread, and the greater Bible Versus Science debate, is whether man was created by God or not, and not whether the Bible is a scientific textbook.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 11:08 AM   #534
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Now I read this differently.

I read once that there was a tradition that Adam and Eve had 66 children. Adam lived 930 years, so it was conceivable that he literally saw a couple dozen generations of descendants. We are not sure that Cain and Abel were their first two children, (Cain probably was the first) nor do we know how much time had elapsed before the murder of Abel. It appeared like Cain was already married, perhaps marrying his sister, niece, grand niece, etc.
Well that would create a number of issues for any scientist.

1. Eve had 66 children?

2. Incest and interbreeding -- we know that we need a bare minimum of 200 animals that can breed from different families to have a chance at a species survival. 66 all from the same family should not have survived.

3. Adam lived 930 years? We see absolutely no evidence of this kind of longevity in any human skeletons.

4. Scientists estimate between 1 and 10 million homo sapiens living 10,000 years ago. This is based on very good archaeological evidence.

If it is God's word that animates the soul, then it would be possible for this word to first be breathed into Adam and from him rapidly spread through thousands and millions.

But if you are suggesting there were 66 humans 6,000 years ago that flies in the face of all archaeological and linguistic studies that have been done.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 11:19 AM   #535
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
The real question in this thread, and the greater Bible Versus Science debate, is whether man was created by God or not, and not whether the Bible is a scientific textbook.
As far as judging whether it is "scientifically accurate" look at the arrogance of IntotheWind to assume he alone is the arbiter and judge of what is scientifically accurate.

If he wants he can submit his credentials for us to judge, but till then I'll take Dr. E.O. Wilson from Harvard. He classifies humans as Eusocial species. One of 19 and the only one that chooses to be (the other 18 were created according to their kind, we are not according to our kind but are rather according to God's image and likeness).

Now I am not aware of any scientific debate over this, so I'll assume that we all agree this is a fair and reasonable scientific classification of what a man is.

"Eusociality (Greek eu: "good/real" + "social"), the highest level of organization of animal sociality, is defined by the following characteristics: cooperative brood care (including brood care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste."

How do we, as humans, develop our level of organization, cooperative brood care, overlapping generations, and division of labor?

With other species like ants and bees they are born with it, part of the DNA. But with man that is not true, we are taught it, and that is with human language. This took place at about the same time as the agricultural revolution, but the underlying revolution is that we chose to become a eusocial species through the development of written language.

Now as Awareness seems to bitterly point out, there are those who are not willing participants in a eusocial civilization. Some are monks, some are recluses, some are in prison. But if we were not eusocial it is hard to imagine our population being much more than chimpanzees.

We should certainly study how this came about if we are genuinely interested in the intersection of science with the Bible because the Bible can give us tremendous insight into this process. Think about it, there are millions of species on this planet and yet man alone is the only one to choose to be eusocial, all the rest do what they do based solely on DNA.

When we look at ancient written language we discover accounting records, tax records, rulers exercising dominion. But it is the Bible, the ten commandments, basic laws and covenants conveyed in the Bible that allow for these organizations to work. Without them they self destruct, just like the Mafia, organized crime or any other evil alliance.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 11:37 AM   #536
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post

3. Adam lived 930 years? We see absolutely no evidence of this kind of longevity in any human skeletons.
But we have an historical record. Perhaps they have not found Adam's skeleton.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 11:52 AM   #537
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
But we have an historical record. Perhaps they have not found Adam's skeleton.
It would seem extremely odd to me that every skeleton we do find results in very reasonable range of ages (principal of uniformitarianism) and that the one we have not found is way outside of the norm.

The Bible says "He called their name Adam". It seems to me that Adam was not just the name of the first man, it was also the name of the first city. It is not unusual for a city to "live" for 930 years. That seems to be much better aligned with science and the principal of uniformitarianism.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 02:26 PM   #538
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

The fact is there has been no known invention of man or result from science that came from the Bible. There is no piece of technology today that we use that came from the Bible.

Why do defenders of the Bible's scientific worth have nothing to show for it?

Why has the Bible never contributed to science?

Even the great scientists who were also Christians such as Newton did not find their discoveries in the Bible even though Newton probably knew the Bible well.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 03:17 PM   #539
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Ohio: Fair enough. But exactly how god creates if he does is also up for question. Some folks(Zpanaah) have made a muddy compromise between science and the Bible. Zpanaah accepts evolution, including human evolution.


Zpanaah
First off, human eusociality is indeed a controversial science topic as of late. E. O. Wilson is actually one of the few prominent scientists who have put forth this hypothesis, and many others have challenged it. You can actually look on Google scholar or wikipedia for some relevant papers. But I will put that aside and go ahead with your definition of eusociality. For one thing, it is a lot more than 19 species that qualify as eusocial-though on a whole it is a fairly rare phenomena in the animal world.

Your biggest fallacy seems to be assume that human eusociality must come with a written language, or other things.

Are parents who homeschool their children and forgo cooperative brood care not eusocial/civilized? Many human families get by with very limited cooperative brood care. In fact, other apes may use this system more often than we do.(many other apes that live in troops will leave their offspring with other females-usually though not always related)

In many tribes, different people took on different jobs. They could not be as specialized as we see today, simply because they have fewer people and fewer needs, but you have a medicine man, hunters, gatherers, craftsmen, and the like. Sure, people were not locked into their roles, but the same holds true today. You certainly had religion and spirituality and presumably contact with God as well.

Some form of lasting complex communication seems necessary to keep a civilization going. The Incas seem to not have developed a written language-but perhaps they had a lasting way of communicating that we have not quite deciphered yet. That is why I brought up proto languages...because some of these may contain more information than we can tell. These etchings were done by societies that, save for written language, had attained a lot of what you seem to be looking for in civilization

It is an interesting idea that the life God breathed into Adam was civilization...but keep in mind civilizations arose around the globe without contact with this particular civilization. Sumerian may be the oldest written language, but it can't claim to have spawned all the other ones. Does that still work with your narrative?


I haven't said anywhere I am the "sole arbitrator of science" ha. I am happy to go investigate and find the evidence to back up(or not) a claim. My apologies for poking so many holes in your posts.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 03:41 PM   #540
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
It would seem extremely odd to me that every skeleton we do find results in very reasonable range of ages (principal of uniformitarianism) and that the one we have not found is way outside of the norm.

The Bible says "He called their name Adam". It seems to me that Adam was not just the name of the first man, it was also the name of the first city. It is not unusual for a city to "live" for 930 years. That seems to be much better aligned with science and the principal of uniformitarianism.
Quote:
Genesis 5:
1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in God's likeness.
2. He Created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name "Adam," in the day when they were created.
3. Adam lived one hundred thirty years, and became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he became the father of sons and daughters.
5. All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, then he died.
Somehow your interpretation of Adam as a city does not seem to fit.

I believe God changed the speed at which we age, shortening our life span.

These verses also indicate that Abel was probably slain more than 125 years after Adam and Ebe were expelled from the garden.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 03:55 PM   #541
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Somehow your interpretation of Adam as a city does not seem to fit.

I believe God changed the speed at which we age, shortening our life span.
If Adam was the first city, then it was also the first church in a locality! Wow, this actually makes sense.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 04:05 PM   #542
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If Adam was the first city, then it was also the first church in a locality! Wow, this actually makes sense.
Just like WL ... He saw locality in every scripture.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 04:10 PM   #543
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Ohio: Fair enough. But exactly how god creates if he does is also up for question. Some folks(Zpanaah) have made a muddy compromise between science and the Bible. Zpanaah accepts evolution, including human evolution.


Zpanaah
First off, human eusociality is indeed a controversial science topic as of late. E. O. Wilson is actually one of the few prominent scientists who have put forth this hypothesis, and many others have challenged it. You can actually look on Google scholar or wikipedia for some relevant papers.
I'm glad I picked a name you could spell.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 04:10 PM   #544
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zpanaah
First off, human eusociality is indeed a controversial science topic as of late. E. O. Wilson is actually one of the few prominent scientists who have put forth this hypothesis, and many others have challenged it. You can actually look on Google scholar or wikipedia for some relevant papers. But I will put that aside and go ahead with your definition of eusociality. For one thing, it is a lot more than 19 species that qualify as eusocial-though on a whole it is a fairly rare phenomena in the animal world.

Your biggest fallacy seems to be assume that human eusociality must come with a written language, or other things.
I certainly didn't say this. Of all the species identified as being eusocial only man has a written language, so it is a distinct minority.

My point is that unlike worker bees, or ants, or other species we learn using written language, we understand the organization of our society using written language. We understand what we should and shouldn't do based on our laws, written language. We have contracts -- written language. History -- written language. My point is that we could not have our civilization that we do have without written language, and that our civilization is an expression of the fact that we are eusocial. There is no other species that needs laws, contracts, debates, and years and years of school to learn how to behave in this civilization, this is uniquely human.

However, everything that has made us what we are today can be seen in the Bible. Our understanding of justice, government, contracts, poetry, song, celebrations, etc. We have learned to be eusocial from the Bible. That is what makes us man in the image and likeness of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Are parents who homeschool their children and forgo cooperative brood care not eusocial/civilized? Many human families get by with very limited cooperative brood care. In fact, other apes may use this system more often than we do.(many other apes that live in troops will leave their offspring with other females-usually though not always related)

In many tribes, different people took on different jobs. They could not be as specialized as we see today, simply because they have fewer people and fewer needs, but you have a medicine man, hunters, gatherers, craftsmen, and the like. Sure, people were not locked into their roles, but the same holds true today. You certainly had religion and spirituality and presumably contact with God as well.

Some form of lasting complex communication seems necessary to keep a civilization going. The Incas seem to not have developed a written language-but perhaps they had a lasting way of communicating that we have not quite deciphered yet. That is why I brought up proto languages...because some of these may contain more information than we can tell. These etchings were done by societies that, save for written language, had attained a lot of what you seem to be looking for in civilization

It is an interesting idea that the life God breathed into Adam was civilization...but keep in mind civilizations arose around the globe without contact with this particular civilization. Sumerian may be the oldest written language, but it can't claim to have spawned all the other ones. Does that still work with your narrative?
I never claimed that Sumerian "spawned all the other ones". You said that man did not originate in the Middle East (near the Euphrates). My point is that the man described in the Bible did originate near the Euphrates. I never said the first written language spawned all the others, simply that it was the first.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 04:33 PM   #545
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Ohio: LOL, no worries. I will probably keep botching it.

Not sure why you felt the need to clarify animals don't have written languages. Animals clearly have dialects(Orcas, birds), and they also do have to learn social norms, it is not completely innate.

By saying that we learn to be eusocial from the Bible-you in effect say that Sumerian culture has spawned the others. Tons of eusocial societies made it far without the Bible.(we could argue for the Incans their encounter with the Bible was the beginning of the end-ha) I think you are doing a disservice to these "simple" hunter gatherer societies who know and can do things modern civilized man could never fathom.

So then, do people without written language not understand these humanizing things you just listed? I hope you don't mean that.

Some anthropologists see agrarian society(which leads sometimes to civilization as people are no longer traveling) as not so much a step up, but a desperate attempt to survive famine. Early farmers lived shorter lives and dealt with malnutrition and cavities that hunter gatherer society remains do not show. And even today, hunter gatherer societies put in less hours of work per week than even those of us in plush first world habitation(I think this assumes that carrying capacity of the land is ok and the tribes territory is not otherwise compromised).

Genesis actually seems to paint a picture of the noble savage.(Adam only had to become civilized after sinning and getting booted from the magic garden-which I'm going to assume you do not think is an actual place).

Fair enough on the origins of Sumerian society. If Adam and Eve are only a type, and not actual human beings, then the general gist of the story may work. We have to attribute a lot of poetic language to just that, and allow for many interpretations and errors. We are drifting into the historicity of the Bible(also debated, I just read that Joshua is often seen as nationalistic propaganda rather than a good documentation). That is another thread which I have little interest in participating in.

If the genesis order is the order of creatures recolonizing the area after some sort of apocalypse...it is sure funny that the "creeping things" arrived last.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 06:12 PM   #546
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Ohio: LOL, no worries. I will probably keep botching it.
Well you got that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Not sure why you felt the need to clarify animals don't have written languages. Animals clearly have dialects(Orcas, birds), and they also do have to learn social norms, it is not completely innate.
Orcas and birds are not classified as eusocial species. However, all eusocial species have to have some means of communication -- ants use pheromones, etc. Communication is typical of a society whether apes, or birds, etc. Since eusocial species are highly organized (there can be as many ants in a large anthill as humans in a large city) they require a high level of communication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
By saying that we learn to be eusocial from the Bible-you in effect say that Sumerian culture has spawned the others.
No, I don't. You equate the Bible with Sumerian culture. I don't. The Bible's culture is fully defined in the Bible, there is no need to refer to ancient Sumerian culture. Has the Bible influenced other cultures and other human civilizations, yes. Obviously the Bible is embraced by Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is has also influenced our western style of democracy as well as Marxist communism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Tons of eusocial societies made it far without the Bible.
I was not aware that societies were measured by the ton. I suppose doing that gives the US society more weight due to our obesity epidemic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
(we could argue for the Incans their encounter with the Bible was the beginning of the end-ha) I think you are doing a disservice to these "simple" hunter gatherer societies who know and can do things modern civilized man could never fathom.
You can argue whatever you wish, I have not mentioned the Incas. The Bible is very clear that man can know God from creation. Besides, I do not know enough about the Incas, have not read their writings, have not given more than a cursory study of their history, to relate. Since the original argument was concerning the oldest written language unless you wish to put forward the Incas as being older than the Sumerians it does not appear relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
So then, do people without written language not understand these humanizing things you just listed? I hope you don't mean that.
As far as I know you are the only one who has said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Some anthropologists see agrarian society(which leads sometimes to civilization as people are no longer traveling) as not so much a step up, but a desperate attempt to survive famine. Early farmers lived shorter lives and dealt with malnutrition and cavities that hunter gatherer society remains do not show. And even today, hunter gatherer societies put in less hours of work per week than even those of us in plush first world habitation(I think this assumes that carrying capacity of the land is ok and the tribes territory is not otherwise compromised).

Genesis actually seems to paint a picture of the noble savage.(Adam only had to become civilized after sinning and getting booted from the magic garden-which I'm going to assume you do not think is an actual place).
Wow you sure do make a lot of assumptions about what others say and think without actually responding to what they do say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Fair enough on the origins of Sumerian society. If Adam and Eve are only a type, and not actual human beings, then the general gist of the story may work.
Really? And why wouldn't it work if they were real people. We know that the Bible refers to them figuratively in the New Testament, but I don't see why they couldn't be just as real as Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Or are you now going to tell us that none of the men in the OT were real? Just the book of Genesis, only those men aren't real?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
We have to attribute a lot of poetic language to just that, and allow for many interpretations and errors. We are drifting into the historicity of the Bible(also debated, I just read that Joshua is often seen as nationalistic propaganda rather than a good documentation). That is another thread which I have little interest in participating in.

If the genesis order is the order of creatures recolonizing the area after some sort of apocalypse...it is sure funny that the "creeping things" arrived last.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.

The creeping things arrived on the same day that all the land creatures arrived: cattle, creeping things and beasts.

No, to a scientist the give away that this is not the order of creation (or evolution) is the mention of the grass. One would think the first thing to show up after melting ice would be the grass, but on an evolutionary time scale it was definitely the last thing to show up.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 06:45 PM   #547
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
This thread is not about create vs form. It is about science vs Bible.
I thought your gap hypothesis requires a create vs. form distinction. You raised the issue not me. I think your failure to acknowledge that exemplifies what Intothewind refers to as "moving the goal posts." It may be that you are doing that unconsciously since you appeared shocked when he pointed it out to you.

Quote:
But since this is the second time it came up (Awareness also complained) and since I doubt anyone will really take issue with a detour lets address this.
You had no problem with taking detours on the POE thread. It seemed like you wanted to detour. Besides if the Bible is scientifically accurate as you assert, then discussing its distinctions like "creation vs form" is no detour.

Quote:
I didn't completely skip it. I said "there are different interpretations". Anyone doing a search on the other interpretation would have immediately found this verse. I look at the great sea creatures being created in the same way I look at man being created. Step 1 -- God created the heavens and the Earth (the stuff of which everything is made, the step that science has no theory for). Step 2 -- He then formed all life from this stuff he created. (evolution) Step 3 -- the finished product has thus been both formed and created by God. This is why the account of Man is so detailed. Sea creatures were given the cliff notes version because they are really peripheral to the Bible.
The fact that the text states that sea creatures were created (bara) on the fifth day contradicts the notion that bara refers to creation ex nihilo. Without that what basis do you have in the text for Pember's gap.


Quote:
This may sound outrageous, but the key principle operating here is that no verse is of its own interpretation. The NT is very, very clear that there is "one" creation. Besides, if you agree that the sea creatures "evolved" then you agree with me. I am equating "God forming" with "evolution".
The NT may be clear about one creation, but you haven't made it clear in the context on Genesis Chapter One. If the authors point in stating that the sea creatures were created is to say that they evolved why didn't he just say that they evolved? And why did he say that G-d created the sea creatures and made the beasts of the earth (vs 25)? The text doesn't support your hypothesis.

Quote:
It is perfectly reasonable to say that the God who created the heavens and the earth also created the great sea creatures. That doesn't mean there were two or three creative acts.
It's contrary to the creation gap theory which states that God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and only restored but did not create during the six days of Genesis 1. If that's not what you have been proposing then please clarify.

The text says that waters brought forth and the earth brought forth and then that man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Do you interpret all three of those statements to refer to evolution?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 07:10 PM   #548
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
The fact that the text states that sea creatures were created (bara) on the fifth day contradicts the notion that bara refers to creation ex nihilo. Without that what basis do you have in the text for Pember's gap.

The NT may be clear about one creation, but you haven't made it clear in the context on Genesis Chapter One. If the authors point in stating that the sea creatures were created is to say that they evolved why didn't he just say that they evolved? And why did he say that G-d created the sea creatures and made the beasts of the earth (vs 25)? The text doesn't support your hypothesis.

It's contrary to the creation gap theory which states that God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and only restored but did not create during the six days of Genesis 1. If that's not what you have been proposing then please clarify.

The text says that waters brought forth and the earth brought forth and then that man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Do you interpret all three of those statements to refer to evolution?
Since we are discussing this I'll just ignore your first couple of comments.

Once again, this is my hypothesis: I view it like a venn diagram, the big circle is God created the heavens and the Earth, that includes everything. The small circle can be thousand, millions of little circles of God made this and God made that. However, the Bible doesn't go into detail ad nauseum, except perhaps in the book of Job. Here he cuts to the chase and focuses exclusively on man. So although if we looked at sea creatures under a microscope we would see that God did "form" them, the Bible is not looking at them under a microscope, it is looking at Man.

Points of clarification:

1. My hypothesis does not in any way rule out saying that God created man, or the stars, or the earth or the moon, or sea creatures, etc.

2. The focus of Genesis chapter 1 is not the "creation story" but rather the restoration story. Yes, creation is mentioned, but the vast majority of the chapter is dealing with the restoration after something like an ice age.

3. This chapter does not give an evolutionary timeline, grasses were one of the last things to show up in evolution and yet they are listed as the first thing to appear once the land came out of the water.

4. The making of man is complicated, unlike all the other creatures which are after their kind. First, God forms man from the dust of the ground = evolution from single cell life forms. But to be in the image and likeness of a corporate God, that is to make us eusocial, not by DNA but by choice. This requires human language which we first see with Adam naming every single creature, communing with God, tending the garden, having rules, etc.

5. I do not equate this with the reference to the waters bring forth, just like we have after a volcanic explosion, we will have pioneer species show up first, followed by others. My guess is that Genesis 1:3 is more like 10,000 years ago, whereas Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life began evolving about 500 million years ago (at least that is the start of the Cambrian explosion). The focus of Gen 1 is not on sea creatures or evolution or even creation, but rather where did man come from.

6. I cannot think of a more eloquent way to refer to evolution than to say that "Man was made from the dust of the ground".
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2017, 07:34 PM   #549
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Zpanah: We are running two lines of thought between zeek and me, but I see a good opportunity to bring them together here.

So in Genesis 1.1 God created the heavens and the earth. By creation-you mean all evolution-including human evolution.

(there is some ginormous catastrophe that wipes off everything in a local area)

The following verses are the recolonization of that area.

starting with grasses, and higher plants that are bearing seeds and fruit(without insect pollinators, of course...).

Some unspecified time later, the other life arrives in the said order. Never mind airborne plankton creeping things that God ignored-and would have arrived almost as soon as the land could be touched down upon. Nevermind that the birds would starve long before they could "multiply and fill the earth" unless God simply neglects to mention that little creeping things arrived.


I'm trying hard to make this work, and it just does not.

And it is a pretty long stretch to call "formed from the dust of the ground" evolution.








By moving the goalposts, I mean taking evidence to support a claim it does not seem to support. Zpanah has this elaborate idea of Adam being the first eusocial human, and the basis for that is Sumerian being the oldest written language.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 03:14 AM   #550
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zpanah: We are running two lines of thought between zeek and me, but I see a good opportunity to bring them together here.

So in Genesis 1.1 God created the heavens and the earth. By creation-you mean all evolution-including human evolution.

(there is some ginormous catastrophe that wipes off everything in a local area)

The following verses are the recolonization of that area.

starting with grasses, and higher plants that are bearing seeds and fruit(without insect pollinators, of course...).

Some unspecified time later, the other life arrives in the said order. Never mind airborne plankton creeping things that God ignored-and would have arrived almost as soon as the land could be touched down upon. Nevermind that the birds would starve long before they could "multiply and fill the earth" unless God simply neglects to mention that little creeping things arrived.


I'm trying hard to make this work, and it just does not.

And it is a pretty long stretch to call "formed from the dust of the ground" evolution.

By moving the goalposts, I mean taking evidence to support a claim it does not seem to support. Zpanah has this elaborate idea of Adam being the first eusocial human, and the basis for that is Sumerian being the oldest written language.
Breakingwind: this thread is comparing science with the Bible.

1. I relate the Big bang theory to Gen 1:1

2. I relate various extinction events that have occurred on Earth to Gen 1:2

3. I relate the 6 days described in Gen 1 to the restoration of the Earth after the last ice age.

4. The Bible then talks about God making man from dust of the earth. I equate that with the process of evolution.

5. The Bible also says that God created Man. I explain that as being similar to a venn diagram, the big, all encompassing circle, is that God created all things. The Big Bang included man in it. You can equate that to current theories about how at the time of the Big Bang there were certain laws of physics that resulted in the universe we have including man and all other creatures.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 05:29 AM   #551
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Breakingwind: this thread is comparing science with the Bible.

1. I relate the Big bang theory to Gen 1:1
Looks like you are having trouble spelling names also.

But this is no comparison at all. For science to espouse the Bing Bag Theory is blind "anti-science" resulting from dogmatic atheism.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 05:34 AM   #552
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
OBW: Except for the literal translation of the Genesis story. It also warms the hearts of men to know they are different from the animals because they were specially created. (interestingly, in Ecclesiastes Solomon claims otherwise)

I would excercise extreme cau...actually just do not try to use the bible to prove science. Yes, people may tout the gap between 1.1 and 1.2 to explain away the fossil record (it does not), and the flood supposedly matching the geological history of this planet. The actual geological record is so complex that it cannot provide any support for these simple outlandish claims. This is an utter waste of time.

The idea that we split off from chimpanzees, inheriting mistakes in their genome which explain why we need vitamin C, evolved bipedalism first, then evolved larger brains which allowed humans to spread throughout the globe may not be particularly flattering to some...though I find it remarkable. But it explains a lot more of our current health problems than does special creation and then the fall.

There are things about man that are unique:

1. We have written language, no other animal species has a written language. There is a huge difference between a number of alarms and calls, and a written language. There is no explanation according to your fundamental rules of evolution to explain this. We lost a huge portion of our brain that was used for photographic memory, very useful in foraging for a hunter gatherer and replaced it with the ability to read and write. This change also requires a very substantial increase in our calorie requirements, the human brain is the most expensive brain on a calorie consumed per weight of person of any creature. However, there should not have been an evolutionary advantage to lose the ability to have a photographic memory in exchange for the ability to read when there were no books, and to write when no one else could read. Likewise, the increased calories required for this exchange makes it even harder to justify or explain as an evolutionary advantage.

2. There is no other example in the evolutionary history of all creatures of a creature choosing to be eusocial. Chimpanzees are not eusocial, yet somehow we are, and not due to DNA, due to choice. That is unprecedented.

Ecclesiastes says that men will know that they are but flesh. Yes, our physical bodies evolved from other creatures, but that does not mean that we aren't unique. You would have to be willfully blind to not see that Man is unique among all species.

We alone have a written language, we alone have religion that teaches us to be eusocial.

There is no dispute between Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1 which says "God made man from the dust of the ground". The two verses are equivalent in meaning. Our bodies are but flesh, our bodies were made from the dust of the ground.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 05:40 AM   #553
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Looks like you are having trouble spelling names also.

But this is no comparison at all. For science to espouse the Bing Bag Theory is blind "anti-science" resulting from dogmatic atheism.
I don't understand that?

Big Bang theory basically explains two observations:

1. The universe is expanding similar to a balloon being blown up. If you rewind the video about 13 billion years ago the entire universe would have been in a single location.

2. There is cosmic background radiation in every direction we look. It is explained as the "ringing of a bell". The universe is still vibrating from the explosion.

How is this theory any different from the Bible which says that the God stretched out the heavens like a curtain? Or, God spoke not being as being?

How is it atheistic, we have no explanation for how this happened other than God, rather we have observable evidence that the Universe sprang into being just as the Bible said it did.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 06:52 AM   #554
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Jesus Himself refers to events and people in scripture as matter of fact.
According to the Gospels, Jesus never stated anything in the OT was a matter of fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Jesus Himself endorsed the scripture as an accurate record of historical events. He never corrected one flawed verse or recorded event.
He corrected many Old Testament flaws. For example in Matthew 5 he is quoted as saying:

Quote:
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Jesus even endorsed the impossible, like when Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for three days, and then applied the story to Himself. He did the same with Noah and the great flood. Contrary to the nature of this sub-forum, I happen to accept as fact the words Jesus spoke and the historial events He referred to.
According to the Gospels Jesus cited the stories of Jonah or Noah, but he never stated that they were historical events or that they were scientifically possible.

You apparently think there is something meritorious about believing the unbelievable. That might get you an "Amen" in the Local Church, but I thought you said you had left.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 07:32 AM   #555
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

ZNP--

My response to your post 548 is that you are torturing the text of Genesis One to make it say what you want it to say. The author didn't have modern science and it's just not scientifically accurate. There's no evidence of a "gap" or "interval" between verses one and two. The gap theory is a desperate attempt to reconcile the text with modern science and it simply fails. You're a smart imaginative guy but your efforts to make this theory work look silly. The question that remains for me is why you need to believe this doctrine so badly. Do you suppose that your faith will fail you if you don't?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 08:41 AM   #556
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I don't understand that?

Big Bang theory basically explains two observations:

1. The universe is expanding similar to a balloon being blown up. If you rewind the video about 13 billion years ago the entire universe would have been in a single location.

2. There is cosmic background radiation in every direction we look. It is explained as the "ringing of a bell". The universe is still vibrating from the explosion.

How is this theory any different from the Bible which says that the God stretched out the heavens like a curtain? Or, God spoke not being as being?

How is it atheistic, we have no explanation for how this happened other than God, rather we have observable evidence that the Universe sprang into being just as the Bible said it did.
It is atheism because calling it a Big Bang defies all science and common sense, that some horrific explosion at the dawn of time could produce ever expanding order without giving due credit to the Creator.

I realize that you must think this way in order to work in academia, but I can still express my views on the subject.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 10:35 AM   #557
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Zp: humans may have unique traits, but that doesn't seperate us from the rest of the animal kingdom...because many animals also have key unique traits of there own. I don't see evolution of the ability to communicate in detail a problem at all if you see how quickly we ostracize people who can't pick up on social norms even today.

Ohio: whatever it is physicists are working on(i am not learned in this matter) it is more explanative than yelling "Goddunit!"
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 10:56 AM   #558
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Ralso, im not sure how big bang removes a creator. Lc folks loved the idea that God perhaps wrote the laws of the universe and then pulled the pin to set it all in motion.

My current viewpoint is naturalism...which would require a completely impotent creator perhaps even at this point. That is why I have specifically not addressed miracles in the Bible.

I agree with zeek. I sorta admire zps attempts to reconcile the Bible and science discoveries...it wa a heavy topic on my mind starting from middle school. I remember going to yp meeting after spending the lords table mulling over evolution and reading a factually inaccurate piece by WL that espouaed design. But zeek us right...the scripture is so tortured to give up this narrative as to be hardly recognizable.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 01:15 PM   #559
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
Zp: humans may have unique traits, but that doesn't seperate us from the rest of the animal kingdom...because many animals also have key unique traits of there own. I don't see evolution of the ability to communicate in detail a problem at all if you see how quickly we ostracize people who can't pick up on social norms even today.

Ohio: whatever it is physicists are working on (i am not learned in this matter) it is more explanative than yelling "Goddunit!"
ITW, who is yelling?

As far as unique traits go, there is none more unique than man's desire to worship God. This trait alone spans time, space, culture, economics, and most importantly intelligence. It provides sufficient proof of God the Creator, since no other need in man or in the animal kingdom corresponds with the "imaginary."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 01:45 PM   #560
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

If we are talking about a Creator who can create, bend and modify the laws of physics we cannot possibly assume that what we observe now is what happened then. A miracle is something unexplainable so if the Creation was a miracle then it is by definition unexplainable and our observations are likely to lead to wrong conclusions.

There are many assumptions in science based upon the belief that what we observe today and how things are today is the same as it was trillions of years ago. The big bang and other "observations" are based upon the assumption that things then were the way they are now, or that the laws of physics remain unchanged. Recently NASA scientists have discovered a way to propel spacecraft in space which contradicts known laws:
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/why-na...robably-bogus/

There is a joke on Seinfeld that is about aliens looking towards the Earth and they observe people walking their dogs on a leash. Because the aliens observe the humans walking behind the dog and picking up their poop, they wrongly conclude that dogs are the superior species. Alien attempts to communicate with humans have failed because they have been trying to communicate with dogs, thinking them to be the superior. This is one illustration about how observations and assumptions can easily lead to wrong conclusions. Scientists today make observations about the past and coupled with their assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 01:50 PM   #561
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
According to the Gospels, Jesus never stated anything in the OT was a matter of fact.

He corrected many Old Testament flaws. For example in Matthew 5 he is quoted as saying:

According to the Gospels Jesus cited the stories of Jonah or Noah, but he never stated that they were historical events or that they were scientifically possible.

You apparently think there is something meritorious about believing the unbelievable. That might get you an "Amen" in the Local Church, but I thought you said you had left.
The sad thing to me is that you apparently believe what you wrote here, and I see little value in providing correction.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 03:31 PM   #562
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
The sad thing to me is that you apparently believe what you wrote here, and I see little value in providing correction.
What's sad is that you can't admit that you have no good argument against my reply. But, it's understandable because you have so much invested in your position and you think it is synonymous with saving faith.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 04:45 PM   #563
manna-man
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 229
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
It is atheism because calling it a Big Bang defies all science and common sense, that some horrific explosion at the dawn of time could produce ever expanding order without giving due credit to the Creator.

I realize that you must think this way in order to work in academia, but I can still express my views on the subject.
Amen Ohio!
manna-man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 04:56 PM   #564
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
ZNP--

My response to your post 548 is that you are torturing the text of Genesis One to make it say what you want it to say. The author didn't have modern science and it's just not scientifically accurate. There's no evidence of a "gap" or "interval" between verses one and two. The gap theory is a desperate attempt to reconcile the text with modern science and it simply fails. You're a smart imaginative guy but your efforts to make this theory work look silly. The question that remains for me is why you need to believe this doctrine so badly. Do you suppose that your faith will fail you if you don't?
I don't have anything invested in the gap theory as a doctrine, nor do I "need" to believe it.

I do believe in examining the word of God. I do believe in putting the word of God under intense scrutiny. When God said He didn't create the earth waste and void I feel that is a crystal clear reference to Genesis 1. When Paul says that there is "one creation" as an item of the faith, I also feel that is a very clear reference to Genesis 1. When Ecclesiastes says that "they will realize they are just flesh" I also think that is a reference to Genesis 1.

I consider the observations and evidence that seems to contradict the account. I have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 years old as some sad doctrines teach. I accept that the fossil record and archaeological record and linguistic record clearly provide a record of homo sapiens that did not begin with a single individual 6,000 years ago.

However, I find those that dismiss the account to be less than credible. For example it seems obvious to me from the record in Genesis that the author knew there were other homo sapiens besides Adam, so then breathing into him and he becoming a living soul might mean something other than the original simplistic understanding. The Bible is very clear that no verse is of its own understanding and that is the main weakness I have found in the deniers. They don't actually know the Bible, don't really read it, don't really consider it. I know this because in your (collective your) attempt to show where science contradicts the Bible you miss the really difficult verses, the ones that truly are contradicted by science.

You claim I am torturing Genesis 1, but what do you and all the others do? You take a few verses and try to say that in less than 500 words God is going to describe 13 billion years worth of creative activity. Who is being silly? There is not a scientist alive that could do that. It is absurd to read it this way. This is the first chapter of the Bible, is this book really about how God created the universe or is it about God and His relationship with man? Man needs to know who God is and where Man came from, that is what the chapter tells us. That makes sense for what the Bible is about.

You think it is silly because my angle is different from a multitude of Bible expositors. So what, I could care less what they have said. If they had it so right then why is there so much dispute over this chapter to this day? That alone suggests taking a fresh look from a different angle.

Viewing the 6 days as the restoration after an extinction event is very interesting for someone whose background is "the Lord's recovery" but it is equally interesting to me as a geologist because it is the experience of life here on Earth. We have had 5 major extinction events. We are now in the 6th major extinction event.

During the last 10,000 years during which time mankind and human civilization has been on this earth we have had several super volcano explosions, several large meteor strikes, several mega tsunamis. These are not "impossible" they are part of this place we live in. It also ties the final judgement of Armageddon, with the Lord's crucifixion, with the parting of the Red Sea with the flood at Noah's time with Genesis 1. This makes this theme of God's judgment a major theme from the get go, which also corresponds with fundamental teaching on the fall of Satan and the creation of man.

You are quick to dismiss the Bible, I refuse to do that without a careful analysis that begins with the assumption that I have made a mistake before I jump to the conclusion that the writer of the Bible has made a mistake.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 11:28 PM   #565
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
ITW, who is yelling?

As far as unique traits go, there is none more unique than man's desire to worship God. This trait alone spans time, space, culture, economics, and most importantly intelligence. It provides sufficient proof of God the Creator, since no other need in man or in the animal kingdom corresponds with the "imaginary."
Let's not forget that in the Genesis flood story God saved way more critters than humans. So maybe God prefers them over us jibber-jabbers.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 05:05 AM   #566
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I don't have anything invested in the gap theory as a doctrine, nor do I "need" to believe it.

I do believe in examining the word of God. I do believe in putting the word of God under intense scrutiny. When God said He didn't create the earth waste and void I feel that is a crystal clear reference to Genesis 1.
I already cited this translation which I think clears that problem up without a hidden time interval:

Quote:
1 When God began to create heaven and earth— 2 the earth being un-formed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— 3 God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Inc., Jewish Publication Society. JPS TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures (blue): The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (p. 3). The Jewish Publication Society. Kindle Edition.

Quote:
When Paul says that there is "one creation" as an item of the faith, I also feel that is a very clear reference to Genesis 1. When Ecclesiastes says that "they will realize they are just flesh" I also think that is a reference to Genesis 1.
Where does Paul say there was one creation? Anyway, if anybody is saying there's more than one creation, it's the gap theorists, not me.

Quote:
I consider the observations and evidence that seems to contradict the account. I have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 years old as some sad doctrines teach. I accept that the fossil record and archaeological record and linguistic record clearly provide a record of homo sapiens that did not begin with a single individual 6,000 years ago.
Yeah, I don't see the young earth theory as tenable based on massive evidence.

Quote:
However, I find those that dismiss the account to be less than credible. For example it seems obvious to me from the record in Genesis that the author knew there were other homo sapiens besides Adam, so then breathing into him and he becoming a living soul might mean something other than the original simplistic understanding. The Bible is very clear that no verse is of its own understanding and that is the main weakness I have found in the deniers. They don't actually know the Bible, don't really read it, don't really consider it. I know this because in your (collective your) attempt to show where science contradicts the Bible you miss the really difficult verses, the ones that truly are contradicted by science.
Which verses are those?

Quote:
You claim I am torturing Genesis 1, but what do you and all the others do? You take a few verses and try to say that in less than 500 words God is going to describe 13 billion years worth of creative activity. Who is being silly? There is not a scientist alive that could do that. It is absurd to read it this way. This is the first chapter of the Bible, is this book really about how God created the universe or is it about God and His relationship with man? Man needs to know who God is and where Man came from, that is what the chapter tells us. That makes sense for what the Bible is about.
You and I seem to come to the Bible with different presuppositions. I think you treat it as if it is the inerrant product of supernatural omniscient intelligence. I treat it as the product of natural human intelligence. The writers were inspired by their experience of God, but they were ordinary fallible humans. The six day creation may have had something to do with the seven day ritual week which seems to have been central to the pattern of living that they believed God had revealed to them.

Quote:
You think it is silly because my angle is different from a multitude of Bible expositors. So what, I could care less what they have said. If they had it so right then why is there so much dispute over this chapter to this day? That alone suggests taking a fresh look from a different angle. Viewing the 6 days as the restoration after an extinction event is very interesting for someone whose background is "the Lord's recovery" but it is equally interesting to me as a geologist because it is the experience of life here on Earth. We have had 5 major extinction events. We are now in the 6th major extinction event.
Sadly, I am aware that we are in the sixth great extinction. I do my bit to fight against that. Do you see something supernatural about it?

Quote:
During the last 10,000 years during which time mankind and human civilization has been on this earth we have had several super volcano explosions, several large meteor strikes, several mega tsunamis. These are not "impossible" they are part of this place we live in. It also ties the final judgement of Armageddon, with the Lord's crucifixion, with the parting of the Red Sea with the flood at Noah's time with Genesis 1. This makes this theme of God's judgment a major theme from the get go, which also corresponds with fundamental teaching on the fall of Satan and the creation of man.
Yeah, we seem to be bent on destroying ourselves and the planet. The apocalyptic writings reflect our intuitions of our ultimate annihilation and our hope for meaning beyond our natural finitude.

Quote:
You are quick to dismiss the Bible, I refuse to do that without a careful analysis that begins with the assumption that I have made a mistake before I jump to the conclusion that the writer of the Bible has made a mistake.
I haven't dismissed it. I'm viewing the Hebrew Bible as the product of ancient Israel. The New Testament, I see as the product of the early Christian movement. Based on the evidence and my expereince up until now, it makes sense to view the Bible not as written by God but as the response of these two ancient communities to their experience of God.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 05:24 AM   #567
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
You and I seem to come to the Bible with different presuppositions. I think you treat it as if it is the inerrant product of supernatural omniscient intelligence. I treat it as the product of natural human intelligence. The writers were inspired by their experience of God, but they were ordinary fallible humans. The six day creation may have had something to do with the seven day ritual week which seems to have been central to the pattern of living that they believed God had revealed to them.
I also accepted your viewpoint until I discovered that something I assumed to be impossible was not.

Psyche by Virginia Moore

The Soul that has believed
and is deceived
thinks nothing for a while.
All thoughts are vile.
And then because the sun
is mute persuasion
And hope in Spring and Fall
Most natural,
The soul grows calm and mild,
a little child, Finding the pull of breath
Better than death…
The soul that had believed
and was deceived
Ends by believing more
than ever before.

Once burned, twice shy. I no longer jump to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 09:07 AM   #568
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I also accepted your viewpoint until I discovered that something I assumed to be impossible was not.

Psyche by Virginia Moore

The Soul that has believed
and is deceived
thinks nothing for a while.
All thoughts are vile.
And then because the sun
is mute persuasion
And hope in Spring and Fall
Most natural,
The soul grows calm and mild,
a little child, Finding the pull of breath
Better than death…
The soul that had believed
and was deceived
Ends by believing more
than ever before.

Once burned, twice shy. I no longer jump to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.
Magical realism :

"what happens when a highly detailed, realistic setting is invaded by something too strange to believe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 11:51 AM   #569
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I don't have anything invested in the gap theory as a doctrine, nor do I "need" to believe it.

I do believe in examining the word of God. I do believe in putting the word of God under intense scrutiny. When God said He didn't create the earth waste and void I feel that is a crystal clear reference to Genesis 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
I already cited this translation which I think clears that problem up without a hidden time interval:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPS
1 When God began to create heaven and earth— 2 the earth being un-formed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— 3 God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 01:20 PM   #570
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang
I'm sorry, I looked at 10 translations and couldn't find this one which says "God began to create".

The translations that I have come to trust all say "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Based on those translations the heavens and earth were created prior to God saying "let there be light".

So perhaps you can tell us what this special translation is that you are using and why you think it is more accurate than the standard ones?
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 01:34 PM   #571
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang
I find this quite humorous. This so-called "desperation" in all those who happen to read the Bible. It just ain't so!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 03:45 PM   #572
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I also accepted your viewpoint until I discovered that something I assumed to be impossible was not.

Psyche by Virginia Moore

The Soul that has believed
and is deceived
thinks nothing for a while.
All thoughts are vile.
And then because the sun
is mute persuasion
And hope in Spring and Fall
Most natural,
The soul grows calm and mild,
a little child, Finding the pull of breath
Better than death…
The soul that had believed
and was deceived
Ends by believing more
than ever before.

Once burned, twice shy. I no longer jump to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.
Let me see if I follow what you are saying. You used to think like me, but then you discovered something in the Bible that you had previously thought was impossible and as a result you no longer think you're right and the Bible is wrong. Is that what you're saying?

I don't think of myself as right and the Bible wrong. I hadn't thought of looking at it that way until I read your post.

The Bible is what it is--the sacred canon of the Christian church. The question is what does it mean? How should I understand it? How can I understand it? And, I tried to explain how I am doing that currently in my previous post.

How I look at the Bible has changed based on my study and experience over the years and I expect it will continue to change as I go on. According to what you said above, your view of the Bible has changed over time as well, but apparently in a different way than mine has.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 04:25 PM   #573
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang
Like I said below, I view the opening chapters of Genesis not as God’s account of creation but as ancient Israel’s stories of creation. Most ancient cultures had such stories and I described a few on another post. Not surprisingly, as a pre-scientific writings, the chances that ancient Israel’s stories of creation would contain scientifically accurate information are extremely low. I look at them as metaphorical or symbolic narratives, not as literally factual accounts. But, that doesn't imply that they aren't profoundly meaningful.

So, unlike the gap theorists, I'm not trying to find Darwin's theory or the Big Bang or shifting tectonic plates in Genesis One or to reconcile it with such modern scientific theories. I do try to understand what the author is getting at and like I said below, I suppose that the author was implying that Israel's way of life was divinely established by God in the way he created the cosmos. The six days of creation and and God's rest on the seventh day are significant examples.

Perhaps it is especially meaningful that the author ascribes the creation of light to God's speaking rather than to the sun and the stars. Many of the ancient cultures actually worshiped the sun and the stars as gods. And it symbolizes the way God's word brings enlightenment. So this may be something uniquely Judaic. What do you think?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 04:28 PM   #574
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Let me see if I follow what you are saying. You used to think like me, but the you discovered something in it that you had previously thought was impossible and as a result you no longer think you're right and the Bible is wrong. Is that what you're saying?

I don't think of myself as right and the Bible wrong. I hadn't thought of looking at it that way until I read your post.

The Bible is what it is--the sacred canon of the Christian church. The question is what does it mean? How should I understand it? How can I understand it? And, I tried to explain how I am doing that currently in my previous post.

How I look at the Bible has changed based on my study and experience over the years and I expect it will continue to change as I go on. According to what you said above, your view of the Bible has changed over time as well, but apparently in a different way than mine has.
There have been times when I was seduced into thinking, "yeah, that can't be right" only to later find out, oops, it can be. So now I take the Bible at its word, and say to myself "how do you explain this?"

Since we are talking about Noah's flood on the other thread, that is a good example.

It didn't make any sense to me, even if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights it didn't seem that the whole Noah's ark thing would work. A flash flood is not like a bathtub filling up, it is like a whitewater river that would cause the boat to be dragged and flipped.

But then in 1996 I read about the Black Sea being flooded by the ocean and I thought, OK, that could explain the boat. But it didn't really explain the rest. Why 40 days and 40 nights of rain in that region of the country?

But then about six years later they discovered the meteor crater in the Indian ocean and tied it into the deposits on Madagascar and dated it to virtually the same time.

So then it seemed much closer to the story, that would be a global flood, that could explain 40 days and 40 nights of rain, it could explain many other civilizations talking about floods and it could have been the event that caused the Black Sea to flood.

But it still didn't explain how the water could have gone over the highest peaks. Everyone knows that the highest peaks are the Himalayas, and even if this thing were 10 times higher than the last tsunami it would not be anywhere close to explaining that.

But then they discovered the biggest flood in human history, 500 cubic miles of water being released from a high mountain pass in the Himalayas, again at this time.

Even so there are other problems. I knew that all the animals on Earth had not been killed, neither had all the people. So I went back and reread it and realized, oops, it didn't actually say that. It sounded like it, I could easily see how it had been misread, but if you look more carefully it most definitely did not say that.

My error was that I assumed the parts that seemed utterly impossible were impossible, when in fact that was a very accurate description of what took place. My second error was assuming the part that everyone knew to be true, that the Bible said all men died, that was not what it said.

I find every time I think the Bible is wrong and I am right, I wind up playing the fool. But then once you come to believe things you thought were utterly impossible actually did happen exactly as the Bible said, well then it is a lot easier to believe every word.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 04:33 PM   #575
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang
Suppose this is the movies, you walk into the dimly lit room where the seriously depressed drug addict has been holed up for the last two weeks. What is the first thing they do? "Let there be light" they pull back the curtains.

You see this same scene play out a hundred times, but for some reason you can't see it with God?
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 07:11 PM   #576
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Suppose this is the movies, you walk into the dimly lit room where the seriously depressed drug addict has been holed up for the last two weeks. What is the first thing they do? "Let there be light" they pull back the curtains.

You see this same scene play out a hundred times, but for some reason you can't see it with God?
That's a cute way to put it, that God just pulled back the curtain, as in he had the light behind curtains all along ... a pre-existing light perhaps. It's not Biblically based, but cute nonetheless. I'm starting to warm up to your imaginative style. Please be patient with me. I'm still working on my psyche.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 08:41 PM   #577
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
The question is what does it mean? How should I understand it? How can I understand it?
And more than anything else, how can I apply it to my life today? And why is it is so important that the Bible aligns with science? That seems to be superfluous mind baggage to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
How I look at the Bible has changed based on my study and experience over the years ...
And oddly enough, after decades of no contact with each other, when we reconnected we had gone thru similar ways of learning, subject matter, and thinking. The reconnect has proven to be a real blessing for me ... tho maybe frustrating the hell out of him.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 09:20 PM   #578
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
There have been times when I was seduced into thinking, "yeah, that can't be right" only to later find out, oops, it can be. So now I take the Bible at its word, and say to myself "how do you explain this?"

Since we are talking about Noah's flood on the other thread, that is a good example.

It didn't make any sense to me, even if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights it didn't seem that the whole Noah's ark thing would work. A flash flood is not like a bathtub filling up, it is like a whitewater river that would cause the boat to be dragged and flipped.

But then in 1996 I read about the Black Sea being flooded by the ocean and I thought, OK, that could explain the boat. But it didn't really explain the rest. Why 40 days and 40 nights of rain in that region of the country?

But then about six years later they discovered the meteor crater in the Indian ocean and tied it into the deposits on Madagascar and dated it to virtually the same time.

So then it seemed much closer to the story, that would be a global flood, that could explain 40 days and 40 nights of rain, it could explain many other civilizations talking about floods and it could have been the event that caused the Black Sea to flood.

But it still didn't explain how the water could have gone over the highest peaks. Everyone knows that the highest peaks are the Himalayas, and even if this thing were 10 times higher than the last tsunami it would not be anywhere close to explaining that.

But then they discovered the biggest flood in human history, 500 cubic miles of water being released from a high mountain pass in the Himalayas, again at this time.

Even so there are other problems. I knew that all the animals on Earth had not been killed, neither had all the people. So I went back and reread it and realized, oops, it didn't actually say that. It sounded like it, I could easily see how it had been misread, but if you look more carefully it most definitely did not say that.

My error was that I assumed the parts that seemed utterly impossible were impossible, when in fact that was a very accurate description of what took place. My second error was assuming the part that everyone knew to be true, that the Bible said all men died, that was not what it said.

I find every time I think the Bible is wrong and I am right, I wind up playing the fool. But then once you come to believe things you thought were utterly impossible actually did happen exactly as the Bible said, well then it is a lot easier to believe every word.
Please cite peer reviewed scientific papers so that I can make an independent evaluation of your claims.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 04:18 AM   #579
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
That's a cute way to put it, that God just pulled back the curtain, as in he had the light behind curtains all along ... a pre-existing light perhaps. It's not Biblically based, but cute nonetheless. I'm starting to warm up to your imaginative style. Please be patient with me. I'm still working on my psyche.
Whenever a super volcano erupts or a large meteorite strikes the earth it fills the atmosphere with dust that blocks the sun. This is why we saw a small cooling after Mt. Pinatubo erupted. This is simply Geology 101
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 04:41 AM   #580
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Please cite peer reviewed scientific papers so that I can make an independent evaluation of your claims.
Black Sea Deluge

https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/revie..._sea_45589.pdf

Burckle Crater

http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPap...ter/Weaver.pdf

Himalaya Flood

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3673729?...n_tab_contents

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7640de2509.pdf

Holocene Monsoon in India

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/12/1083.short
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 05:14 AM   #581
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Thank you. I skimmed the articles. It seems the authors argue that various catastrophic floods which may have "remained in the collective memory leading to the creation of flood myths that are common in many early cultures" as the author states in the first article. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. It's a far cry from affirming the historicity of Noah's flood as depicted in Genesis.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 05:40 AM   #582
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
And more than anything else, how can I apply it to my life today? And why is it is so important that the Bible aligns with science? That seems to be superfluous mind baggage to me.


And oddly enough, after decades of no contact with each other, when we reconnected we had gone thru similar ways of learning, subject matter, and thinking. The reconnect has proven to be a real blessing for me ... tho maybe frustrating the hell out of him.
We're alike in that we're both "misfits". But, I've only been married twice. You've got me beat there.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 05:50 AM   #583
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Thank you. I skimmed the articles. It seems the authors argue that various catastrophic floods which may have "remained in the collective memory leading to the creation of flood myths that are common in many early cultures" as the author states in the first article. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. It's a far cry from affirming the historicity of Noah's flood in Genesis.
It would be virtually impossible for a scientist to "affirm the historicity of Noah's flood".

1. We are not clear precisely when Noah's flood was based on the Bible.

2. Our dating methods using radiometric dating can be plus or minus a thousand years. That is perfectly precise for geologic uses, but could hardly confirm three cataclysmic floods were part of the same event in human history

3. Other forms of dating, more typical in dating the sediments deposited by a flood are relative dating, even less precise.

Therefore any legitimate scientist would never say that "this event is that flood".

I also have repeatedly predicated my statements saying that I don't know what happened.

What I do know did happen is that there was a flood that went over the highest peaks on Earth, very similar to what is recorded in the account of Noah.

What I do know is that an entire civilization surrounding the "Black Sea lake" was completely wiped from the face of the earth. Similar to the account in Noah.

What I do know is that it is highly likely, even evidence strongly supports that there was an extremely strong monsoon like event during this same time period, similar to the 40 days and nights of rain referred to in the account of Noah's flood.

What I do know for a fact is that anyone who claims the account given in the Bible is "impossible" is a fool. All of those events did happen during human history and would have appeared as recorded in the Bible.

What I and all other scientists cannot tell you is what year did it happen, and were all three events interconnected?

Therefore, as far as it is possible science has confirmed the account of Noah's flood. Obviously finding the boat would be a great archaeological find and would also confirm that aspect of the story.

To the extent that science has not confirmed the story of Noah, it is not because of any issue with the Bible but because of the shortcomings in our scientific techniques.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 07:16 AM   #584
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus4Me View Post
As much as false science wants people to read the Bible as a fairy tale, and thus the rest of the Bible with skepticism as if written by fallible men, it is too bad that the skeptics do not apply that same standard to the falliblity of men in the false science that is the evolution theory.
Going back to the original post by Jesus4Me, I think we can agree that if there is a "false science" there is also a true science, just as there are false prophets and true prophets. Paul would not refer to stuff "falsely called science" if it were not possible to be "truly science".

I think this is an example of how true science, no agenda to either prove or disprove the Bible, can show that the Bible is not a "fairy tale" but rather a very useful and descriptive account of the absolute worst natural disaster in recorded human history, and also possibly the best most formative natural event in human history (some theorize that the spread of agricultural revolution across the globe coincided with this event -- I can certainly imagine that those who survived might have preferred to populate areas further from the sea).
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 08:13 AM   #585
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Going back to the original post by Jesus4Me, I think we can agree that if there is a "false science" there is also a true science, just as there are false prophets and true prophets. Paul would not refer to stuff "falsely called science" if it were not possible to be "truly science".

I think this is an example of how true science, no agenda to either prove or disprove the Bible, can show that the Bible is not a "fairy tale" but rather a very useful and descriptive account of the absolute worst natural disaster in recorded human history, and also possibly the best most formative natural event in human history (some theorize that the spread of agricultural revolution across the globe coincided with this event -- I can certainly imagine that those who survived might have preferred to populate areas further from the sea).
That's an incredible leap of faith. You just admitted in the previous post that "It would be virtually impossible for a scientist to 'affirm the historicity of Noah's flood'." This is what I meant when I referred to your need to substantiate the historical and scientific accuracy of Bible stories. Your thinking seems to be motivated by need to reduce the cognitive dissonance between your religion and your scientific knowledge. How is the Noah flood any better than the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or other ancient flood myths from a scientific point of view?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 11:31 AM   #586
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
That's an incredible leap of faith. You just admitted in the previous post that "It would be virtually impossible for a scientist to 'affirm the historicity of Noah's flood'." This is what I meant when I referred to your need to substantiate the historical and scientific accuracy of Bible stories. Your thinking seems to be motivated by need to reduce the cognitive dissonance between your religion and your scientific knowledge. How is the Noah flood any better than the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or other ancient flood myths from a scientific point of view?
This thread was formed by someone other than me. I did not see the need for it. I respond to those who claim that the Bible is a fairy tale or disproved by science. That is not true. But out of 2,600+ posts maybe 2% are science related. That is not evidence of some need to substantiate the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible stories but rather the willingness to defend the gospel. 98% of my posts do not do this.

I said that it is impossible for science to confirm the account of Noah because we cannot accurately date these events down to a single year.

However, science can confirm that the description "the heavens were opened" is an accurate description of what the Earth would be like after an asteroid of this size hits the Indian Ocean. Science can confirm that when you get rain of that magnitude there will be flooding of all rivers, streams, lakes, etc. That would be very tough for any agricultural society.

Science can also confirm the report that the flood came down from the highest peaks on earth. That also did happen. 500 cubic miles, that is 1000 miles by 132 miles by 20 feet. Imagine a sheet of water 20 feet deep, 1,000 miles wide and 132 miles deep sweeping across India from the Himalaya mountains. This would be something that no one could forget and would certainly write about if they survived.

Science can also confirm a catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea where the water rose 500 feet in an incredibly rapid way, the force of the water rushing in is estimated to be 400 times more powerful than Niagra falls.

Science can also confirm that in the case of the Black Sea flooding the large boat might be an effective strategy to weather the storm. It would not have been effective in a Tsunami or Ice dam collapse.

The Tsunami, the Black Sea, the flood from the Himalayas, the monsoon like rain. All of these would be so extreme that no one would ever forget. They would enter our written record of human civilization.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 03:43 PM   #587
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
All of these would be so extreme that no one would ever forget. They would enter our written record of human civilization.
As I pointed out the "written record" came thousands of years after the supposed event. And memory during the millennia would typically become ever more fantastical. As is the case.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 06:34 PM   #588
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
As I pointed out the "written record" came thousands of years after the supposed event. And memory during the millennia would typically become ever more fantastical. As is the case.
It doesn't appear to be "fantastical".

The Black Sea region experienced a rapid 500 foot rise in water level.

500 cubic miles of water from the Himalaya mtns would be a wall of water 20 feet high, 1,000 miles by 132 miles. A flash flood rolling off the Himalayas and across India doesn't seem anymore fantastical than the record.

The water that would have been shot into the atmosphere and then come back down as 40 days and nights of rain appears to be an accurate depiction.

It seems to me that whoever did the writing did a very thorough and accurate job of collecting the witnesses.

They say the "heavens were opened" -- sounds like a reasonable description.

They also say the fountains of the deep were broken up. This sounds to me like volcanos, which is certainly something we would expect from an impact this powerful, though of course it could also refer to the Tsunami.

There were five volcanos that erupted at 4200 BCE, for a total of roughly 350 cubic km of material.

But which part of the record do you find "fantastical"? It seems like all of these descriptions have been confirmed as accurate.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 09:54 PM   #589
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
500 cubic miles of water from the Himalaya mtns would be a wall of water 20 feet high, 1,000 miles by 132 miles. A flash flood rolling off the Himalayas and across India doesn't seem anymore fantastical than the record.
I perceive it farfetched that water running from the Himalayas would result in flooding 15 cubits above the mountains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNP
It seems to me that whoever did the writing did a very thorough and accurate job of collecting the witnesses.
Oh yeah, those 4000+ yr old witnesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNP
They also say the fountains of the deep were broken up. This sounds to me like volcanos
Volcanoes shooting water not hot lava. Sounds like a stretch to make things fit to me.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 05:55 AM   #590
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I perceive it farfetched that water running from the Himalayas would result in flooding 15 cubits above the mountains.


Oh yeah, those 4000+ yr old witnesses.


Volcanoes shooting water not hot lava. Sounds like a stretch to make things fit to me.
Those 4,000 year old witnesses have been scrutinized longer and more thoroughly than any other.

Where do you think we got water from in the first place? Water in "fountains of the deep" was a major scientific discovery just this year.

Those that claim the Bible thumpers run from science are actually those who don't even know the science.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 07:47 AM   #591
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I'm sorry, I looked at 10 translations and couldn't find this one which says "God began to create".

The translations that I have come to trust all say "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Based on those translations the heavens and earth were created prior to God saying "let there be light".

So perhaps you can tell us what this special translation is that you are using and why you think it is more accurate than the standard ones?
You addressed this question to Harold but I was the one who cited this translation. When I quoted it I included the Kindle Edition citation i.e. :
Quote:
Inc., Jewish Publication Society. JPS TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures (blue): The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (p. 3). The Jewish Publication Society. Kindle Edition.
Given that citation, I'm surprised you couldn't find it. Here it is on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/JPS-TANAKH-Sc...eywords=tanakh

I'm not a Hebrew scholar so I didn't claim that this translation is more accurate then others. I did state that it provides a plausible rendering of the Genesis 1:1-3 that doesn't necessitate correcting the author by inserting a vast and mysterious time interval into the text.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 01:23 PM   #592
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
i.e. : Given that citation, I'm surprised you couldn't find it. Here it is on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/JPS-TANAKH-Sc...eywords=tanakh
Don't do it ZNP. Amazon is asking $12.00 and I can tell you how to get it for free, and over 40 other translations. Hit me in PMs if interested.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 08:57 PM   #593
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
As I pointed out the "written record" came thousands of years after the supposed event. And memory during the millennia would typically become ever more fantastical. As is the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNP
It doesn't appear to be "fantastical".
When you put it that way Star Wars isn't fantastical.

There's prolly as much fantastical in both. But this thread is not about the Bible v. Science Fiction. Or is it?
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2017, 03:03 PM   #594
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 10,074
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Those 4,000 year old witnesses have been scrutinized longer and more thoroughly than any other.

Where do you think we got water from in the first place? Water in "fountains of the deep" was a major scientific discovery just this year.

Those that claim the Bible thumpers run from science are actually those who don't even know the science.
ZNP, where can I read more?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2017, 03:07 PM   #595
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
ZNP, where can I read more?
You've stated that you don't read links ... or books ... something about eyes getting tired. But I would read more. I'll read anything. I'm open like a garbage can ... haha
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2017, 04:52 PM   #596
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
ZNP, where can I read more?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1265
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 03:41 PM   #597
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

In my opinion the Bible is a faithful witness and provides us with an extremely valuable accounts of what took place at the beginning of human civilization. This should be true for any investigator regardless of whether or not they accept that the book is the word of God.

So then, according to this account something really important, revolutionary, happened at the time of Adam. They tell us several things, first, Man begins to look at nature as a "garden to tend" rather than simply seeking your next meal, you take ownership and responsibility for the outcome. that is very revolutionary. Also, man begins to name every single animal and observe their characteristics. Third, man begins to raise domesticated sheep and goats.

I would then look at the archaeological record and see that at this time, when man began to domesticate sheep and goats it was approximately the beginning of the agricultural revolution. You could argue that wild cereal grains were domesticated a little earlier, but the initial process is done by hunter gatherers. They gather the biggest grains, bring them back to camp, some spill and next year when they return to the same campsite they will have sprouted up. Do this for a few hundred years and your campsite will have become a farm with cereals that have been selectively bred to have larger grains. Maybe after a thousand years of this they realize that they can domesticate, and selectively breed the plants they want. Hence they go from "gatherers" to farmers "tending" the garden.

Based on this there is a very nice correlation to the archaeological record 8,000 years ago and Adam, and Abel.

Also, the process of farming would require a much more sophisticated language, community, and division of labor.

All that is fine, but then I would be very intrigued that the ancient account refers to this as "the first man". What do they mean by that? You have the first farmer, we can all see that, you have the first shepherd, we can all see that, you even have the first written language. But why the first man?

I would think any genuine scientist without an agenda would ask these questions.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 09:59 PM   #598
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
In my opinion the Bible is a faithful witness and provides us with an extremely valuable accounts of what took place at the beginning of human civilization. This should be true for any investigator regardless of whether or not they accept that the book is the word of God.

So then, according to this account something really important, revolutionary, happened at the time of Adam. They tell us several things, first, Man begins to look at nature as a "garden to tend" rather than simply seeking your next meal, you take ownership and responsibility for the outcome. that is very revolutionary. Also, man begins to name every single animal and observe their characteristics. Third, man begins to raise domesticated sheep and goats.

I would then look at the archaeological record and see that at this time, when man began to domesticate sheep and goats it was approximately the beginning of the agricultural revolution. You could argue that wild cereal grains were domesticated a little earlier, but the initial process is done by hunter gatherers. They gather the biggest grains, bring them back to camp, some spill and next year when they return to the same campsite they will have sprouted up. Do this for a few hundred years and your campsite will have become a farm with cereals that have been selectively bred to have larger grains. Maybe after a thousand years of this they realize that they can domesticate, and selectively breed the plants they want. Hence they go from "gatherers" to farmers "tending" the garden.

Based on this there is a very nice correlation to the archaeological record 8,000 years ago and Adam, and Abel.

Also, the process of farming would require a much more sophisticated language, community, and division of labor.

All that is fine, but then I would be very intrigued that the ancient account refers to this as "the first man". What do they mean by that? You have the first farmer, we can all see that, you have the first shepherd, we can all see that, you even have the first written language. But why the first man?

I would think any genuine scientist without an agenda would ask these questions.
Interesting rundown but anachronistic. Agriculture didn't start with the first pair of humans. The story is being told backwards ... and can't help but to be full of assumptions about our beginnings. The agricultural revolution came thousands of years before this story was written. The author(s) looked back and thought it all began from the beginning.

But it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of years passed before the advent of totalitarian agriculture, and resulting civilization ... the times when this story was being told and written.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 11:47 PM   #599
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Interesting rundown but anachronistic. Agriculture didn't start with the first pair of humans. The story is being told backwards ... and can't help but to be full of assumptions about our beginnings. The agricultural revolution came thousands of years before this story was written. The author(s) looked back and thought it all began from the beginning.

But it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of years passed before the advent of totalitarian agriculture, and resulting civilization ... the times when this story was being told and written.
awareness, are you a scientist like ZNP? where is this coming from , your own learning/study or some particular book?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 04:40 AM   #600
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Interesting rundown but anachronistic. Agriculture didn't start with the first pair of humans. The story is being told backwards ... and can't help but to be full of assumptions about our beginnings. The agricultural revolution came thousands of years before this story was written. The author(s) looked back and thought it all began from the beginning.

But it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of years passed before the advent of totalitarian agriculture, and resulting civilization ... the times when this story was being told and written.
Estimates are that cereal grains were first domesticated about 10,000 years ago, and sheep and goats were first domesticated about 8,000 years ago.

However, if you read Jared Diamond's books he describes the process by which hunter gatherers would have first "domesticated" cereal grains. On any stalk you will see grains of differing sizes, humans would have picked the biggest, gathered them and taken them back to camp. Some of these would have been spilled while eating, preparing or using the latrine. A year later when this troop of hunter gatherers returned to this campsite they would find these grains having grown up a their campsite. This process of choosing the biggest and best seeds to eat would have been repeated each year. So then the first thousand years of "domesticated" grains might have been done by hunter gatherers and not those who had made the switch. It is a big change to go from a nomadic existence to building a farm and a barn. Presumably you would need a potentially very successful farm to warrant that change.

Herding sheep would have been the "big" breakthrough as far as convincing your typical hunter gatherer to switch because wool, clothes, milk, cheese and meat would have been major draws, not to mention the fact that fermented grains should have also been discovered by this point.

Also, after a catastrophic flood that wipes out much of the wild game yet leaves the land wide open for planting should have given those making the switch a leg up. Since all those barn animals can eat the grasses you are growing the flood would have really paved the way for ranchers and farmers. The three events that were at approximately the same time (perhaps even the same time) were around 7,500 years ago.

Also, this is not "my" theory. The people studying the flooding of the Black Sea have pointed out the correlation with the rapid spread of the agricultural revolution in the area and they are the ones who have suggested the possible link.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 07:19 AM   #601
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
awareness, are you a scientist like ZNP? where is this coming from , your own learning/study or some particular book?
Thanks for asking brother Evangelical. If I'm a scientist of any sort, since I started my life long career at IBM, it would be computer science.

But I've been an avid reader all my life, or most of it anyway. And where "this is coming from" is from all my reading.

Why, do you disagree with my statement that agriculture didn't begin with the first pair?

Thanks again ...
Harold
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 07:40 AM   #602
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Thanks for asking brother Evangelical. If I'm a scientist of any sort, since I started my life long career at IBM, it would be computer science.

But I've been an avid reader all my life, or most of it anyway. And where "this is coming from" is from all my reading.

Why, do you disagree with my statement that agriculture didn't begin with the first pair?

Thanks again ...
Harold
The archaeological evidence is pretty solid that hunter gatherer societies were the first to "selectively breed" plants. By collecting the ones they wanted and having the seeds pass through them in the latrine near their campsite their campsites would yield varieties of the plants that were progressively more and more domesticated for human consumption.

That would not yet be the move to an agrarian society. Once you have a farm house, a town, a dwelling where you live 12 months a year, and a barn to store your crops/seeds, then that would be the transition.

It is possible that this first town was established by one family.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 11:44 AM   #603
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
The archaeological evidence is pretty solid that hunter gatherer societies were the first to "selectively breed" plants. By collecting the ones they wanted and having the seeds pass through them in the latrine near their campsite their campsites would yield varieties of the plants that were progressively more and more domesticated for human consumption.

That would not yet be the move to an agrarian society. Once you have a farm house, a town, a dwelling where you live 12 months a year, and a barn to store your crops/seeds, then that would be the transition.

It is possible that this first town was established by one family.
It's also possible, likely even, that the transition to agriculture took place when powers that be learned that food is a great way to control people. There's even a name for it. It's called Totalitarian Agriculture. That's when we told God to get screwed. That we no longer leave it up to Him to provide, that, we can do it for ourselves.

And we still do it today. The hunter-gatherers are now at Walmart.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 06:28 PM   #604
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
It's also possible, likely even, that the transition to agriculture took place when powers that be learned that food is a great way to control people. There's even a name for it. It's called Totalitarian Agriculture. That's when we told God to get screwed. That we no longer leave it up to Him to provide, that, we can do it for ourselves.

And we still do it today. The hunter-gatherers are now at Walmart.
Hunting is the sport of kings.

Early agriculture was a matter of necessity, not choice. Archaeologists have found that hunter gatherers were bigger and healthier than the early adopters of agriculture. Early farmers got most of their calories from a very few starchy crops which led to malnutrition. They risked famine if a crop failed. A lot more pestilence from living in crowded, dirty little towns.

Many people believe the biggest technological advancement in human history is modern plumbing.

Hunter gatherers have a healthier lifestyle, they always eat fresh food, they always eat a healthy variety of food.

As a result of the agricultural revolution we have had to learn about nutrition, e have had to learn about sanitation, and we have had to learn governing. But as we do that we become less and less like the primates. A tribe of homo sapiens living as hunter gatherers are not that different from a troop of chimpanzees. But, a city of homo sapiens with modern sanitation, trucking in food from all over the country, sold at the local Walmart, dealing with all the dirty laundry of government (all 2,000 pounds of it) do not look anything like a troop of chimpanzees, they are men.

Yes, hunter gatherers can discover the little animals go crazy when they eat beans from a coffee plant. But if it was not for the agricultural revolution we would never have discovered espresso. Without a vision we would have perished.

I view our 6,000 years of human history much like the 12-16-20 years of school we go through now. In 1900 I think about 10% of the US population graduated HS. Today we have more than that with a Master's, Phd or professional degree. It took us about 100 years for our country to come up with public elementary school for all, now we are discussing making college the same as elementary, JHS, and HS. Hunter gatherers don't need to read to thrive, today if you can't read it is difficult to function in society.

Like it or not we are being made into the image of the incarnated word.

Without the agricultural revolution we wouldn't have chili cheese fries or open heart surgery.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 08:00 PM   #605
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Thanks for asking brother Evangelical. If I'm a scientist of any sort, since I started my life long career at IBM, it would be computer science.

But I've been an avid reader all my life, or most of it anyway. And where "this is coming from" is from all my reading.

Why, do you disagree with my statement that agriculture didn't begin with the first pair?

Thanks again ...
Harold
No, you just seemed well read on the subject.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 09:51 PM   #606
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

It seems we have a few themes here.

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 10:41 PM   #607
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post
It seems we have a few themes here.

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.
There is a fourth one - modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible. This is the approach taken by "creation scientists". My view is the third one, which one do you believe?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 08:02 AM   #608
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind
It seems we have a few themes here.

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
There is a fourth one - modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible. This is the approach taken by "creation scientists". My view is the third one, which one do you believe?
First, thanks Intothewid for simplifying this thread.

So Evan, you'd modify it to read :
1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

4. Modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible.
I'd go with 3 with a caveat. The Bible isn't unsalvageable as a spiritual book. But it's not a science research reference book.

As to choice 4. That seems unrealistic. Who would want to do it? And would there be enough of them to be able to pull it off?

But it does make me wonder. Which branches of science would have any interest in what the Bible says at all? My guess is a few. Maybe scientists that like to dig for stuff. But they'll use all the ancient writings. All writings reveal information about places and times they were written during. The Bible isn't special there.

I don't think it's the scientists that are concerned with the Bible aligning with science.

That's a concern only of the Bibleists. And their influence is waning.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 10:43 AM   #609
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
First, thanks Intothewid for simplifying this thread.

So Evan, you'd modify it to read :
1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

4. Modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible.
I'd go with 3 with a caveat. The Bible isn't unsalvageable as a spiritual book. But it's not a science research reference book.

As to choice 4. That seems unrealistic. Who would want to do it? And would there be enough of them to be able to pull it off?

But it does make me wonder. Which branches of science would have any interest in what the Bible says at all? My guess is a few. Maybe scientists that like to dig for stuff. But they'll use all the ancient writings. All writings reveal information about places and times they were written during. The Bible isn't special there.

I don't think it's the scientists that are concerned with the Bible aligning with science.

That's a concern only of the Bibleists. And their influence is waning.
You realize of course that option 2 is what scientists do. Originally they thought the earth was flat, then modified that as more information came along, they thought the earth was at the center of the universe, again modified that as more information comes along. Hence the Pessimistic Meta-Induction.

Everyone in science understands that the process of getting these theories correct is just that, a process. So then why is it that those who are using science to claim the Bible is not an accurate account treat modifying the interpretation of the Bible as some form of cheating? You aren't modifying the words of the Bible, you aren't modifying the translation of the Bible, you are merely realizing an old interpretation is flawed.

"Perhaps the history of errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities." (Benjamin Franklin -- 1784)
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 01:36 PM   #610
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
"Perhaps the history of errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities." (Benjamin Franklin -- 1784)
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches

I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his [Jesus] Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
-Benjamin Franklin
As I was saying, the scientific mind has no time for the Bible and the supernatural.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 04:42 PM   #611
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches

I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his [Jesus] Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
-Benjamin Franklin
As I was saying, the scientific mind has no time for the Bible and the supernatural.
I agree, why would your average typical scientist try to prove or disprove the Bible? The Bible is nothing to science. So I have this question for ZNPaaneah - the bible does not seem to add anything novel or significant that can not be already obtained from the fossil record. So why do you need "fossil record + bible" ?

I believe your motivation is based upon the faulty assumption that proving the bible to be scientifically accurate means it is also spiritually accurate. There is nothing to say that the Bible cannot both be scientifically inaccurate and spiritually accurate.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 05:03 AM   #612
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I agree, why would your average typical scientist try to prove or disprove the Bible? The Bible is nothing to science. So I have this question for ZNPaaneah - the bible does not seem to add anything novel or significant that can not be already obtained from the fossil record. So why do you need "fossil record + bible" ?
Really, an eyewitness account to the events "adds nothing"? To be able to get an accurate description of the events that corresponds to what we see in the fossil record helps us interpret what happened. We have never seen what happens when a meteorite of this magnitude hits the ocean. We can calculate the force, we can estimate the resulting tsunami, the resulting seismic impact, the resulting water sent into the atmosphere. But to hear the account of "40 days and nights" of rain gives us a detail we could never be able to discern from the fossil record. Do you realize we have two different scales for measuring earthquakes, one "the richter scale" is based on data we get from seismograms. But what about earthquakes that took place prior to the invention of a seismogram? For those we use written records, generally from monks. We can then correlate "church bells ringing" with a certain level on the richter scale, "some damage", "severe damage", etc. So instead of 80+ years of data we can now look at thousands of years of data and get much better picture of the pattern of earthquakes. Let's be honest, you don't really know anything about science do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I believe your motivation is based upon the faulty assumption that proving the bible to be scientifically accurate means it is also spiritually accurate. There is nothing to say that the Bible cannot both be scientifically inaccurate and spiritually accurate.
Yes, you are working on a faulty assumption. I have determined, independently from any scientific evidence, that the Bible is true. Because I believe the Bible is spiritually true, the word of God, the word of the one who created the universe, I also believe that there is light and inspiration in the word that can help me in my scientific endeavors.

Several examples

1. I was at Rice university in the 70s, there was a scientist there going to Antarctica studying global warming (what we called it back then). At the time the prevailing thought was that this was a minor deal. But, when I read some verses in Revelation that was the first time I realized that global warming was going to be a really big issue.

2. Geologists did not really embrace the theory of plate tectonics until after the invention of sonar and the mapping of the ocean bottom after WWII. However, Paul referred to this in his epistles.

3. Likewise the Big Bang theory is a very modern theory only recently accepted, yet it also was described in the Bible.

4. Any geologist who read the account of Noah would immediately think it was impossible. Not just that there could have been a flood that big, but that it could have happened this recently without our knowledge. Yet, 30 years later it seems we have found so much evidence to support the account that it seems absurd for any credible scientist to dispute it anymore.

In the 70s scientists assumed all of these "myths" were fanciful imaginations based very, very loosely on reality. Today we have come to the conclusion that we need to reassess everything we once thought of as a "myth".

Augustine said that error is essential to who we are. I have found out more about who you, and Awareness and Zeek are from your error on this topic. In fact, I would say this thread is essential to understanding who you are.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 06:16 AM   #613
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Really, an eyewitness account to the events "adds nothing"? To be able to get an accurate description of the events that corresponds to what we see in the fossil record helps us interpret what happened. We have never seen what happens when a meteorite of this magnitude hits the ocean. We can calculate the force, we can estimate the resulting tsunami, the resulting seismic impact, the resulting water sent into the atmosphere. But to hear the account of "40 days and nights" of rain gives us a detail we could never be able to discern from the fossil record. Do you realize we have two different scales for measuring earthquakes, one "the richter scale" is based on data we get from seismograms. But what about earthquakes that took place prior to the invention of a seismogram? For those we use written records, generally from monks. We can then correlate "church bells ringing" with a certain level on the richter scale, "some damage", "severe damage", etc. So instead of 80+ years of data we can now look at thousands of years of data and get much better picture of the pattern of earthquakes. Let's be honest, you don't really know anything about science do you?
The problem for you is that according to the Bible Noah was not an eyewitness. He was safely shut into an ark with no windows (except one at the top), and did not emerge until after the dry land appeared. That's what the Bible says. All the other witnesses around him in his local area perished (you believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors in his local area, right?). So there is no eyewitness account of Noah's flood in his area actually. The verses which describe the height of the flood could not have come from Noah, and they must not have been for his region.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 07:48 AM   #614
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
The problem for you is that according to the Bible Noah was not an eyewitness. He was safely shut into an ark with no windows (except one at the top), and did not emerge until after the dry land appeared. That's what the Bible says. All the other witnesses around him in his local area perished (you believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors in his local area, right?). So there is no eyewitness account of Noah's flood in his area actually. The verses which describe the height of the flood could not have come from Noah, and they must not have been for his region.
Wow, so if you don't actually look out the window at the rain then you aren't an eyewitness? What if he was able to hear it?

Being there doesn't count? He was unable to know that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? He was unable to know that the boat was carried along by the flood? He didn't know where the boat ended up? He didn't know what day it started, what day it stopped, and how many days before the water receded?

He wasn't able to view the aftermath? He didn't see or hear stories from others?

By your logic we should eliminate a vast majority of our historical records.

What is the point of reading Josephus?

Have you ever heard the expression that when you find you have put yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. You have just condemned all scientists and historians. We aren't "eye" witnesses, so therefore whatever witnesses we do find and piece together are apparently disqualified?
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 12:06 PM   #615
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

This just in: "SCIENCE THROWS IN TOWEL UPON DISCOVERY GOD CREATED EVERYTHING."
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 12:30 PM   #616
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
This just in: "SCIENCE THROWS IN TOWEL UPON DISCOVERY GOD CREATED EVERYTHING."
This is fake news. Science didn't get into the ring. Science has more important things to do than boxing with a book from the bronze and iron age.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2017, 09:12 PM   #617
Intothewind
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 241
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Evangelical: Ah yes, forgot about that one. 4 is pretty darn common as well.

I personally go with no. 3. It seems fairly clear that the Bible is historically as well as scientifically inaccurate, which is only to be expected. It may perhaps have utility to folks in some other ways, but it is not a particularly exceptional book in that regard either.
Intothewind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 06:58 AM   #618
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
This is fake news. Science didn't get into the ring. Science has more important things to do than boxing with a book from the bronze and iron age.
Yeah, it's fake news. It's a take on the notion of "Bible vs. Science. If fundamentalism wins, science loses.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 05:28 PM   #619
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Wow, so if you don't actually look out the window at the rain then you aren't an eyewitness? What if he was able to hear it?

Being there doesn't count? He was unable to know that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? He was unable to know that the boat was carried along by the flood? He didn't know where the boat ended up? He didn't know what day it started, what day it stopped, and how many days before the water receded?

He wasn't able to view the aftermath? He didn't see or hear stories from others?

By your logic we should eliminate a vast majority of our historical records.

What is the point of reading Josephus?

Have you ever heard the expression that when you find you have put yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. You have just condemned all scientists and historians. We aren't "eye" witnesses, so therefore whatever witnesses we do find and piece together are apparently disqualified?

40 days and 40 nights, yes, but not some of the other details.

I cannot see how Noah could have measured the flood's height to an accuracy of 1 cubit from behind a 1 cubit sized window. The flood's height must have come from other sources besides Noah. And doing all this without navigational equipment, without terrain maps, without a barometer to measure pressure height. If he did take any measurements, it was probably as he stretched out his arm and used his thumb as a measure. Not very scientific.

How did Noah know where he ended up if the Earth have looked vastly different after the flood to before it? Did Noah have a map? a compass? Noah had no navigational instruments. Noah was not tracking his location during the 40 days and 40 nights. So this information in the Bible could not have come from Noah.

Genesis 6:16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 08:19 PM   #620
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
40 days and 40 nights, yes, but not some of the other details.

I cannot see how Noah could have measured the flood's height to an accuracy of 1 cubit from behind a 1 cubit sized window. The flood's height must have come from other sources besides Noah.
Wow, OK, so this gives me a pretty good idea of your scientific acumen.

How do you think we know how high the Tsunami was in Indonesia? After Katrina cameras went into people's homes and they pointed at the water mark left on the wall. In Japan they pointed to the watermark in the nuclear power station. How do you think a scientist determines the height of flood when they weren't there?

I don't mind that you are ignorant, what I despise is how arrogantly you presume to know what you so obviously know nothing about. I don't care if you deceive yourself, what bothers me is that you are deceiving others as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
And doing all this without navigational equipment, without terrain maps, without a barometer to measure pressure height. If he did take any measurements, it was probably as he stretched out his arm and used his thumb as a measure. Not very scientific.
If Noah reported on the barometric pressure this might be relevant, but he didn't. His observations can be very valid, and very useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
How did Noah know where he ended up if the Earth have looked vastly different after the flood to before it? Did Noah have a map? a compass? Noah had no navigational instruments. Noah was not tracking his location during the 40 days and 40 nights. So this information in the Bible could not have come from Noah.
Genesis 6:16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.[/QUOTE]

The altitude of the North Star gives you your latitude. The ancients were much more aware of the stars as they lived outside. Mountains, oceans, and rivers act as landmarks. What is the point of this?
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 08:39 PM   #621
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

The problem is not solved just because you say "Noah witnessed the event".

You have not explained how Noah was able to measure that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits. Noah could not have measured that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits using the "water stain" method. This is because all the mountains were covered. He would have had to drop a depth line from the ark at the flood's peak. And the location of the ark would have had to have been over the top of the highest mountain. Unlikely since the ark had no rudder and Noah had no control over it. Impossible for him to measure given he was shut in. Noah could not even go fishing.

The Bible says Noah did not open a window until after 40 days (Genesis 8:6), so could not have directly witnessed the event. He could not have tracked his position using visual references or made measurements of the flood's depth during the event. Noah would not have been able to use star navigation as he would not have been able to see the stars because of the rain and cloud cover.

Noah could not have recognized where he was based upon the landmarks which presumably were not same after the flood as before. Did not the great flood re-shape the surface of the earth? So what was once familiar landmarks to Noah must have been a foreign wasteland. The ark would have traveled hundreds of miles and Noah would have found himself in a place he was not familiar with and did not recognize.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 09:14 PM   #622
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Noah would not have been able to use star navigation as he would not have been able to see the stars because of the rain and cloud cover.

The accuracy of star navigation is 1 nautical mile, not 1 cubit. There is no way Noah could have measured to that level of precision by guesstimating.

Noah could not have measured that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits using the "water stain" method. He would have had to drop a depth line from the ark at the flood's peak. Impossible for him given he was shut in. Noah could not even go fishing.

Noah was able to recognize where he was based upon the landmarks which presumably were the same after the flood as before.

Did not the great flood re-shape the surface of the earth? So what was once familiar landmarks to Noah must have been a foreign wasteland. The ark would have traveled hundreds of miles and Noah would have found himself in a place he was not familiar with and did not recognize.
Noah didn't navigate anywhere. He was not told by God to even put a rudder on the Ark. Noah and the ark just bobbed around like a cork in the water.

And Noah couldn't know the whole earth was flooded, as he couldn't see the whole earth. He could have tho, if the earth was flat, which is what Noah believed back then. So Noah would look out and see water all around, and believing the earth flat, would concluded the whole earth was flooded, when it was just a local flood. The other side of the earth wasn't flooded. Noah, nor the author(s) of Genesis, knew anything about the other side of the earth. They didn't know it was round.

And, going with the story, the poor ark would have been covered up with birds. The flood wouldn't kill the fish eating birds. They would have a heyday. They would just need a place to land, and roost. And that would have been the ark. Or other lands that weren't flooded.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2017, 09:23 PM   #623
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Noah didn't navigate anywhere. He was not told by God to even put a rudder on the Ark. Noah and the ark just bobbed around like a cork in the water.

And Noah couldn't know the whole earth was flooded, as he couldn't see the whole earth. He could have tho, if the earth was flat, which is what Noah believed back then. So Noah would look out and see water all around, and believing the earth flat, would concluded the whole earth was flooded, when it was just a local flood. The other side of the earth wasn't flooded. Noah, nor the author(s) of Genesis, knew anything about the other side of the earth. They didn't know it was round.

And, going with the story, the poor ark would have been covered up with birds. The flood wouldn't kill the fish eating birds. They would have a heyday. They would just need a place to land, and roost. And that would have been the ark. Or other lands that weren't flooded.
Daniel and Jesus (Matthew 4:8) also saw the whole Earth because it was flat. But it must have referred to the local area.

Last edited by awareness; 01-15-2017 at 05:45 AM.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 05:44 AM   #624
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Daniel and Jesus (Matthew 4:8) also saw the whole Earth because it was flat. But it must have referred to the local area.
A person on top of Mt. Everest can see about 200 miles. On Mt. Ararat sight would be approximately 150 miles. That's a lot, but a far cry from the whole earth. But they didn't know that back then. To them they were seeing the whole earth. The devil, being a cosmic being, might have known, but he was trying to trick Jesus, who was land bound, like everyone else. Now if like many believe today that, Jesus was/is God, Jesus knew the earth was round, but he kept it to himself. His ministry wasn't about cosmology.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 01:20 PM   #625
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
The problem is not solved just because you say "Noah witnessed the event".

You have not explained how Noah was able to measure that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits. Noah could not have measured that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits using the "water stain" method. This is because all the mountains were covered. He would have had to drop a depth line from the ark at the flood's peak. And the location of the ark would have had to have been over the top of the highest mountain. Unlikely since the ark had no rudder and Noah had no control over it. Impossible for him to measure given he was shut in. Noah could not even go fishing.

The Bible says Noah did not open a window until after 40 days (Genesis 8:6), so could not have directly witnessed the event. He could not have tracked his position using visual references or made measurements of the flood's depth during the event. Noah would not have been able to use star navigation as he would not have been able to see the stars because of the rain and cloud cover.

Noah could not have recognized where he was based upon the landmarks which presumably were not same after the flood as before. Did not the great flood re-shape the surface of the earth? So what was once familiar landmarks to Noah must have been a foreign wasteland. The ark would have traveled hundreds of miles and Noah would have found himself in a place he was not familiar with and did not recognize.
Does this help? I didn't see what happened but I'm gonna guess there was a flood that carried this boat and left it on top of these buildings.

Second, did the writer of Genesis claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide? Or did he just report that it happened?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2017-01-15 at 4.18.56 PM.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	20.5 KB
ID:	181  
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 03:55 PM   #626
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Does this help? I didn't see what happened but I'm gonna guess there was a flood that carried this boat and left it on top of these buildings.

Second, did the writer of Genesis claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide? Or did he just report that it happened?
The boat on top of the building does not tell you how high the water went above that boat. The bible says it went 15 cubits above.

Genesis does not claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide.
How does seeing damage tell you that the water covered the mountains by 15 cubits? Where does the figure 15 cubits come from?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 05:27 PM   #627
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
The boat on top of the building does not tell you how high the water went above that boat. The bible says it went 15 cubits above.

Genesis does not claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide.
How does seeing damage tell you that the water covered the mountains by 15 cubits? Where does the figure 15 cubits come from?
OK, but at the very least the water went that high. There is a simple equation that we use. The size of a deposit, say a boulder is based on the velocity of the water. When we see a large boulder that was washed off of a mountain we can determine the speed of the water.

Now the equation for the speed of water is based on two things, slope and discharge. Over the last 10,000 years we can accurately determine what the slope was. Therefore with the deposits and the slope we can calculate how much water was flowing.

We can also do the same thing with ripples. These form in a river bed and the size of the ripple is dependent on how much water is flowing over the top.

This is how we can now determine that this flood from the Himalayas dumped 500 cubic miles of water down from the top of the mountain.

Some have complained that the account says from the top. However, for those who hiked these mountain passes the lake being held with an ice dam would be the top of the mountain pass. Once again, lets consider how much water 500 cubic miles is. Imagine a flood 100 miles wide, 1,000 miles long and 20 feet high. That is 500 cubic miles.

As for Noah or anyone back at that time might be able to see debris in tree tops or marks on canyon walls.

The point is very simple, a person who comes out after a flood and examines the area can get a good guess on how high the water was.

Second, unless Genesis says that Noah is the one who saw how high the water was all over the earth then it is perfectly reasonable that the writer of Genesis is referring to Noah as the most dramatic story of the flood, but that they might have gathered numerous other stories as well, just as any reputable historian would do.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 06:40 PM   #628
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
OK, but at the very least the water went that high. There is a simple equation that we use. The size of a deposit, say a boulder is based on the velocity of the water. When we see a large boulder that was washed off of a mountain we can determine the speed of the water.

Now the equation for the speed of water is based on two things, slope and discharge. Over the last 10,000 years we can accurately determine what the slope was. Therefore with the deposits and the slope we can calculate how much water was flowing.

We can also do the same thing with ripples. These form in a river bed and the size of the ripple is dependent on how much water is flowing over the top.

This is how we can now determine that this flood from the Himalayas dumped 500 cubic miles of water down from the top of the mountain.

Some have complained that the account says from the top. However, for those who hiked these mountain passes the lake being held with an ice dam would be the top of the mountain pass. Once again, lets consider how much water 500 cubic miles is. Imagine a flood 100 miles wide, 1,000 miles long and 20 feet high. That is 500 cubic miles.

As for Noah or anyone back at that time might be able to see debris in tree tops or marks on canyon walls.

The point is very simple, a person who comes out after a flood and examines the area can get a good guess on how high the water was.

Second, unless Genesis says that Noah is the one who saw how high the water was all over the earth then it is perfectly reasonable that the writer of Genesis is referring to Noah as the most dramatic story of the flood, but that they might have gathered numerous other stories as well, just as any reputable historian would do.
Thank you for the explanation and have a blessed day!
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2017, 09:18 PM   #629
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Thank you for the explanation and have a blessed day!
After all this wackiness I'd advise scientists to stay way from the Bible.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 04:43 AM   #630
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
After all this wackiness I'd advise scientists to stay way from the Bible.
I would advise scientists to read Colossians 2:3 "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 09:50 AM   #631
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I would advise scientists to read Colossians 2:3 "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
You seem to want to torture the scientists. That verse applies to Christ, that's outside the scope of science. Nice verse tho, but not science.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 12:24 PM   #632
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
You seem to want to torture the scientists. That verse applies to Christ, that's outside the scope of science. Nice verse tho, but not science.
Jesus Christ is the incarnated word. All of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 02:23 PM   #633
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
The fact is there has been no known invention of man or result from science that came from the Bible. There is no piece of technology today that we use that came from the Bible.

Why do defenders of the Bible's scientific worth have nothing to show for it?

Why has the Bible never contributed to science?

Even the great scientists who were also Christians such as Newton did not find their discoveries in the Bible even though Newton probably knew the Bible well.
I have not forgotten this post, I wanted to address this when we could give it the full and proper response it deserves. I will start a new thread concerning this. It will be controversial and I think everyone knows how much I shy away from controversial topics.

The good news is that I will be directly contradicting Witness Lee, so that will make this relevant to the LCD mission.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 03:48 PM   #634
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I have not forgotten this post, I wanted to address this when we could give it the full and proper response it deserves. I will start a new thread concerning this. It will be controversial and I think everyone knows how much I shy away from controversial topics.

The good news is that I will be directly contradicting Witness Lee, so that will make this relevant to the LCD mission.
Sounds exciting. Just to be clear, when I say "came from the Bible", I mean literally, word for word, from the Bible. Not using the Bible as a source of inspiration, or divine revelation, nor using the Bible in hindsight of scientific knowledge. Let us consider the Bible's worth, to a person with no spiritual bone in their body such as an atheist. Let as consider the Bible like any other scientific publication, for its factual contributions to science. Let us consider the Bible's scientific worth as a citeable source of knowledge like any other academic publication.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 06:32 PM   #635
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Sounds exciting. Just to be clear, when I say "came from the Bible", I mean literally, word for word, from the Bible. Not using the Bible as a source of inspiration, or divine revelation, nor using the Bible in hindsight of scientific knowledge. Let us consider the Bible's worth, to a person with no spiritual bone in their body such as an atheist. Let as consider the Bible like any other scientific publication, for its factual contributions to science. Let us consider the Bible's scientific worth as a citeable source of knowledge like any other academic publication.
Great points, but I think we have to put another requirement in that will raise the bar higher.

Pick a problem that we have today, let's look to the Bible for the Biblical solution that is scientific and that a non believer can receive.

Climate change is a big one, we have also mentioned the fact that this generation is in the sixth major extinction, which does relate to our discussion on Noah, or it could be the immigration issue (Trump's "build a wall"), or the refugee crisis that we are in the midst of, etc.

Pick a problem that has very good scientific basis for and for which there is no known solution and let's see.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 10:45 PM   #636
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,818
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Great points, but I think we have to put another requirement in that will raise the bar higher.

Pick a problem that we have today, let's look to the Bible for the Biblical solution that is scientific and that a non believer can receive.

Climate change is a big one, we have also mentioned the fact that this generation is in the sixth major extinction, which does relate to our discussion on Noah, or it could be the immigration issue (Trump's "build a wall"), or the refugee crisis that we are in the midst of, etc.

Pick a problem that has very good scientific basis for and for which there is no known solution and let's see.
I'm happy to settle for how the bible has contributed to science thus far, rather than raising the bar.

But here's one - how do we beat drug-resistant bacteria? Does the bible give any particular insights into that?

And a second one - what is consciousness?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2017, 04:06 AM   #637
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I'm happy to settle for how the bible has contributed to science thus far, rather than raising the bar.

But here's one - how do we beat drug-resistant bacteria? Does the bible give any particular insights into that?

And a second one - what is consciousness?
That is a good place to start. Please note that all bacteria is "drug resistant". Also most if not all bacteria plays a critical role in the web of life. In addition you may be bringing your preconceptions to the table with the word "beat". You are presuming that there are "good" bacteria and "evil" bacteria. It may very well be that this presumption is the cause of the death.

So I think the question should be: how to we effectively treat deadly bacteria.

This is actually a topic that Witness Lee did cover, at least superficially, in his exegesis of the Bible.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2017, 03:00 PM   #638
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

This just in:
Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God :
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...god-kurt-godel
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2017, 03:25 PM   #639
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
This just in:
Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God :
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...god-kurt-godel
Mr. Why. His incompleteness theorem helped inspire Turing's invention of the computer.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2017, 07:30 PM   #640
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

I recently was reading from an Iroquois author and their word for mountain is a verb, not a noun. I found that very interesting.

We think of river, and mountain and ice cap as nouns. But in my Earth Science class we learn about how these various features function. They perform a key role in the ecosystem, in the climate, in the web of life. So although I do describe these items as nouns, I also describe them as verbs.

We are now witnessing the complete loss of the arctic ice cap. It is amazing. Something I would never have thought possible 40 years ago. Naturally you might wonder "what should we do?" That is a very difficult question if you consider the ice cap to be a noun. But if you realize it is a verb it is a simple question, we need to now do the things that the ice cap was doing.

This may seem irrelevant to a discussion of "the Bible vs Science". Does it really matter what we call a mountain or if we make it a noun or a verb? According to the Bible it does. Man is a noun. But his function is to give a name to all of the creatures and to tend the garden. In that sense man is a verb. If we don't understand our function we could think it is to make money, maybe set up a phony foundation to fund your daughters wedding in exchange for government assistance. Or perhaps a press conference is a great opportunity to hawk your wares, rent out space in your hotel, etc.

In the end man will be judged on how well he tends the garden, and he can't do that unless he understand how all the pieces fit together, and you can't do that until you have given each piece of the puzzle a name. This author related a major revelation that the native people had concerning the "three sisters". Corn, beans and squash. These three vegetables provide a full nutritional diet. It is the basis of life in the Americas (which did not have as many of the domestic animals and plants that were in Europe). They grew these three together in their garden, unlike our mono crop farms. there is an amazing interaction between these three (Corn is the vertical element, squash is the horizontal element flat to the ground -- big flat leaves, and beans tie the two together). One by itself is not enough, corn doesn't have protein, beans don't have starch, and neither has the nutrients of squash. One diet, three components.

One of the offshoots of this thread was the one on deadly bacteria. Our misconception when we first discovered bacteria is to call them "germs", as though that is a bad thing (i.e. evil) and the to figure out how to kill them (disinfect). The word "disinfect" indicates that the germs have "infected" us like a disease. But each one of these creatures has a function, and when you distort that you have problems. It is healthier to live in a home full of bacteria than one that is disinfected like some kind of laboratory or operating room. To be "full of bacteria" is to be "full of life". To be "sterile" is just another word for death. These words promote a false understanding and harmful practices.

Language is very important. In a day where our highest leaders can use the term "alternative facts" with a straight face we need to come back to this realization.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2017, 05:16 AM   #641
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

I was recently reading a book concerning the dramatic decrease in violence over the last 6,000 years.

He discusses Solomon and his threat to cut the baby in half. I think that is interesting that today no one would believe that, but back then it was believable, especially at the beginning of Solomon's reign when no one really knew what to expect. (Today would anyone believe a judge if he threatened to cut a baby in half?)

He then goes off the rails saying that had the woman called his bluff and not responded in a spiteful way then we must assume that he would have followed through with the threat and cut the baby in half.

This is wrong and violates everything we have learned in interrogation. Detecting lies is a science and one very important principle is to ask people questions they have not prepared for. In order to lie convincingly a person needs to practice, in front of a mirror, for a long time. Even if the woman knew she shouldn't appear spiteful it would be impossible for her to hide her true emotions, these "leak" out in what are known as micro expressions. To prove this point my forensic class offered a prize of $500 to anyone who could deceive them. What we did was we gave students from he school a folder that contained a picture. Regardless of what picture they were looking at they were to tell us it was an attractive young woman. Half of the folders did have pictures of attractive young women, but half were of something quite disgusting. We videotaped their performance. Round 1 they win $5, Round 2 they win $50 and Round 3 they win $500. Two girls won round 1, but after review of the video the entire class could easily see the tells that revealed their tell tale signs of deceit. No one won round 2. We modeled this experiment on the basic research. The higher the stakes, the harder it is to lie. We held up the $50 bill at the beginning of round 2. Cutting a baby in half is extremely high stakes. Even if the other woman did try to mimic the real mother's grief it would have shown an abnormal delay in timing.

It is very disheartening when you read a book that is supposed to be filled with the scientific wisdom of the day concerning violence (and presumably criminal violence) and the writer isn't even aware of basic research on the topic.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2017, 04:47 AM   #642
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Talking Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I was recently reading a book concerning the dramatic decrease in violence over the last 6,000 years.

He discusses Solomon and his threat to cut the baby in half. I think that is interesting that today no one would believe that, but back then it was believable, especially at the beginning of Solomon's reign when no one really knew what to expect. (Today would anyone believe a judge if he threatened to cut a baby in half?)

He then goes off the rails saying that had the woman called his bluff and not responded in a spiteful way then we must assume that he would have followed through with the threat and cut the baby in half.

This is wrong and violates everything we have learned in interrogation. Detecting lies is a science and one very important principle is to ask people questions they have not prepared for. In order to lie convincingly a person needs to practice, in front of a mirror, for a long time. Even if the woman knew she shouldn't appear spiteful it would be impossible for her to hide her true emotions, these "leak" out in what are known as micro expressions. To prove this point my forensic class offered a prize of $500 to anyone who could deceive them. What we did was we gave students from he school a folder that contained a picture. Regardless of what picture they were looking at they were to tell us it was an attractive young woman. Half of the folders did have pictures of attractive young women, but half were of something quite disgusting. We videotaped their performance. Round 1 they win $5, Round 2 they win $50 and Round 3 they win $500. Two girls won round 1, but after review of the video the entire class could easily see the tells that revealed their tell tale signs of deceit. No one won round 2. We modeled this experiment on the basic research. The higher the stakes, the harder it is to lie. We held up the $50 bill at the beginning of round 2. Cutting a baby in half is extremely high stakes. Even if the other woman did try to mimic the real mother's grief it would have shown an abnormal delay in timing.

It is very disheartening when you read a book that is supposed to be filled with the scientific wisdom of the day concerning violence (and presumably criminal violence) and the writer isn't even aware of basic research on the topic.
Author? Title?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2017, 05:43 AM   #643
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Author? Title?
Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of our Nature, why violence has declined.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2017, 07:01 AM   #644
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of our Nature, why violence has declined.
You're gonna teach Pinker about how to do research.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2017, 07:54 PM   #645
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of our Nature, why violence has declined.
The better angels of our nature has knocked nature out of whack. Yes it has allowed us to populate the earth like crazy. But we removed ourselves from the food chain ; that keeps the species population in balance.

But it is a wonder why violence has decreased over all. Why is that? Can we attribute it to the Bible or to science? Let's see? Which has come along lately, upon the scene the Bible dominated for millennia?
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2017, 05:46 AM   #646
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
The better angels of our nature has knocked nature out of whack. Yes it has allowed us to populate the earth like crazy. But we removed ourselves from the food chain ; that keeps the species population in balance.

But it is a wonder why violence has decreased over all. Why is that? Can we attribute it to the Bible or to science? Let's see? Which has come along lately, upon the scene the Bible dominated for millennia?
I take it you have not read the book. At this point he is not crediting science (which has brought us such violence decreasing tools as smart bombs and weapons of mass destruction) he is crediting what he calls "the leviathan". Large, centrally run governments with an interest in keeping two potential adversaries from fighting a war.

Now as we have discussed man, unlike all apes, is eusocial and forms these large leviathan societies.

Yes, it is the invention of human government, laws, and everything else we see written in the Bible that has breathed life into man.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2017, 07:51 PM   #647
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I take it you have not read the book.
I take the challenge. I bought the Kindle version. Will report my findings.

But I wish to make a point that I think matters in regard to less violence :

I think it's a matter of sight. I think it's a matter of seeing more, and seeing more clearly. Ever since the invention of the telescope we have come to see more and more ... and more clearly. Now we can see violence happening on the other side of the world, in real time.

I think the more we see violence the more we're repulsed by it, and so on the whole eschew it.

That's just my own personal two cents. I'll entertain Pinker's conclusions. He has studied it much longer than I have. But I suspect his will end up as speculative as my little sight diddy.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2017, 08:34 PM   #648
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I take the challenge. I bought the Kindle version. Will report my findings.

But I wish to make a point that I think matters in regard to less violence :

I think it's a matter of sight. I think it's a matter of seeing more, and seeing more clearly. Ever since the invention of the telescope we have come to see more and more ... and more clearly. Now we can see violence happening on the other side of the world, in real time.

I think the more we see violence the more we're repulsed by it, and so on the whole eschew it.

That's just my own personal two cents. I'll entertain Pinker's conclusions. He has studied it much longer than I have. But I suspect his will end up as speculative as my little sight diddy.
There is something speculative here, but if you understand the methodology you can see there are numerous ways to calculate the violence of different societies. Now his way of comparing is on homicides per 100,000. If you agree with his premise that this is a fair way to compare societies then the evidence is solid that we have seen a spectacular drop in violence.

At that point you can push different hypothesis. But "scientific advancement in forensic techniques" would not be very persuasive as we saw a huge drop prior to much if any advancement in forensics. Second, the forensic techniques we have developed are a direct result of a very large society that can afford to pay for scientific research and development. Therefore, even those who would like to credit advancements in science would have to admit that this hypothesis is contained in the "Leviathan" hypothesis.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2017, 09:01 AM   #649
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I take the challenge. I bought the Kindle version. [The Better Angels of Our Nature] Will report my findings.

I'll entertain Pinker's conclusions. He has studied it much longer than I have. But I suspect his will end up as speculative as my little sight diddy.
Well I'm reading Pinker's book. So I'm reporting back.

Before I bought the book, or even knew about it, I stated on the Politic thread (post 527) :

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
They didn't. ". . . the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period."*

It took renaissance humanism, not the Bible, to recognize that slavery was/is wrong.

* Reference = "History of human rights" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights
And somewhere, I don't remember where, ZNP poopoo it.

Also, on Bible v Science post #304 IntotheWind asks :

The advent of being able to record and share evidence made the difference. I wonder how much sooner the renaissance would have occurred had most of the world not fallen under the mind numbing spell of organized religion.

Well lo and behold, in "The Better Angels of Our Nature," Pinker says :

"The third transition unfolded on the scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries (though it had antecedents in classical Greece and the Renaissance, and parallels elsewhere in the world). It saw the first organized movements to abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism. Historians sometimes call this transition the Humanitarian Revolution."
~ Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


My point is, I guess, that, there other forces and moralities, other than the Bible, that come together to make the human race better. But yes, they do seem to be very Jesus like.

Maybe this thread should be called "Jesus v. Science."

That's because the Bible is so confusing with it's morality, and outright conflicting at times. When it comes to what's good for the human race, the Bible doesn't always come thru. Science, even with all it's flaws and shortcomings, is delivering these days.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2017, 12:55 PM   #650
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
And somewhere, I don't remember where, ZNP poopoo it.
I did not poopoo the idea of slavery was discredited with as an institution based on renaissance philosophy. What I poopoo'd was the idea that we actually saw businesses do away with it because of this philosophy.

Slavery was not done away with because we became more humanistic, but rather because sweatshops and illegal aliens are less expensive.

The economics are simple: slave is a lifetime commitment, including when the person is too young and too old to work. Sweatshop you merely pay for the labor and if they can't work, you replace them with someone who can. Slaves you are responsible for their health care, sweatshops and illegals you aren't. Slaves have been known to rebel. Illegals can't, you simply ship them out of the country. Sweatshops also can't because the local govts will beat them and you can just move your operation to a different country.

Let's puts this into perspective. In the 1960s internal documents prove that Tobacco companies knew that the cigarettes were causing cancer and killing people. As we all know they immediately, due to their heightened humanism, trumpeted these dangers and pulled their products from the shelf as any socially responsible company would do. In Awareness' dreams.

Nope, what they did was hire Hill and Knowlton, a public relations firm who advised the companies on how they could continue to make huge profits from a product they knew was killing people. They were told clearly that they couldn't lie, but they could sow doubt. "We don't know ..." That is what they did for the next 30 years. We aren't talking about slavery here, we are talking about murder. Now if these corporations are above lying about murder in order to make a profit does anyone really believe they aren't above slavery?
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2017, 01:27 PM   #651
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,937
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Now if these corporations are above lying about murder in order to make a profit does anyone really believe they aren't above slavery?
While this could be true, the fact of one bad act (or even two or more) does not force a conclusion about any other. Let the facts speak for themselves. Don't skip the evidence because you know they are so bad that it doesn't matter if the thing we get them for is not true.

Truth always matters.

Or it should.

And there could be truth there. But you respond as if it doesn't matter and you don't need to prove it.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2017, 08:45 PM   #652
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I did not poopoo the idea of slavery was discredited with as an institution based on renaissance philosophy. What I poopoo'd was the idea that we actually saw businesses do away with it because of this philosophy.

Slavery was not done away with because we became more humanistic, but rather because sweatshops and illegal aliens are less expensive.

The economics are simple: slave is a lifetime commitment, including when the person is too young and too old to work. Sweatshop you merely pay for the labor and if they can't work, you replace them with someone who can. Slaves you are responsible for their health care, sweatshops and illegals you aren't. Slaves have been known to rebel. Illegals can't, you simply ship them out of the country. Sweatshops also can't because the local govts will beat them and you can just move your operation to a different country.

Let's puts this into perspective. In the 1960s internal documents prove that Tobacco companies knew that the cigarettes were causing cancer and killing people. As we all know they immediately, due to their heightened humanism, trumpeted these dangers and pulled their products from the shelf as any socially responsible company would do. In Awareness' dreams.

Nope, what they did was hire Hill and Knowlton, a public relations firm who advised the companies on how they could continue to make huge profits from a product they knew was killing people. They were told clearly that they couldn't lie, but they could sow doubt. "We don't know ..." That is what they did for the next 30 years. We aren't talking about slavery here, we are talking about murder. Now if these corporations are above lying about murder in order to make a profit does anyone really believe they aren't above slavery?
Yeah Harold. We conservative Christians have bought into the doctrine of total depravity [TD]. People [ apart form the Elect AKA our sect] only do things for selfish motives. Once you accept TD as a pre-supposition, confirmation bias ensures that you will only accept evidence that supports it and reject the rest.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2017, 04:44 AM   #653
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Yeah Harold. We conservative Christians have bought into the doctrine of total depravity [TD]. People [ apart form the Elect AKA our sect] only do things for selfish motives. Once you accept TD as a pre-supposition, confirmation bias ensures that you will only accept evidence that supports it and reject the rest.
I do not buy into "total depravity". I feel that there are fleshly people, soulish people and spiritual people. No one is 100% anything. I also feel that "those who condemn everything understand nothing".

Right now I am considering why violence has decreased over the last 6,000 years (on a per capita basis). In my opinion Matthew Brady and Nick Ut (the photographers) did as much to limit violence as any philosopher. Therefore Joseph Niepce should be given just as much credit. But again, none of them would have had any impact if we didn't have a democratic government that cared about the feelings of the people and a free press that could publish this. To be fair the technology of the camera is also useful in smart bombs, which in turn can decrease the overall violence while making these weapons more effective at killing the person that is targeted. There is also another advantage of a large centralized government with a professional military that is doing research and development. We can determine that fewer civilian casualties is a good thing, better than the middle ages when the goal was to kill as many serfs as possible to weaken the opposing Knight.

If you credit this to some "age of enlightenment" as though humans were no different from a cartoon depiction of a cave man until a philosopher told them that killing was wrong, that is just idiotic. Genghis Khan enjoyed watching people suffer as he killed their loved ones. Everyone has known that war was evil, but the silent majority was powerless to do anything until we had the technology, governmental and laws to do something about it.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2017, 08:44 PM   #654
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
I do not buy into "total depravity". I feel that there are fleshly people, soulish people and spiritual people.
Only Christians are spiritual or soulish and the rest of the world is "fleshly" and that unregenerate majority is totally depraved, right?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 04:26 AM   #655
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Only Christians are spiritual or soulish and the rest of the world is "fleshly" and that unregenerate majority is totally depraved, right?
Of course not. Like all people we have Christians who are fleshly, soulish and spiritual. You just need to read the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor, to realize that.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 04:35 AM   #656
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Of course not. Like all people we have Christians who are fleshly, soulish and spiritual. You just need to read the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor, to realize that.
Oh. OK then, all non-Christians plus fleshly Christians are "fleshly" and therefore totally depraved, right?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 04:54 AM   #657
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Oh. OK then, all non-Christians plus fleshly Christians are "fleshly" and therefore totally depraved, right?
No, why do keep on trying to put words into my mouth. Man is made of three parts: Spirit, Soul and Body. All men. Saved and unsaved. The worldly system tries to make us fleshly and soulish and ignore our spirit until our conscience is scarred so bad it no longer functions. As a result there is a large percentage of people who are fleshly and soulish. That is true of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. But among all of these groups, and many others I haven't enumerated there are those who are spiritual. Paul in Romans talked about those who did not know the law walking according to the law.

The problem is for all non saved people who try to be spiritual is what to do about sin? All have sinned, and all therefore need a propitiation for that sin. If you do not deal with sin it will deaden your conscience. Hence the caricature of the spiritual monk sitting alone on a mountain top. That is the disadvantage for all non Christians who try to be spiritual. But Jesus made it clear that there are many sheep and not all are goats.

The advantage all born again Christians have is that when they are redeemed the blood cleansed them and renewed their spirit. But like a garden if you don't take care of it, then it will soon be overrun by weeds again.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 10:49 AM   #658
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
No, why do keep on trying to put words into my mouth. Man is made of three parts: Spirit, Soul and Body. All men. Saved and unsaved. The worldly system tries to make us fleshly and soulish and ignore our spirit until our conscience is scarred so bad it no longer functions. As a result there is a large percentage of people who are fleshly and soulish. That is true of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. But among all of these groups, and many others I haven't enumerated there are those who are spiritual. Paul in Romans talked about those who did not know the law walking according to the law.

The problem is for all non saved people who try to be spiritual is what to do about sin? All have sinned, and all therefore need a propitiation for that sin. If you do not deal with sin it will deaden your conscience. Hence the caricature of the spiritual monk sitting alone on a mountain top. That is the disadvantage for all non Christians who try to be spiritual. But Jesus made it clear that there are many sheep and not all are goats.

The advantage all born again Christians have is that when they are redeemed the blood cleansed them and renewed their spirit. But like a garden if you don't take care of it, then it will soon be overrun by weeds again.
I'm trying to clarify how you view people who don't share your religion. I'm doing that by re-phrasing what you say in my own words. If I'm wrong please correct me. From the above I get that you think some non-Christians try to be spiritual but they fail.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 12:12 PM   #659
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,937
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
I'm trying to clarify how you view people who don't share your religion. I'm doing that by re-phrasing what you say in my own words. If I'm wrong please correct me. From the above I get that you think some non-Christians try to be spiritual but they fail.
I know that you did not write this to me, but I will tell you how I view people who do not share my religion.

I believe that God (the one told of in the Bible) created the heavens and the earth, and man and all that is on the earth. (I don't care how he did it or how long it took.)

I believe that due to general rebellion at a point in the distant past, mankind refused God in some way that marked a separation that we refer to as the fall. Since that time man has been separated from God. This does not mean no contact, but that the open way to contact has been broken.

While not a popular position, especially in an era in which everyone has the god-given right to think whatever he/she wants, I believe that (as the Bible accounts) there was eventually a way given to be reconciled with God. That was through belief in Jesus. (Not just mental agreement, but true belief.) But in this life, even claiming that I believe does not stop me from living my life as if I do not believe. Therefore, outside of the possibility of "salvation" (something with varied understanding) all humans are exactly identical. But even though I believe that the only cure for our separation from God is as provided in the Bible, I do not have a "view" of people who don't share my religion that is predicated on that fact. Whether and how there is anything to be said/done about that in the end is not my responsibility and therefore not a factor in how I view them (any of them).

Now my view of certain persons, generally for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they do or do not share my belief, may not be positive. But it is mostly for how they behave and interact in society in general, and not whether they are "insiders" with respect to my religion. Some of the people I have problems with are probably insiders.

Does that mean that I will refrain from trying to convince someone that believing as I do is the right way to go? No. But whether I say anything to any particular person, or if I do and they simply ignore what I say, they have not changed status for me. I do not shake off the dust of their existence from my pants and move on. They do not become unworthy of my attention or care.

Do I successfully live in this manner at all times? Yeah, right. Who could. But it is what I strive for.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 12:30 PM   #660
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
I know that you did not write this to me, but I will tell you how I view people who do not share my religion.

I believe that God (the one told of in the Bible) created the heavens and the earth, and man and all that is on the earth. (I don't care how he did it or how long it took.)

I believe that due to general rebellion at a point in the distant past, mankind refused God in some way that marked a separation that we refer to as the fall. Since that time man has been separated from God. This does not mean no contact, but that the open way to contact has been broken.

While not a popular position, especially in an era in which everyone has the god-given right to think whatever he/she wants, I believe that (as the Bible accounts) there was eventually a way given to be reconciled with God. That was through belief in Jesus. (Not just mental agreement, but true belief.) But in this life, even claiming that I believe does not stop me from living my life as if I do not believe. Therefore, outside of the possibility of "salvation" (something with varied understanding) all humans are exactly identical. But even though I believe that the only cure for our separation from God is as provided in the Bible, I do not have a "view" of people who don't share my religion that is predicated on that fact. Whether and how there is anything to be said/done about that in the end is not my responsibility and therefore not a factor in how I view them (any of them).

Now my view of certain persons, generally for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they do or do not share my belief, may not be positive. But it is mostly for how they behave and interact in society in general, and not whether they are "insiders" with respect to my religion. Some of the people I have problems with are probably insiders.

Does that mean that I will refrain from trying to convince someone that believing as I do is the right way to go? No. But whether I say anything to any particular person, or if I do and they simply ignore what I say, they have not changed status for me. I do not shake off the dust of their existence from my pants and move on. They do not become unworthy of my attention or care.

Do I successfully live in this manner at all times? Yeah, right. Who could. But it is what I strive for.
OK. So for you, it's a matter of reconciliation. You and other true Christians are reconciled with God whereas others are not.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 02:56 PM   #661
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,937
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
OK. So for you, it's a matter of reconciliation. You and other true Christians are reconciled with God whereas others are not.
If there is God, and that God is the one we are following, then it would appear that this is true. But what that means is not my problem. It is God's.

Your question had to do with my view of other people. That I made the statements concerning what I believe is the ultimate outcome of things does not affect my "view" of them. The Bible says a lot of things about those who follow and those that do not. But it is either an eventual fact or it is not. Meanwhile, I am commanded by that same Bible to love everyone the way I love myself.

So maybe the problem is what part of "view" are you talking about? I am assuming you want to know what I think about them. And that is different from what I think may happen to them (and me). I don't think of myself as superior for deciding to follow the way that I do. But if I am right, there is a benefit to it. Yet today my view of the IT guy across the hall is the same as for anyone else here . . . including the most "Christian" among us at this place of employment. (I will not say what it is about the IT guy that is notable in some people's books.)

So is your goal to understand my view of people, my view/understanding of the ultimate end of those following my religion (assuming it is correct) or what? They are both "views" but not in the same sense. They do see things differently. What are you trying to get at?

I would guess that for those who have no religion, they just categorize people for other reasons. Republicans call the Democrats socialists. Democrats call Republicans bigots. Tea Party folks think even the Republicans are not patriots. Muslims call America the Great Satan. One African tribe slaughters another. And on and on it goes.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 03:39 PM   #662
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
If there is God, and that God is the one we are following, then it would appear that this is true. But what that means is not my problem. It is God's.

Your question had to do with my view of other people. That I made the statements concerning what I believe is the ultimate outcome of things does not affect my "view" of them. The Bible says a lot of things about those who follow and those that do not. But it is either an eventual fact or it is not. Meanwhile, I am commanded by that same Bible to love everyone the way I love myself.

So maybe the problem is what part of "view" are you talking about? I am assuming you want to know what I think about them. And that is different from what I think may happen to them (and me). I don't think of myself as superior for deciding to follow the way that I do. But if I am right, there is a benefit to it. Yet today my view of the IT guy across the hall is the same as for anyone else here . . . including the most "Christian" among us at this place of employment. (I will not say what it is about the IT guy that is notable in some people's books.)

So is your goal to understand my view of people, my view/understanding of the ultimate end of those following my religion (assuming it is correct) or what? They are both "views" but not in the same sense. They do see things differently. What are you trying to get at?

I would guess that for those who have no religion, they just categorize people for other reasons. Republicans call the Democrats socialists. Democrats call Republicans bigots. Tea Party folks think even the Republicans are not patriots. Muslims call America the Great Satan. One African tribe slaughters another. And on and on it goes.
Well, ZNP and I were talking about human nature. He characterized it as spirit, soul and body. He felt that Christians were in one condition and non-Christians in another. But, he doesn't think non-Christians are totally depraved but still more or less disabled in terms of their relation to God. [ZNP jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.]

Now you seem to be saying that everybody is the same as far a your concerned, the only difference being between them and God which, is not primarily your focus in terms of your day-to-day interaction with them.

I have tried on all kinds of ideas about these matters. I'm not sure if any of them are right. So, it seems like a good time to find out what other people think about and to make sure that I'm getting it right, to paraphrase what they say in my own words and then check with them to see if I'm getting it right.

Now I suppose since this is the "Bible Versus Science" we should ask what if anything this has to do with the topic. We could look at the differences between the Bible's view[s] of human nature and that which science is presenting us. Can the two be reconciled? Is there middle ground between them? Are our perceptions of people really driven by the theories we hold about them?
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 04:46 PM   #663
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
I'm trying to clarify how you view people who don't share your religion. I'm doing that by re-phrasing what you say in my own words. If I'm wrong please correct me. From the above I get that you think some non-Christians try to be spiritual but they fail.
I consider a Christian to be a person who has received Jesus Christ's redemptive work by faith.

There is no criteria that such a person is spiritual, they could be primarily soulish or fleshly. The only criteria is that on receiving Christ their spirit was regenerated. It is a very good thing that your conscience would provoke you enough to confess your sins and repent and receive Christ.

The confusion comes in with nominal Christians. So I do not like to make a distinction in this way. This can be extremely confusing, so much so that I think the false prophet thought he was a born again Christian when in fact he wasn't.

I also don't like to make a distinction based on spiritual, soulish, or fleshly. All people have the soul and flesh. All have sinned. All have fallen short of the glory of God.

That said I have read or become aware of a number of people who are not "Christian" yet are spiritual. Some are truly mystifying, which is what the Bible says a spiritual person is.

But regardless of who you are, you are a sinner, you have the flesh, and those sins are like putting sugar in your gas tank. You have to be cleansed from those sins.

That is the extent of my understanding. In the end I am not the Lord, I let the Lord figure out the rest.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2017, 04:56 PM   #664
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Well, ZNP were talking about human nature. He characterized it as spirit, soul and body. He felt that Christians were in one condition and non-Christians in another. But, he doesn't think non-Christians are totally depraved but still more or less disabled in terms of their relation to God. [ZNP jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.]
I disagree with this. I have met some depraved people who claimed to be born again Christians. I have also met some very spiritual people who were not. I see no reason why a fleshly person or a soulish person cannot receive Christ, nor do I think, in my opinion that the minute someone receives Christ all that changes. So in my opinion Christians encompass the entire range of humanity from the most spiritual to the most fleshly. The only distinction is that to truly be a Christian you have confessed your sins, repented of them and received the redemptive work of Christ. That is definitely a very positive step better than the most depraved people in human history.

On the other hand you can find some very excellent people, very high quality, spiritual, who have not received Christ or at the very least do not confess Christ.

I am reminded of the Lord's word to Israel that He didn't choose them because they were the greatest, or best, but that when He called them they were the least. I see no reason why Jesus should only save the most spiritual, but instead the real glory would be if He saved the worst, most sinful, most fleshly, most soulish. The bruised reed, the smoking flax, the pariahs, those that were rejected by the world.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 05:53 AM   #665
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,937
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
Well, ZNP and I were talking about human nature. He characterized it as spirit, soul and body. He felt that Christians were in one condition and non-Christians in another. But, he doesn't think non-Christians are totally depraved but still more or less disabled in terms of their relation to God. [ZNP jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.]

Now you seem to be saying that everybody is the same as far a your concerned, the only difference being between them and God which, is not primarily your focus in terms of your day-to-day interaction with them.

I have tried on all kinds of ideas about these matters. I'm not sure if any of them are right. So, it seems like a good time to find out what other people think about and to make sure that I'm getting it right, to paraphrase what they say in my own words and then check with them to see if I'm getting it right.

Now I suppose since this is the "Bible Versus Science" we should ask what if anything this has to do with the topic. We could look at the differences between the Bible's view[s] of human nature and that which science is presenting us. Can the two be reconciled? Is there middle ground between them? Are our perceptions of people really driven by the theories we hold about them?
If you are trying to get a read on someone's understanding of Calvin's TULIP, especially as held by the 6-point Calvinists (hold to it stronger than Calvin) the I am not the man to talk to. I think that Calvin was over-impressed by certain passages and under-impressed by others. The result is too much certainty as to what it all means. Same can be said for the other side.

But my "view" of those not in my religion is not marked by Calvin or Arminius. By Catholics or Baptists. Or by a tulip. And it appears to be he view held by Christians that is the problem.

There is a way to use "depravity" in the discussion, but it doesn't look like Calvin's use of the term. But it is not selective as to who it attaches to like Z has implied. Depravity is a way to state that we are separated from God. Belief in Christ does cure the depravity, but it does not simply make us able to view ourselves above others. In this live, we are still under the curse of this depravity even though some have found a way out from under it. But even with that promise, our view of others should not be colored by their "depravity" and our alleged lack.

To the Christian there should not be the faithful and the infidels. But I know that some think that way.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 06:42 AM   #666
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

By "total depravity" I meant the idea that as a result of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and that, apart from the grace of God, no one is able to accept the gift of salvation. I was looking for an up or down vote on that idea. Or, is it possible that people receive grace to follow God but not in the name of Jesus? Of course, we could just admit that we don't really know and leave it at that.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 09:07 PM   #667
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,937
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
By "total depravity" I meant the idea that as a result of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and that, apart from the grace of God, no one is able to accept the gift of salvation. I was looking for an up or down vote on that idea. Or, is it possible that people receive grace to follow God but not in the name of Jesus? Of course, we could just admit that we don't really know and leave it at that.
Despite the popularity of this extreme statement of the condition of man, I keep finding the verses that supposedly support it stretched beyond recognition. I hate to say it, but before Nee and Lee did their little Eisegesis, it was practiced by others before them.

If you take the Calvinist position at its extreme (and possibly beyond what even Calvin thought) then there is no reason for personal evangelism because it is inevitable that certain ones will be saved and just as certain that everyone else will not. I find it so odd that anyone would be motivated to preach the gospel within that kind of framework.

I believe that scripture shows that we are only saved by the redemptive work of Christ, but that we are involved because we must choose to believe. We may be "led" to repentance, but it is not forced upon anyone. Otherwise "whosoever believes" becomes a hollow statement because "whosoever" is not open.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 07:12 AM   #668
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
By "total depravity" I meant . . . . .
I must be lost, how did total depravity get involved on the Bible v. Science thread?

I can only make sense of it if total depravity applies to the fact that we're primates. That is, I think, the source of such doctrine ; that, we've seen for hundreds of thousand years, with our very eyes, that humans are imperfect primates ; primates, I might point out, that if we are fallen, fell up ; we've clearly evolved from our more primitive primate days ; not much of a fall to me ; but I agree still looks depraved cuz we are still just imperfect primates.

OBW's eisegesis comes to mind, in that it's a doctrine that springs from presupposition, that's wrapped with the Bible stretched beyond recognition, just to cloud the embarrassment that we're just imperfect primates..

And we stay imperfected primates even after being "born again." Being born again doesn't reverse that, nor, in fact, reverse that we're fallen, in the traditional meaning of that term.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.

Last edited by awareness; 03-18-2017 at 07:26 AM. Reason: Addendum & fumble fingers
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 09:01 AM   #669
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I must be lost, how did total depravity get involved on the Bible v. Science thread?

I can only make sense of it if total depravity applies to the fact that we're primates. That is, I think, the source of such doctrine ; that, we've seen for hundreds of thousand years, with our very eyes, that humans are imperfect primates ; primates, I might point out, that if we are fallen, fell up ; we've clearly evolved from our more primitive primate days ; not much of a fall to me ; but I agree still looks depraved cuz we are still just imperfect primates.

OBW's eisegesis comes to mind, in that it's a doctrine that springs from presupposition, that's wrapped with the Bible stretched beyond recognition, just to cloud the embarrassment that we're just imperfect primates..

And we stay imperfected primates even after being "born again." Being born again doesn't reverse that, nor, in fact, reverse that we're fallen, in the traditional meaning of that term.
Now I'm lost. What is a perfect primate?
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 09:13 AM   #670
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,771
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I must be lost, how did total depravity get involved on the Bible v. Science thread?
Total depravity follows from the concept of original sin that so-called St. Augustine proposed was a Biblical doctrine. TP has biological, anthropological, psychological and theological implications. Need I say more?

Quote:
I can only make sense of it if total depravity applies to the fact that we're primates. That is, I think, the source of such doctrine ; that, we've seen for hundreds of thousand years, with our very eyes, that humans are imperfect primates ; primates, I might point out, that if we are fallen, fell up ; we've clearly evolved from our more primitive primate days ; not much of a fall to me ; but I agree still looks depraved cuz we are still just imperfect primates.
I agree with this. Original sin is the result of our symbolic, socially-inculcated self being repulsed by our embodied biological self.

Quote:
OBW's eisegesis comes to mind, in that it's a doctrine that springs from presupposition, that's wrapped with the Bible stretched beyond recognition, just to cloud the embarrassment that we're just imperfect primates..
Yes, I'm interested in whether TP or original sin are "Biblical" or not. Are they derived from a valid reading of the text? At this point I would venture the opinion that they can be read from certain Biblical texts without contradiction.

Quote:
And we stay imperfected primates even after being "born again." Being born again doesn't reverse that, nor, in fact, reverse that we're fallen, in the traditional meaning of that term.
My own conversion experience was transformational to me. I understood myself forgiven. But, it didn't prevent me from sinning again. In fact, it increased my consciousness of my sins. Go figure.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86


zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 06:20 AM   #671
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

This is why the Bible shouldn't guide our politics. That lawmaker prolly never even heard of science:

Oklahoma State Rep says rape and incest are the ‘will of God’ in abortion bill hearing

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watc...-bill-hearing/
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 07:22 AM   #672
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,788
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
This is why the Bible shouldn't guide our politics. That lawmaker prolly never even heard of science:

Oklahoma State Rep says rape and incest are the ‘will of God’ in abortion bill hearing

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watc...-bill-hearing/
This has nothing to do with the Bible and nothing to do with Science and nothing to do with this thread.

A politician, known primarily for lying and selling his vote the highest bidder, claims to know the will of God. No doubt this is how he has justified raping the voters of his state and the incestuous relationship he has with lobbyists.

But the Bible makes it clear that this guy has no inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

The Biblical version of the Will of God is that all men would be saved and come to the full knowledge of His will.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 08:47 AM   #673
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,415
Default Re: Bible Versus Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
This has nothing to do with the Bible
Did you read the link? This lawmaker refers it to the Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNP
and nothing to do with Science
You're prolly right. This lawmaker prolly knows nothing about science.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke - 3rd Law. There's a serpent in every paradise. Trusting in God is easy. It's trusting in man that requires a lot of faith.
Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.