Science And The Bible

[skepticalbip]

There is no case of the Bible, when approaching the subject of true science, getting it wrong. There are only circumstances which science can't explain.

So is you position is that it is only historically incorrect?

The position of DLH is obviously that everything in the Bible is absolutely correct and the fact that science can't explain some of the nonsense only shows how superior the Bible is to science. For instance, science would say that, because of angular momentum, the Earth can't just suddenly stop rotating for twenty-four hours then suddenly go back to its original rotation rate making it appear that the sun stopped in the heavens so Joshua's army could defeat the enemy. The fact that science says it couldn't have happened only shows the deficiency of science to explain reality. Obviously, it did happen because the Bible says it did...

 

[DLH]

So is you position is that it is only historically incorrect?

The position of DLH is obviously that everything in the Bible is absolutely correct and the fact that science can't explain some of the nonsense only shows how superior the Bible is to science. For instance, science would say that, because of angular momentum, the Earth can't just suddenly stop rotating for twenty-four hours then suddenly go back to its original rotation rate making it appear that the sun stopped in the heavens so Joshua's army could defeat the enemy. The fact that science says it couldn't have happened only shows the deficiency of science to explain reality. Obviously, it did happen because the Bible says it did...

The book of Revelation says that the sun will burn out after a while and then that God's presence will be the earth's light. Now if the Bible says that the sun will end you aren't going to believe it, but if science says it will then you believe it. Do you really think that if there is a being that created the heavens and earth that man would know more about it than him? The only problem is that you don't believe the best source. If the sun will end and God can supply the light for earth himself, there are various ways in which he could have achieved the event you refer to without having to do it in a way in which science couldn't comprehend. The only problem is . . .

 

[none]

the only problem is you are talking out your ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Earth.27s_fate

..
During the Sun's life in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years, at the present time). The surface temperature of the Sun is almost constant. The increase of luminosity is essentially due to a slow increase in the solar radius. The increase in solar luminosity is such that in about another billion years Earth's water will evaporate and escape into space, rendering it inhospitable to all known terrestrial life.[123][124] Earth is not expected to survive the Sun's transition into a red giant. At its largest, the Sun will have a maximum radius beyond Earth's current orbit, 1 AU (1.5×1011 m), 250 times the present radius of the Sun.[123] By the time the Sun has entered the asymptotic red giant branch, the orbits of the planets will have drifted outwards due to a loss of roughly 30% of the Sun's present mass. Most of this mass will be lost as the solar wind increases. Also, tidal acceleration will help boost Earth to a higher orbit (similar to what Earth does to the Moon). If it were only for this, Earth would probably remain outside the Sun. However, current research suggests that after the Sun becomes a red giant, Earth will be pulled in owing to tidal deceleration.[123]
...

there won't be an earth...

 

[Ford]

The only problem is . . .

We've got to wait billions of years to see "God's presence" replacing the light from the sun?


Of course, there are plenty of other suns which we've observed at the end of their lives...where's god's presence?

 

[DLH]

the only problem is you are talking out your ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Earth.27s_fate

..
During the Sun's life in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years, at the present time). The surface temperature of the Sun is almost constant. The increase of luminosity is essentially due to a slow increase in the solar radius. The increase in solar luminosity is such that in about another billion years Earth's water will evaporate and escape into space, rendering it inhospitable to all known terrestrial life.[123][124] Earth is not expected to survive the Sun's transition into a red giant. At its largest, the Sun will have a maximum radius beyond Earth's current orbit, 1 AU (1.5×1011 m), 250 times the present radius of the Sun.[123] By the time the Sun has entered the asymptotic red giant branch, the orbits of the planets will have drifted outwards due to a loss of roughly 30% of the Sun's present mass. Most of this mass will be lost as the solar wind increases. Also, tidal acceleration will help boost Earth to a higher orbit (similar to what Earth does to the Moon). If it were only for this, Earth would probably remain outside the Sun. However, current research suggests that after the Sun becomes a red giant, Earth will be pulled in owing to tidal deceleration.[123]
...

there won't be an earth...

Thank God it won't get to that point. Hallelujah! Can I hear an amen!

- - - Updated - - -

The only problem is . . .

We've got to wait billions of years to see "God's presence" replacing the light from the sun?


Of course, there are plenty of other suns which we've observed at the end of their lives...where's god's presence?

The book of Revelation doesn't state that God's presence is required at all such events. Really, though, doubtful though they are.

 

[none]

the only problem is you are talking out your ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Earth.27s_fate

there won't be an earth...

Thank God it won't get to that point. Hallelujah! Can I hear an amen!

I wouldn't get too hyped over the bible it's just a story

 

[Ford]

The book of Revelation doesn't state that God's presence is required at all such events. Really, though, doubtful though they are.

Well the book of revelation is kind of a load of bullshit.

 

[DLH]

No. The Mosaic Law became obsolete - void - after Christ.

So Jesus was lying then when he reportedly said:
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

When a contract is fulfilled then what obligation beyond that is there?

- - - Updated - - -

The book of Revelation doesn't state that God's presence is required at all such events. Really, though, doubtful though they are.

Well the book of revelation is kind of a load of bullshit.

[Laughs] That was a straight forward answer. No chance of misinterpreting that.

 

[skepticalbip]

Thank God it won't get to that point. Hallelujah! Can I hear an amen!

I wouldn't get too hyped over the bible it's just a story

If it were only one story then it may make some sort of sense. However, it is many, many stories, myths, parables, laws, and other assorted nonsense taken from oral traditions of several different groups all piled together in one volume. This explains why there are different contradictory accounts of the supposed same story like the two different creation myths in Genesis. It is also why anyone can find a Bible quote to support whatever they want to do and why there are so many different sects in Christianity

 

[skepticalbip]

The position of DLH is obviously that everything in the Bible is absolutely correct and the fact that science can't explain some of the nonsense only shows how superior the Bible is to science. For instance, science would say that, because of angular momentum, the Earth can't just suddenly stop rotating for twenty-four hours then suddenly go back to its original rotation rate making it appear that the sun stopped in the heavens so Joshua's army could defeat the enemy. The fact that science says it couldn't have happened only shows the deficiency of science to explain reality. Obviously, it did happen because the Bible says it did...

The book of Revelation says that the sun will burn out after a while and then that God's presence will be the earth's light. Now if the Bible says that the sun will end you aren't going to believe it, but if science says it will then you believe it. Do you really think that if there is a being that created the heavens and earth that man would know more about it than him? The only problem is that you don't believe the best source. If the sun will end and God can supply the light for earth himself, there are various ways in which he could have achieved the event you refer to without having to do it in a way in which science couldn't comprehend. The only problem is . . .

That is one hell of a big and fanciful IF you got there.

As my uncle was fond of saying, "If we had some ham we could have ham and eggs if we had some eggs".

 

[Sajara]

So Jesus was lying then when he reportedly said:
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

When a contract is fulfilled then what obligation beyond that is there?

Wow, you really don't know your Bible do you. I'd give you that traditionally a fulfilled contract might mean that you don't have to do anything else it says, but a fulfilled contract might also mean that you have to continue doing everything the contract says...which, given the context of the rest of the paragraph in Matthew 5:17-20 is more likely the case.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So unless you think that Jesus was lying when he talked about having to practice the old testament laws there...you're probably wrong. Nice try though.

So again, those turtles or doves in the Moses hygienic laws?

And according to Jesus, you might be called least in the kingdom of heaven. If I were you, and I'm not, I'd be careful what I'm preaching or else I might find myself on the short end of the Jesus stick.

 

[DLH]

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So unless you think that Jesus was lying when he talked about having to practice the old testament laws there...you're probably wrong. Nice try though.

So again, those turtles or doves in the Moses hygienic laws?

And according to Jesus, you might be called least in the kingdom of heaven. If I were you, and I'm not, I'd be careful what I'm preaching or else I might find myself on the short end of the Jesus stick.

You don't understand what the Law of Moses was for, and for that matter, the purpose of the Messiah that Law was leading up to.

Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness."

Romans 7:4-12 "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code.
7 What, then, are we to say? Is the Law sin? Certainly not! Really, I would not have come to know sin had it not been for the Law. For example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: “You must not covet.” 8 But sin, finding the opportunity afforded by the commandment, worked out in me covetousness of every sort, for apart from law sin was dead. 9 In fact, I was once alive apart from law. But when the commandment arrived, sin came to life again, but I died. 10 And the commandment that was to lead to life, this I found led to death. 11 For sin, finding the opportunity afforded by the commandment, seduced me and killed me through it. 12 So the Law in itself is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."

Colossians 2:13, 14 "Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."

 

[none]

a made up cure for a made up ailment?
go so far as to say "Jesus, a made up cure for a made up ailment?"?

 

[DLH]

a made up cure for a made up ailment?
go so far as to say "Jesus, a made up cure for a made up ailment?"?

What do you make of this?

2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

The King James Version reads the latter portion of 2 Timothy 1:9 as “before the world began.” Various translations differ: YLT "Before the time of the ages" / NIV "before the beginning of time." / Douay-Rheims "before the times of the world." / ESV "before the ages began." What exactly does this term mean? Most people tend to think of it incorrectly as being before the creation of earth and man, meaning that all since then had been foreknown by God. That isn’t the case at all.

The Greek term katabole is used, and literally means a casting or laying down. For example, throwing down a seed. At Hebrews 11:11 the term is applied to Sarah's being given the gift to "conceive" at a late age.

At Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us insight on when this term, the founding of the world, began. From the blood of Abel. Abel, of course, was the offspring of Adam and Eve, so this time began when the first human couple conceived and began the race of mankind.

The word "world" is translated from the Greek kosmos, which has various meanings. 1. Humankind as a whole. 2. The structure of the human circumstances into which one is born and lives and 3. The masses of humankind apart from God's servants.

So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he towards it’s beginning and we towards it’s conclusion. The founding of the world, in this sense, then, would be the period of time after Adam’s sin but before Adam and Eve conceived. This is the period of time in which God began to allow for the possibility of salvation from the harmful effects of Adam’s sin. Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy of the Bible, is often overlooked as the beginning of all of this because it is often viewed as strictly a pronouncement upon Adam and Eve and the Serpent. When actually it is the first indication that there would be a division of, in a sense of the word, worlds. Those siding with Satan’s seed; his “offspring” so to speak and those of Jehovah’s seed from the woman, his earthly organization of faithful followers who were proved to be rightly disposed or ordained as a class of people from that moment until the conclusion of the world. Put simply, there would be those for Jehovah and those against.

The same would apply to Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as with 2 Timothy 1:9

 

[Sajara]

So unless you think that Jesus was lying when he talked about having to practice the old testament laws there...you're probably wrong. Nice try though.

So again, those turtles or doves in the Moses hygienic laws?

And according to Jesus, you might be called least in the kingdom of heaven. If I were you, and I'm not, I'd be careful what I'm preaching or else I might find myself on the short end of the Jesus stick.

You don't understand what the Law of Moses was for, and for that matter, the purpose of the Messiah that Law was leading up to.

Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness."

Romans 7:4-12 "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another’s, the one who was raised up from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, because we have died to that which restrained us, in order that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit and not in the old sense by the written code.
7 What, then, are we to say? Is the Law sin? Certainly not! Really, I would not have come to know sin had it not been for the Law. For example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: “You must not covet.” 8 But sin, finding the opportunity afforded by the commandment, worked out in me covetousness of every sort, for apart from law sin was dead. 9 In fact, I was once alive apart from law. But when the commandment arrived, sin came to life again, but I died. 10 And the commandment that was to lead to life, this I found led to death. 11 For sin, finding the opportunity afforded by the commandment, seduced me and killed me through it. 12 So the Law in itself is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."

Colossians 2:13, 14 "Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."

So rather than listen to Jesus, you listen to Paul? Why do they say different things? Answer that one in your skeptic's challenge why don't you.

Jesus in Matthew fulfilled the law by living as a perfect example of the law (supposedly).

Then Paul comes along and basically uses Jesus to get out of those pesky jewish laws that no one really wanted to do. That's convenient no?

 

[Sajara]

a made up cure for a made up ailment?
go so far as to say "Jesus, a made up cure for a made up ailment?"?

What do you make of this?

None had it right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he towards it’s beginning and we towards it’s conclusion.

The conclusion of the age of Abel was The Flood. The original covenant ends-ish with the Flood and God kind of starts anew. That would then be erased come Abram... then Moses... then Jesus. So living in the same period as Abel is folly.

 

[none]

a made up cure for a made up ailment?
go so far as to say "Jesus, a made up cure for a made up ailment?"?

What do you make of this?

2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

The King James Version reads the latter portion of 2 Timothy 1:9 as “before the world began.” Various translations differ: YLT "Before the time of the ages" / NIV "before the beginning of time." / Douay-Rheims "before the times of the world." / ESV "before the ages began." What exactly does this term mean? Most people tend to think of it incorrectly as being before the creation of earth and man, meaning that all since then had been foreknown by God. That isn’t the case at all.

The Greek term katabole is used, and literally means a casting or laying down. For example, throwing down a seed. At Hebrews 11:11 the term is applied to Sarah's being given the gift to "conceive" at a late age.

At Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us insight on when this term, the founding of the world, began. From the blood of Abel. Abel, of course, was the offspring of Adam and Eve, so this time began when the first human couple conceived and began the race of mankind.

The word "world" is translated from the Greek kosmos, which has various meanings. 1. Humankind as a whole. 2. The structure of the human circumstances into which one is born and lives and 3. The masses of humankind apart from God's servants.

So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he towards it’s beginning and we towards it’s conclusion. The founding of the world, in this sense, then, would be the period of time after Adam’s sin but before Adam and Eve conceived. This is the period of time in which God began to allow for the possibility of salvation from the harmful effects of Adam’s sin. Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy of the Bible, is often overlooked as the beginning of all of this because it is often viewed as strictly a pronouncement upon Adam and Eve and the Serpent. When actually it is the first indication that there would be a division of, in a sense of the word, worlds. Those siding with Satan’s seed; his “offspring” so to speak and those of Jehovah’s seed from the woman, his earthly organization of faithful followers who were proved to be rightly disposed or ordained as a class of people from that moment until the conclusion of the world. Put simply, there would be those for Jehovah and those against.

The same would apply to Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as with 2 Timothy 1:9

yeah, if you read the whole Bible you will understand that made up Jesus is the cure for the made up ailment, sin.
your mileage might vary depending on the metaphors you supply and ignore the wording.

 

[Malintent]

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

Also, religion invented electricity, the computer, and intertidal marine biology! I read all about it on a Christian site, so it must be true! If there never was a Christianity, then there would be no knowledge of electricity nor intertidal marine biology! If Jesus never died for our sins, then how do we know about limpets?

Limpets, therefore Christianity!

Sorry. Had to tease you.

Yes, I know that the evangelicals claim that science comes from religion. They have to make this claim because as creationists, they need people to believe that evangelical preachers are greater experts in biology than 99.85% of biologists. This is easier if you claim that Christianity is the source of all scientific knowledge, and therefore preachers know more about science than those stupid scientists, who use evidence instead of the Bible to discover truths, and are therefore wrong about evolution.

It's just something evangelicals made up in order to make their creationist claims sound less like anti-science quackery (e.g. "See? We're the real scientists! We're just trying to stop those bad, bad ol' evilooshunists from spreading their bad science!") The fact is, religion has been a constant impediment to intellectual inquiry throughout history.

This is because religion is just a political control mechanism, and people who hold the reins of power don't like when smarty smartpants question their truth claims. At least we should be thankful that Christians no longer set people on fire for making competing truth claims.

What you say may be mostly true. However I do believe it is well documented that the ancient churches were indeed the promoters and financiers for studies into "how god does stuff". It was only when the methodology became good enough to actually gain reliable knowledge that issues arose with conflict of actual truth with the Truth the church was selling. Like a company paying for a study and then burning it when it didn't have desirable results. Then they didn't want to use that methodology anymore and a divide between science and theology was created. Or am I completely wrong about that?

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems to me that the church financed philosophical studies to answer the question of why god did whatever rather than the question how something works. The search for how through experimentation was be beginning of modern science and the finding of understandings of nature that were in conflict with church cannon... and backlash from the church.