[_ Old Earth _] BIBLE VERSUS THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS

[kendemyer]

BIBLE VERSUS THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS

I will give 6 plus pieces of evidence showing that the Bible has been true and the science community consensus has been wrong in the past (One category involves more than one example) . I should note that I do not pick any extremely controversial examples in regards to my 6 plus pieces of evidence but have endeavored to be very conservative.

When scientists disagree with the Bible I believe it is wise to believe in the Bible. And it really doesn't matter how many scientists disagree with the Bible regarding their scientific opinions since 10 wrong scientists are just as wrong as one of them. I am guessing the Lord is not impressed by peer reviewed science articles that disagree with the Bible. : )


THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, BIBLE HAS BEEN TRUE AND THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS HAS DEFINITELY BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST


I believe there are definitely cases when the scientific consensus was wrong and the Bible was clearly right. I don't believe it can be said there are any clear cut cases where the Bible was wrong and the scientific consensus was right.

Here are 6 pieces of evidence which shows the scientists/historians (technically it could be argued that historians are scientists since history is a social science but I created a separate category by using the words "scientists/historians") were wrong and the Bible was right:

1. Britannica/experts versus the Bible, snakes http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm

2. Lion experts versus the Bible : http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm

3. Astronomers versus the Bible:
http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=53&qa_id=141

4. Now in regards to Bible history the Bible experts have been so wrong that the recent Oxford Bible Commentary says it takes a "chastened historical criticism" approach (see: http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/humanitie ... bib_schol/ History of course is a social science.

5: Oceanography:

Eighteenth-century scientists had little knowledge of the topography of the ocean floors. They lived at a time when depth measurements were made by letting down a lead weight on the end of a rope… Oceanographers interpreted the few measurements available as indicating that the ocean floors were monotonous flat plains.
(Harold L Levin 1981, Contemporary Physical Geology, CBS College Publishing, USA, p. 320)

The Bible correctly implies that beneath the sea there are valleys (Psalm 104:8) and mountains (Jonah 2:5-6).

These Bible verses are now confirmed by science:


With the advent of continuous topographic profiles from echo-sounding devices, it was shown that the ocean floors are as irregular as the surface of the continents. Beneath the waves lay canyons deeper than the Grand Canyon, and mountain systems more magnificent than the Rockies. (Levin p. 320)

taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BOceanography68.htm

6. Ants

An early example I encountered was the ant. The Bible implies that “the ant†stores food during harvest for future consumption, but this was contradicted by 19th-century European naturalists:

Ant (Hebrew. nemalah). This insect is mentioned twice in the O. T.: in Prov. VI. 6, XXX. 25. In the former of these passages the diligence of this insect is instanced by the wise man as an example worthy of imitation… It is well known that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the ant stored up food, which it collected in the summer, ready for the winter’s consumption; but this is an error. The European species of ants are all dormant in the winter, and consequently require no food; and the observations of modern naturalists seem almost conclusive that no ants lay up for future consumption. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

The ancient writers lived around the Mediterranean where harvesting ants are common. Probably they considered all ants as harvesters. Many centuries later, the beginning of modern science blossomed forth in more northern temperate countries, where harvesters are unknown. And so it was that these northern scientists by the eighteenth century began first to question, then to refute, the existence of any such creatures. The pendulum of scientific thought had swung in the opposite direction, despite the fierce opposition met in defying the word of the Bible.

In the nineteenth century, as ants were studied more carefully and in additional parts of the world, it was gradually learned that some ants, although not all, are harvesters. Thus was removed the tarnish that in some scientific circles had dulled the veracity of Solomon.
(Larson & Larson, 1976)....

Larson, P P & Larson, M W 1976 All About Ants, Apollo, USA, p. 64....

Smith, W 1967 Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Spire Books, USA, p. 38


taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

Lastly I totally agree with the below statements of this author:

I’ve also demonstrated Bible accuracy and refutations of critics in many other sciences  astronomy, biology, genetics, medicine, psychology, zoology, etc.....

Inductive logic is the logic by which we generalize from particular items to general conclusions: If a person is regularly reliable we’ll trust him next time....

And if the Bible regularly turns out correct and its critics wrong we expect more of the same. We could even hypothesise that the original Scriptures of the Bible are 100% accurate!....

Is it better to trust a source that’s regularly correct across thousands of years or to trust what may be “a bad joke�

taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

 

[reznwerks]

rest

Give it a rest. Any errors or mistakes have always been welcome in the science community as their sole aim is to get at the truth. This is posted in response to any other posts you have may listed. Whatever you feel that science has overlooked you can be confident that yourassumptions have been misled. There is nothing that you can bring up that hasn't already been explained or it was not explained to you properly. 98% of scientists have already explained any confusion that you may already have but unfortunately you are not being told that or you don't know where to look. If you look at all my posts somewhere in there is all the explanations that you don't know about or are unfamiliar with.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I don't think it is such a big deal that people thousands of years ago realized that snakes can't hear. That should be obvious to any snake handler or snake charmer.

The ancient Greeks also noticed a few european lions too.

 

[kendemyer]

I believe the following is true though:

I believe there are definitely cases when the scientific consensus was wrong and the Bible was clearly right. I don't believe it can be said there are any clear cut cases where the Bible was wrong and the scientific consensus was right.

 

[Barbarian]

There are, however, innumerable cases where the Bible was right, but literalists misunderstood what it said.

 

[kendemyer]

TO: Barbarian

I prefer the grammatico-historical method of exegesis which is doing the following:

The rules of exegesis:

Gordon D. Fee, in his New Testament Exegesis, p 27, states simply, “Exegesis…answers the question, What did the biblical author mean? It has to do both with what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the literary context). Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?â€Â

Before we can determine what a given text might mean for us today, we must establish what it meant for its original audience.

This is the process of exegesis. In this article, we will lay out the fundamental rules, of which there are eight. In future articles, we will elaborate on each one from a nuts & bolts perspective. The rules listed are taken directly from Prof. Fee’s excellent book (p. 32), mentioned in the paragraph above.

Rules of Bible exegesis

Rule No. 1: Survey the historical context in general.

Rule No. 2: Confirm the limits of the passage.

Rule No. 3: Become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph or pericope

Rule No. 4: Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships.

Rule No. 5: Establish the text.

Rule No. 6: Analyze the grammar.

Rule No. 7: Analyze significant words.

Rule No. 8: Research the historical-cultural background.

taken from: http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20No ... egesis.htm

Here is further information:

A true "literal" interpretation could be understood (and should be) as
meaning expressed by the author to his/her audience in the historical
context of its expression. That is to say,"Interpreted by the rules of
literature." Milton S. Terry calls this the "Grammatico-Historical
Interpretation". (_Biblical Hermeneutics_,Terry, Milton S., Zondervan, GrandRapids, pg 173) [I put this in for all those who like to have some published opinion.]

In his work, Terry speaks about some of the other methods: Allegorical
Interpretations (Philo, Clement); Mystical Interpretation (Origen, Maurus,
Swedenborg); Pietistic Interpretation (Quakers); The Accomodation-Theory (Semler), Moral Interpretation (Kant); Naturalistic Interpretation (Paulus); The Mythical Theory (Strauss); Other Rationalistic Theories (Baur, Renan); and Apologetic and Dogmatic Methods. Only briefly touching these, he proceeds to lay the foundation for the Grammatico-Historical method of interpretation and then demonstrating it by interpreting the Scripture.

Terry touches the figurative language; simile and metaphor; fables, riddles
and enigmas; parables; allegories; proverbs and gnomic poetry; types;
symbols; symbolico-typical actions; symbolical numbers, names and colors;
dreams and prophetic ecstasy; prophecy; apocalypse (old and new testament).

Terry further denounces the double sense interpretation of prophecy,
addresses the alleged discrepancies of the scriptures and its alleged
contradictions to science.

In "Part Third", Terry addresses the history of Biblical interpretation from
'Ancient Jewish Exegesis' through later Rabbinical, early Christian, Later
Patristic, Middle Age, Reformation, seventeenth, eighteenth century exegesis and concluding with nineteenth century exegesis.

I highly recommend this book to scholar and layman alike. Don't try reading it when you're tired ;-).

A real "literal" interpretation will bring one to the mind set of the
author, the recipient and its intended meaning.

taken from: http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe? ... S=&P=25444

I do not believe you can shoehorn Darwin in Genesis:

NINE REASONS WHY THE “DAYS†IN GENESIS ONE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS NORMAL (24-HOUR) DAYS

http://www3.telus.net/csabc/DaysInGenesis1.html



I also cite:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... s.asp#days

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... romise.asp

 

[reznwerks]

BIBLE VERSUS THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS

I will give 6 plus pieces of evidence showing that the Bible has been true and the science community consensus has been wrong in the past (One category involves more than one example) . I should note that I do not pick any extremely controversial examples in regards to my 6 plus pieces of evidence but have endeavored to be very conservative.

When scientists disagree with the Bible I believe it is wise to believe in the Bible. And it really doesn't matter how many scientists disagree with the Bible regarding their scientific opinions since 10 wrong scientists are just as wrong as one of them. I am guessing the Lord is not impressed by peer reviewed science articles that disagree with the Bible. : )


THE INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, BIBLE HAS BEEN TRUE AND THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS HAS DEFINITELY BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST


I believe there are definitely cases when the scientific consensus was wrong and the Bible was clearly right. I don't believe it can be said there are any clear cut cases where the Bible was wrong and the scientific consensus was right.

Here are 6 pieces of evidence which shows the scientists/historians (technically it could be argued that historians are scientists since history is a social science but I created a separate category by using the words "scientists/historians") were wrong and the Bible was right:

1. Britannica/experts versus the Bible, snakes
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm
VS
Insects with four feet?
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23


2. Lion experts versus the Bible : http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm

3. Astronomers versus the Bible:
http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=53&qa_id=141
VS
"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)
IMPOSSIBLE TO DO WITH A ROUND EARTH


4. Now in regards to Bible history the Bible experts have been so wrong that the recent Oxford Bible Commentary says it takes a "chastened historical criticism" approach (see: http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/humanitie ... bib_schol/ History of course is a social science.
VS
http://jews-for-allah.org/the-Jewish-Bi ... zekiel.htm


5: Oceanography:

Eighteenth-century scientists had little knowledge of the topography of the ocean floors. They lived at a time when depth measurements were made by letting down a lead weight on the end of a rope… Oceanographers interpreted the few measurements available as indicating that the ocean floors were monotonous flat plains.
(Harold L Levin 1981, Contemporary Physical Geology, CBS College Publishing, USA, p. 320)

The Bible correctly implies that beneath the sea there are valleys (Psalm 104:8) and mountains (Jonah 2:5-6).

These Bible verses are now confirmed by science:


With the advent of continuous topographic profiles from echo-sounding devices, it was shown that the ocean floors are as irregular as the surface of the continents. Beneath the waves lay canyons deeper than the Grand Canyon, and mountain systems more magnificent than the Rockies. (Levin p. 320)

taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BOceanography68.htm

6. Ants

[quote:77388]An early example I encountered was the ant. The Bible implies that “the ant†stores food during harvest for future consumption, but this was contradicted by 19th-century European naturalists:

Ant (Hebrew. nemalah). This insect is mentioned twice in the O. T.: in Prov. VI. 6, XXX. 25. In the former of these passages the diligence of this insect is instanced by the wise man as an example worthy of imitation… It is well known that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the ant stored up food, which it collected in the summer, ready for the winter’s consumption; but this is an error. The European species of ants are all dormant in the winter, and consequently require no food; and the observations of modern naturalists seem almost conclusive that no ants lay up for future consumption. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

The ancient writers lived around the Mediterranean where harvesting ants are common. Probably they considered all ants as harvesters. Many centuries later, the beginning of modern science blossomed forth in more northern temperate countries, where harvesters are unknown. And so it was that these northern scientists by the eighteenth century began first to question, then to refute, the existence of any such creatures. The pendulum of scientific thought had swung in the opposite direction, despite the fierce opposition met in defying the word of the Bible.

In the nineteenth century, as ants were studied more carefully and in additional parts of the world, it was gradually learned that some ants, although not all, are harvesters. Thus was removed the tarnish that in some scientific circles had dulled the veracity of Solomon.
(Larson & Larson, 1976)....

Larson, P P & Larson, M W 1976 All About Ants, Apollo, USA, p. 64....

Smith, W 1967 Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Spire Books, USA, p. 38


taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

Lastly I totally agree with the below statements of this author:

I’ve also demonstrated Bible accuracy and refutations of critics in many other sciences  astronomy, biology, genetics, medicine, psychology, zoology, etc.....

Inductive logic is the logic by which we generalize from particular items to general conclusions: If a person is regularly reliable we’ll trust him next time....

And if the Bible regularly turns out correct and its critics wrong we expect more of the same. We could even hypothesise that the original Scriptures of the Bible are 100% accurate!....


taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

[/quote:77388]
"Is it better to trust a source that’s regularly correct across thousands of years or to trust what may be “a bad joke� kENDEYMEYER
YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT EXCEPT THAT THE BIBLE HAS SHOWN ITSELF TO BE WRONG AS OFTEN AS BEING RIGHT. HERE IS THE SHORT LIST OF WHICH THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN OFFER AN EXPLANATION IS TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS SINGING THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER IN FRENCH WITH A WHOARSE THROAT FILLED WITH A SOCK. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ME BUT ITS ALL IN THE BOOK.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html