Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Christianity's Compatibly with Science.

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
L

Live_Free

Guest
Not looking for some real in depth debate/discussion, but if that is what it devolves into so be it and maybe we will learn something.


So do you guys/gals think Christianity (In this case as SOLEY defined by the Christian Bible in it's full, every book) is compatible with Science by todays standards and knowledge?


Just curious. :)
 
Not looking for some real in depth debate/discussion, but if that is what it devolves into so be it and maybe we will learn something.


So do you guys/gals think Christianity (In this case as SOLEY defined by the Christian Bible in it's full, every book) is compatible with Science by todays standards and knowledge?


Just curious. :)
If your question asks, "Is Christianity compatible with science?" then the simple answer is "Yes". If you are asking if the various views of religious people are ever going to be in total agreement with the various views of scientists? No, not today anyway.

Part of the problem is the orientation of the view. Most God-fearing look from a top-down perspective while men and women of science look from the specific to make conclusions about the general. This difference in orientation of view has caused (and continues to cause) many different and incompatible conclusions. It is my opinion that as God continues to pour out knowledge upon the whole earth the gap that we see today will narrow and more and more agreement can be expected.

~Sparrow
 
My question, I feel, was explicitly clear in the OP. But I will restate it.


Do you feel Christianity [As defined by the Bible, ever verse (Not by what a precher/pope/etc says) in ever book of both the old and new testament] is compatible with what we now know in science [Cosmology, biology. A few of the specific theories (Scientific theories are entirely different then a "theory", in science gravity is still a theory) I am talking about are the Big Bang and Evolution] are compatible with the Bible?
 
My question, I feel, was explicitly clear in the OP. But I will restate it.


Do you feel Christianity [As defined by the Bible, ever verse (Not by what a precher/pope/etc says) in ever book of both the old and new testament] is compatible with what we now know in science [Cosmology, biology. A few of the specific theories (Scientific theories are entirely different then a "theory", in science gravity is still a theory) I am talking about are the Big Bang and Evolution] are compatible with the Bible?
I've accepted your statement that you are not looking for a debate or some "real in depth" discussion.

You have asked again,
"Do you feel..."

I've read your question and have answered. Each theory (does the origin really matter?) either rightly describes our existence or it does not. Given that statement as true and confronted with our limitations we (both men of science and religion) will do well to acknowledge our limits and state honestly, "I don't know." In my opinion there are too many theories stated as dogma. For those who would come and say, "I speak for all Science," my thought is: ORLY? Same applies and more so for any who would attempt to speak for the Author of the Bible for He is not a man as I am.
 
It depends on how accurate a microcosm your community here is of Christianity in general.
It depends on the individual as answers would vary from person to person but
Based on the average pervading viewpoints I've witnessed here...

No they aren't, It's not possible to have complete and unfailing faith in "biblical evidence" without compromising that "extra-biblical evidence" that suggests conflict with biblical ideals must be wrong It means that your absolute loyalty to such verses makes you unable to critically assess things properly.
 
Not looking for some real in depth debate/discussion, but if that is what it devolves into so be it and maybe we will learn something.


So do you guys/gals think Christianity (In this case as SOLEY defined by the Christian Bible in it's full, every book) is compatible with Science by todays standards and knowledge?


Just curious. :)

Everything science has ever discovered that is true agrees with Scripture...eventually. Scripture is inerrant and immutable. Science always changes to fit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything science has ever discovered that is true agrees with Scripture...eventually. Scripture is inerrant and immutable. Science always changes to fit.

Wow. Alabaster, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to ask you to present this case. Please demonstrate the credibility of your statement above. Thanks.
 
Scientific Facts in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/browse.shtml
 
Scientific Facts in the Bible

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Wow - and you think this amounts to the atomic theory of matter?
2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
Do you have reference for the blood-clotting 'peak' in new-borns, please? Regardless of this, however, actions based on actual experience do not amount to 'science'. Calling this evidence of biblical 'science' is like claiming the ability to predict eclipses amounts to a meaningful cosmological model of the Solar System.
3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).
Earth does not 'free float in space'. Elsewhere the Bible claims that Earth has 'ends', that it has 'foundations', 'pillars' and 'corners'. You seem to be cherry-picking those bits of the Bible that you can contrive as fitting with our current understanding and either ignoring other bits that don't or regarding them as metaphorical or allegorical.
4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).
Ummm, a circle is not a sphere; it is a two-dimensional figure. Climb any high ground and look around you, turning a complete circle. Does the land around you pretty much seem to circumscribe a disc? A spherical Earth was broadly accepted long before Columbus's voyages; Bede mentions it in the 8th Century AD; it was an understanding that had little or nothing to do with biblical scripture.
5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).
Absurd nonsense. The Greeks believed Zeus could cast lightning bolts to Earth, effectively signifying his presence. You demonstrate an excellent instance of post facto rationalization.
6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
More special pleading. The rest of the verse asks 'and as for darkness, where is the place thereof'. The NASB offers 'Where is the way to the dwelling of light?' which implies something completely different from what you assert.
7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."
And special pleading again. If this is to be taken literally, then presumably Job had a different understanding of when Earth was created from the writers of Genesis.
8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).
The Egyptian creation mythology also imagines 'an initial void' of darkness and chaos. Does this mean Egyptian understanding was also 'uncannily close to the truth'. Do not mistake journalist's turn of phrase for scientific understanding. What do 'most cosmologists' agree 35 years after your referenced Time article?
9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
The wind blows towards the south and then to the north and this amounts exactly how to evidence about anything more than the wind changing direction periodically? Which 'cycle' of air currents was being described so scientifically?

More later.
 
Absurd nonsense. The Greeks believed Zeus could cast lightning bolts to Earth, effectively signifying his presence. You demonstrate an excellent instance of post facto rationalization.

So? The Greeks didn't come along until thousands of years later. Job predated Abe.


The rest of your nonsensical retorts are just the rants of an argumentative unbeliever. I file them under 'M'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to allow lorkkalvin to continue his counter argument as he does it better than I would, so I defer to him.

However, Alabster, what you are calling "rants of an argumentative unbeliever", . . . firstly, bringing forth an argumentative is what debate forums are for. Secondly, it could be said the same for the information that you cut and pasted as being "a rant of an argument for psuedo-scientific creationism". The difference is, rather than calling names, why not address your side of the argument? Thirdly [and lastly], I'm sure there are many christians that would have equally opposing comments to the material that you illuded to.

In my opinion, I think it is erroneous to bring up the book of Job in order to "talk science" . . . as it is filled with a lot of quite unscientific statements.

Looking to see the rest of lordkalvin's assessment of this information.
 
So? The Greeks didn't come along until thousands of years later. Job predated Abe.
Your historical knowledge seems sadly awry. The earliest origins for the Bible are dated to somewhere between 500-1000 BC. The Minoan Civilization, which led to and displayed many of the features later seen in Greek Civilization, predates these estimates by up to two millennia.
The rest of your nonsensical retorts are just the rants of an argumentative unbeliever. I file them under 'M'.
Really? So anything that disagrees with whatever you care to assert can be classed as 'nonsense' on the basis of no more than that disagreement and you can ignore all the uncomfortable points arising from observations that gainsay your assertions? I guess that makes pointing out some of the sillinesses in the remainder of your 'Scientific Facts in the Bible' a rather futile exercise?
 
I'm going to allow lorkkalvin to continue his counter argument as he does it better than I would, so I defer to him.

Of course you do.

However, Alabster, what you are calling "rants of an argumentative unbeliever", . . . firstly, bringing forth an argumentative is what debate forums are for. Secondly, it could be said the same for the information that you cut and pasted as being "a rant of an argument for psuedo-scientific creationism". The difference is, rather than calling names, why not address your side of the argument?

What is ranty is posting with an attitude of distaste as if the material was my own when I was upfront about my source.

Typical.

Thirdly [and lastly], I'm sure there are many christians that would have equally opposing comments to the material that you illuded to.

Christians begins with a capital 'C', and of course, Christians who enjoy searching the word for truth about a matter would agree with the material.

In my opinion, I think it is erroneous to bring up the book of Job in order to "talk science" . . . as it is filled with a lot of quite unscientific statements.

Seeing as God Himself speaks regarding His creation in the book of Job, I relegate your assertion to spiritual denial.
 
Your historical knowledge seems sadly awry. The earliest origins for the Bible are dated to somewhere between 500-1000 BC. The Minoan Civilization, which led to and displayed many of the features later seen in Greek Civilization, predates these estimates by up to two millennia.

It matters not. Job predates Abraham---between 2000 and 4000 years BC. So, what the Greeks knew has nothing to do with what God told Job and was recorded by Moses later.


Really? So anything that disagrees with whatever you care to assert can be classed as 'nonsense' on the basis of no more than that disagreement and you can ignore all the uncomfortable points arising from observations that gainsay your assertions?

Disagree without the silly personal jabs about the article pasted.

I guess that makes pointing out some of the sillinesses in the remainder of your 'Scientific Facts in the Bible' a rather futile exercise?

There you go again...
 
Back in the 70's I did a study about "The Sins of the Father" from the word of God and thought, "There must be a mechanism [for life choices to be communicated genetically]". At the time I lacked the words necessary to even express the concept. How was this received by the Christian community? I was mocked and taunted. Cruel and cutting remarks were made.

Deuteronomy 5:9-10 KJV said:
... for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

It was no great scientific discovery but only a thought that was slightly predictive in nature. "Maybe we will be able to discover a mechanism for the truth of what God has declared?" There are more scriptures that hint at possible scientific discoveries that can be discussed but it is like what Jason said, the bible is not a textbook of science, nor does it pretend to be.

The question about compatibility that this thread brings has more to do with tolerance that individuals have for others. It's like anything else where some will have more than others. I am reminded of a study that was presented during a lecture at Central Washington University in the late 70's.

  • Volunteers were selected and divided into two groups. They were conducted to a room where Group A and Group B were separated by a panel. Both could view the same movie screen but neither could see the other party. They would flash images of human cells in mitosis (or was that meiosis?) and ask the subjects to guess if the cell was about to divide or not.
  • Each subject had a black box and each box had two buttons. One marked "True" and the other marked "False".
  • Both Group A and Group B were shown the same slides (one at a time) of human cells. Both were asked to predict if the cells were about to divide or not. Both groups were given immediate feedback, through red and green lights.
  • There was one difference between the feedback that was given to the first and the second groups. Group A would be given "honest feedback". If they predicted that the cell was about to divide and their prediction was true? Their green light would would indicate their prediction was correct.
The other group though would be given totally random feedback. The red and green light response for Group B was predetermined and given without regard to their input. A random 'flip of the coin' response, if you will.

The test was repeated. The research study showed very consistent results. Group A figured it out really quick. Group B would have figured it out, but the scientists kept changing the data so that no simple and consistent method of observation could be produced (flip of a coin) ... but the scientists had said such a method was there and if group B were observant enough they would eventually figure it out. And they did, but it was utter nonsense. Group B came up with really bizarre rules and reasons for why the results changed BUT eventually felt they understood it well enough to teach and explain it to others.

Group A was brought in and the scientists stopped messing with the data. At first Group A called Group B a bunch of knuckleheads because obviously noticing the change is as easy as 1, 2, 3. They would describe their method in simple (accurate) terms. "When those little squiggly things start getting close to each other..." and such... but Group B would have nothing to do with their logic and reasoning. Group B was so adamant that their convoluted arguments were superior (they argued by reason of complexity versus simple observation) that they managed to get Group A to reject their method and exchange for Group B's faulty reasoning!

Both Groups were tested again and Group A (who had learned to predict the division with greater than 80% accuracy) results were far lower. The adopted method was actually worst than the 50% correct that could be expected had they simply pressed buttons without regard.


~Sparrow
 
It matters not. Job predates Abraham---between 2000 and 4000 years BC. So, what the Greeks knew has nothing to do with what God told Job and was recorded by Moses later.
It matters a great deal, given your assertion. And I would be pleased to see what historically and archaeologically valid evidence you can provide for claiming the dates you do. there is no archaeological evidence at all to support the existenceof the Hebrews/Israelites as a coherent and separate tribal group much before 1000 BC. Folktales, legends and myth cannot alone be considered evidential absent any other material to validate them.
Disagree without the silly personal jabs about the article pasted.
What 'silly personal jabs' would those be then? Pointing out the inherent absurdities, special pleading and offering folklore as science that pepper the 'facts' you posted?
There you go again...
Silliness remains silliness, no matter how much you feel that a comment directed at the content of a post in some way applies also to the poster.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top