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

[Alabaster]

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.

That's funny. Really.

 

[jasoncran]

intellectual honesty.

is that a wrong thing to posses?

are we here to win arguments(christian) or win the lost to christ?

 

[lordkalvan]

That's funny. Really.

It seems that while you are quite capable of ridiculing the truth, you are quite incapable of offering reasoned argument against it.

 

[jasoncran]

has anyone heard from Crying Rock?

he hasnt been here since we moved to this vb format.

 

[Alabaster]

It seems that while you are quite capable of ridiculing the truth, you are quite incapable of offering reasoned argument against it.

There is archeological evidence of King David's reign, and as far back as Sodom and Gomorrah as well, that was completely razed by a rain of brimstone.

The first tells of the Jews as a nation, and the second of the time of the setting apart of Abraham as the forefather of the Jewish people.

 

[Deavonreye]

I can see what lordkalvan is saying . . . . .

Seeing as God Himself speaks regarding His creation in the book of Job, I relegate your assertion to spiritual denial.

How can you expect people to take such responses seriously when all you have given is your own personal belief in the book you pose as being "written by god himself"? I would really like to see an actual debate over "your posts are stupid because I say so" type of responses. Perhaps one or two of these statements [asserted as being from god] come relatively and loosely close to "science", . . . but most is an obvious attempt at a primative man trying to comprehend the wonders of the world he was living in . . . . and getting them wrong. If it was supposed to be real literal statements about the world, . . .then yes, I must deny it, because they are false. And if it is supposed to be "poetic" or "figurative", then it isn't science.

 

[Alabaster]

I can see what lordkalvan is saying . . . . .



How can you expect people to take such responses seriously when all you have given is your own personal belief in the book you pose as being "written by god himself"? I would really like to see an actual debate over "your posts are stupid because I say so" type of responses. Perhaps one or two of these statements [asserted as being from god] come relatively and loosely close to "science", . . . but most is an obvious attempt at a primative man trying to comprehend the wonders of the world he was living in . . . . and getting them wrong. If it was supposed to be real literal statements about the world, . . .then yes, I must deny it, because they are false. And if it is supposed to be "poetic" or "figurative", then it isn't science.

Kindly be reminded that this is a Christian site and Christians know that Scripture is inspired by God, the author. In Job, God speaks directly to Job and relays His creative work to Him.

Yes, primitive men wrote much of Scripture and had little scientific knowledge, yet the truth filtered through. That is due to Godly inspiration. Scripture is not a science textbook, but it is the word of God and all science conforms to it.



"Stupid" is not a word used by me, so I resent you putting words in my mouth, Deavon.

 

[lordkalvan]

Scientific Facts in the Bible

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.

So finding words in the Bible in a cherry-picked selection of a particular translation of verses that can be looked at sideways and claimed to mean the same as the 'five terms' that is asserted that 'science' uses to 'express the universe' is supposed to stand evidence for the scientific factuality of the Bible? As 'heaven' also contains stars, planets, asteroids and a vast amount of other material, why does this not stand equivalent of 'matter'? Or is it the case that this is simply contrived nonsense?

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."

So living things die if they lose their blood and you imagine that this is a revelatory scientific fact that no one noticed before it was written down in the Bible? Perhaps you should go check out Dynastic Egyptian medical understanding?

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.

I have no idea how this 'explains' as 'scientific fact' how the dinosaurs disappeared. It seems to be asserting that because behemoth = dinosaur (an assumption without any obvious merit) and because 'he' who supposedly 'made' it can come up to it with a 'sword', this can be imaginatively assumed to be taken as evidence for the extinction of the dinosaurs. By the way, what evidence do you have that the reference is to 'the largest of all creatures God made'? The blue whale is the largest animal known to have lived and is (thankfully) still with us, which rather gives the lie to the last sentence. You may also want to reflect on the understanding that 'tail like a cedar' and 'sinews of his stones' stand as allusions to the sexual vigour of the animal in question.

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."

I have no problems with acknowledging that the Bible contains relevant and useful advice on a number of topics, but these can be understood as practices based on the observed consequences of failing to follow them and do not require to have been handed down as divine instruction. Given the general absence of any evidence in the Bible for medical treatment based on anything like 'scientific fact' (most 'cures' seem to be attributed to miracles rather than by treatment), the more striking observation is the general absence of medical advice beyond the isolation of anyone suffering from skin eruptions (not all of which are infectious anyway) and a certain of amount of clean practice around them. Contrary the assertion made, the recommended treatment does not seem to be ordained for disease in general as implied by the claim.

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.

A very contrived 'fact', indeed. Perhaps the reference means that the 'Second Coming' will take place over a more prolonged period than instantly, as this assertions seems to seek to imply.

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)

Well, insofar as the Black Death was primarily spread by rat-borne fleas, the assertion that following the biblical prescriptions for dealing with leprosy 'would have saved untold millions of lives' seems a rather extravagant claim.

 

[lordkalvan]

There is archeological evidence of King David's reign....

Which you have neither presented nor shown how it offers any evidence at all about the dates you claimed concerning Job and Abraham.

....and as far back as Sodom and Gomorrah as well, that was completely razed by a rain of brimstone.

Also which you have neither presented nor shown how it offers any evidence at all about the dates you claimed concerning Job and Abraham.

The first tells of the Jews as a nation, and the second of the time of the setting apart of Abraham as the forefather of the Jewish people.

I have not disputed that the Jews were 'a nation' nor that Abraham is the legendary 'forefather of the Jewish people'. What I have pointed out is that your assertion that 'It matters not. Job predates Abraham---between 2000 and 4000 years BC' lacks any evidential merit at all. Your reply here does nothing to gainsay that observation.

 

[Deavonreye]

Kindly be reminded that this is a Christian site and Christians know that Scripture is inspired by God, the author. In Job, God speaks directly to Job and relays His creative work to Him.

Yes, primitive men wrote much of Scripture and had little scientific knowledge, yet the truth filtered through. That is due to Godly inspiration. Scripture is not a science textbook, but it is the word of God and all science conforms to it.

You mean, like "hail stones being stored in heaven for days of battle", or "lightning bolts reporting to god so he can tell them where to strike" [a.k.a. Zeus, IMO]? Science conforms to that?

"Stupid" is not a word used by me, so I resent you putting words in my mouth, Deavon.

I've noticed that you become offended easily. If I offended you, sorry.

 

[lordkalvan]

has anyone heard from Crying Rock?

he hasnt been here since we moved to this vb format.

Not a word. I miss him, too.

 

[lordkalvan]

Just to make my own position clear, I see no reason at all why Christianity should be anything other than compatible with science, as demonstrated by the work of Christian scientists like Francis Collins, Hugh Ross and Kenneth R. Miller, not to mention the Christian clergymen scientists of the 19th Century (e.g. William Buckland, Baden Powell and William Whewell). The existence of institutions and organizations like the Association of Christian Astronomers also testifies to this compatibility.

 

[Alabaster]

Just to make my own position clear, I see no reason at all why Christianity should be anything other than compatible with science, as demonstrated by the work of Christian scientists like Francis Collins, Hugh Ross and Kenneth R. Miller, not to mention the Christian clergymen scientists of the 19th Century (e.g. William Buckland, Baden Powell and William Whewell). The existence of institutions and organizations like the Association of Christian Astronomers also testifies to this compatibility.

Well, that's good. Scripture is compatible with science. After all the Master Scientist wrote the book.

 

[jasoncran]

Not a word. I miss him, too.

he showed me alot and where to go outside of aig and icr and sucklike.

plus even though he was an old earth creationist. and you and barb are evolutionist
i got to learn the theory of evolution instead of bickering over what is or isnt science.

there are so many ways to debate this and we can just look at the evidence and present the case.

something that he taught me.

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, that's good. Scripture is compatible with science. After all the Master Scientist wrote the book.

I hate to bring this up again, . . . but why would this "master scientist" state the location of the afore mentioned "hailstones in warehouses", or lightning reporting to god as per where it should strike? This is completely false, so why even state it?

 

[Alabaster]

I hate to bring this up again, . . . but why would this "master scientist" state the location of the afore mentioned "hailstones in warehouses", or lightning reporting to god as per where it should strike? This is completely false, so why even state it?

God is a wonderful poet, describing how He is Lord over all things.

 

[Deavonreye]

God is a wonderful poet, describing how He is Lord over all things.

But your pasted material took things out of the book of Job as evidence, . . . .but when it is obviously counter to actual science, it is suddenly "poetic expression"? It isn't even all that poetic, IMO. This is just picking and choosing. . . . plain and simple.

 

[Alabaster]

But your pasted material took things out of the book of Job as evidence, . . . .but when it is obviously counter to actual science, it is suddenly "poetic expression"? It isn't even all that poetic, IMO. This is just picking and choosing. . . . plain and simple.

It takes the Spirit of God to discern the scriptures. It is always truth, no matter what style of speaking is used.

When God speaks, no matter which book He is recorded in, it is always truth.

Science can never counter God's truth. Fallible scientists often come to erroneous conclusions, and hold to them until they discover they were wrong all along. God is always right. He is the Master Scientist, the Creator of all things. If you think that God is countering science, then science is wrong. Period.

 

[jasoncran]

But your pasted material took things out of the book of Job as evidence, . . . .but when it is obviously counter to actual science, it is suddenly "poetic expression"? It isn't even all that poetic, IMO. This is just picking and choosing. . . . plain and simple.

while i dont know the whole evidence that alabaster presents. hebrew poetry is quite different then ours.

psalms is poetic, so is proverbs, song of solomon and also parts of other books.

 

[lordkalvan]

It takes the Spirit of God to discern the scriptures. It is always truth, no matter what style of speaking is used.

When God speaks, no matter which book He is recorded in, it is always truth.

Science can never counter God's truth. Fallible scientists often come to erroneous conclusions, and hold to them until they discover they were wrong all along. God is always right. He is the Master Scientist, the Creator of all things. If you think that God is countering science, then science is wrong. Period.

And yet the determination of that 'truth' appears to depend very much of the differing interpretations of fallible human beings - as demonstrated by the selective definitions of what constitute scientific biblical facts that you offered us previously.