Does science prove or disprove the Bible?

[wavy]

Isaiah xl.22: This passage does not describe the earth as a sphere. It's a reference to the canopy of heaven, a dome-shaped structure in the dwelling of Yahweh on which he walks (see Job xxii.14), and an example of erroneous Hebrew cosmology (more on this follows below). The word for 'circle' wouldn't even be most appropriate word for 'sphere' anyway, which would have been duwr. In fact, the word for 'sphere' in modern Hebrew is a derivative of duwr. Alternatively, it could be describing the earth as a circular disk, not a sphere. This example fails.

Jeremiah xxxiii.22: Contrary to what the chart states, this passage does not say 'the number of stars exceeds a billion'. If you take this as prescience of the number of stars in the universe, I'm afraid you're caught in a dilemma, one in which the bible looks ridiculous either way it goes. Noting this same simile in Deuteronomy i.10, the children of Israel in the wilderness could hardly have totaled in countless trillions. Your other option, as consistency would require, is to believe the Hebrews calculated the number stars at probably something under 2 million (see Exodus xii.37; 600,000 men + women/children). On the other hand, the correct understanding of what the bible is saying when it says the stars are inestimable is to take it as hyperbole for 'many'. Of course, you still have other cosmological problems. Genesis i.17 and Psalm cxxxvi.9 say that God created the stars to give light o the earth, which the stars hardly serve to do, and even if fraction of the stars in our view somehow did, there are, as you so finely pointed out according to modern science, billions upon billions of them billions upon billions of light years distant from us in the universe. I do wonder where the figure 1,100 comes from in 'science then'. At any rate, this example fails.

1Corinthians xv.41: It's really not necessary to point out how ludicrous this is as a 'scientific proof' of the bible, but I'll do it anyway. This passage is found in Paul's discourse on the resurrection body, and is simply a typical example of Jewish apocalyptic astral imagery in relation to the resurrection. Paul is discussing what kind of material the resurrection body will be, which is often compared with stars (e.g., Daniel xii.3, 2ApocBar. li.10). If we go by what the chart suggests, then it proves the bible wrong again anyhow. Since Paul is discussing various kinds of substances (see verses 39-40), this would imply the stars are not all homogeneous substances, hence their differing in 'glory'. The implications of this are obvious, and again I wonder what's the basis of the 'science then' row of the chart. This example fails.

Job xxxviii.19-20: I truly do fail to see how a passage talking about the 'dwelling' of light and darkness (and as if 'darkness' is its own separate entity) could in any way be scientific confirmation of the bible. This example fails.

Job xxviii.25: This is an obscure reference, possibly to the clouds. This example fails.

Ecclesiastes i.6: Hardly an example of scientific accuracy, this passage simply notes that the wind blows in all directions, which anyone standing outside would be able to experience for themselves, ancient or modern. This example fails.

Leviticus xvii.11: This is all tied up in sacrificial cult and symbolism and deserves no serious response. This example fails.



Finis,
Eric

 

[walter]

why do you even bother wavy? Why is itso important to you to try and undermine someone's faith? Believe or don't. it's up to you.

Faith in God may seem stupid to some but until you actually have it you'll never understand.

 

[ChevyRodeo]

1. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The earth is a circle when viewed from the side. why? because its a sphere. Notice it does not say he sits above the Plane or the vast acreage, CLEARLY says CIRCLE.


2. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

Host of hevean = The sun, moon, and stars are so designated. Notice the lower case 'h'?
Can not be numbered = more then 1 billion. Again this is stated VERY CLEARLY.


3. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

plain as day to me and every other semi educated person.

shall i go on?

 

[Adullam]

There is overwhelming evidence to the existence of the bible. I own several myself!

 

[ChevyRodeo]

Isaiah xl.22:

Leviticus xvii.11: This is all tied up in sacrificial cult and symbolism and deserves no serious response. This example fails.



Finis,
Eric

11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood...


That's very simple to understand. Blood is your life, its transports oxygen to the other parts of your body, oxygen is the only thing keeping us alive. Even when it comes to Food, if you stop eating your body shuts down and cant supply oxygen to all of its parts.

Science then? Ask George Washington, he became ill and his doctor cut him a little and let him BLEED to death, they thought they could 'get the sick out' by letting his blood out slowly while he regenerated new blood. They didn't understand life is in your blood, God did.


I like how your response was "deserves no serious response" Maybe I can pull hat stunt next time I have proof of something infront of me and i dont want to believe it.

 

[stranger]

It is my belief that ultimately science will vindicate the bible. Every truth that science discovers - was already God's truth or a small portion thereof. Holmes put it this way: 'all truth is God's truth wherever it may be found.' It doesn't matter if we consider truths of maths, physics, biblical truths, or whatever since all truth would be related - hence the quest in science to find the unifying factor of truth! It is ironical that this factor is God Himself for all things are unified in Christ.

For arguments sake (according to the framework 'all truth is God's truth wherever it may be found'), lets suppose that the resurrection of Christ is held to be a scientific fact by one scientist and not a fact by another scientist. One scientist exhibits belief while another unbelief, both consider the other 'wrong' from their own point of view.

While it is possible for the believing scientist to fall into umbelief, and the unbelieving scientist to become a believer - which scientist is better of for what he believes? One hopes in the resurrection from the dead, the other's hope ends in the grave. Since neither personally witnessed the resurrection of Christ -- how much scientific credibility is put on the testimony of those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ?

blessings

 

[wavy]

Hmmmm, archeology is a science, correct?

Correct.

They set out to prove King David never existed. They wound up proving he did.

Who is 'they'? And why does it matter what 'they' set out to prove?

They set out to prove there was no Jericho and of course it didn't fall in one day if it did exist. They wound up proving it did and it did.

Simply put, that's just plain erroneous. At the time the book of Joshua places the Conquest (13th century), Jericho wasn't inhabited. Of course, a typical response following Kenyon is that all the evidence somehow eroded away.

There is dishonesty and bias involved but if you'll notice, the non-believers sometimes have an agenda and are more dishonest and biased than the objective professionals.

Right, and I suppose those 'objective professionals' just so happen to agree with everything you believe. I'm not interested in baseless accusations of bias, only in the evidence. And btw, renowned believing conservative archaeologists, like the legendary Albright for instance, do not believe the bible never conflicts with the archaeological record. If you'd like, I can quote those 'objective professionals' conceding cases where the bible turns out dead wrong.

But your problem is that you think this is a black-and-white issue. Archaeology both supports and disconfirms biblical history, and just as I could cite 'believers' disproving portions of the bible, I could cite non-believers defending cases of its historicity. One of the more popular archaeologists is William G. Dever, a secular humanist. He wrote an entire book vituperating postmoderns who 'set out' to prove the bible is nothing but pious fiction, demonstrating their claims incredibly false. You can read it for yourself, along with my review here.

So my advice to you would be to expand your horizons and not be so quick to level out charges of 'bias' because something goes against your beliefs and without having evaluated the evidence yourself (as you clearly have not).

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=1276&contentID=44289&shortcutID=17156

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn39/e ... ericho.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mc ... david.html

Only one of these is written by a reputable author (the third). The other two are worthless. Nevertheless, I don't see what the third link accomplishes for your purpose, and your other links fail to rigorously defend their assertions with real evidence anyway.

Sorry for the delay, however. Been busy.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

That's very simple to understand. Blood is your life, its transports oxygen to the other parts of your body, oxygen is the only thing keeping us alive.

Your body is a system integrating many subsystems all of which must coordinate to keep you alive. There's nothing special about blood. Life residing in the blood according to the bible is just a cryptic, sacrificial superstition mingled with some common sense. (obviously the ancients knew that you could bleed to death).

Science then? Ask George Washington, he became ill and his doctor cut him a little and let him BLEED to death, they thought they could 'get the sick out' by letting his blood out slowly while he regenerated new blood. They didn't understand life is in your blood, God did.

Lol, what are you talking about?

I like how your response was "deserves no serious response" Maybe I can pull hat stunt next time I have proof of something infront of me and i dont want to believe it.

Nothing really did deserve a response. But I'm a nice guy...I gave them nonetheless. Curious that you haven't addressed them.

1. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The earth is a circle when viewed from the side. why? because its a sphere. Notice it does not say he sits above the Plane or the vast acreage, CLEARLY says CIRCLE.

Exactly my point. Note how you failed to address any of my criticisms.

2. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

Host of hevean = The sun, moon, and stars are so designated. Notice the lower case 'h'?
Can not be numbered = more then 1 billion. Again this is stated VERY CLEARLY.

Again, you totally ignored my response.

3. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

plain as day to me and every other semi educated person.

See above.

shall i go on?

I wouldn't, unless you like doing this to yourself.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

why do you even bother wavy? Why is itso important to you to try and undermine someone's faith? Believe or don't. it's up to you.

Faith in God may seem stupid to some but until you actually have it you'll never understand.

Whether your faith is undermined isn't really my concern. I know plenty of believers who have no difficulties accepting anything I've said.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by wavy
So my advice to you would be to expand your horizons and not be so quick to level out charges of 'bias' because something goes against your beliefs and without having evaluated the evidence yourself (as you clearly have not

It's faith, that's all. Some have it, some don't. Pointless to quibble over the specifics if one's mind is already made up - on either side. Move on.

 

[follower of Christ]

It's faith, that's all. Some have it, some don't. Pointless to quibble over the specifics if one's mind is already made up - on either side. Move on.

Agreed.
But one should at least be honest with themselves by not trying to play off as tho the Bible supports old earth or evolution theory.
Frankly I dont care what anyone chooses to believe, but I find it quite pathetic when a person doesnt just accept the fact that scripture shows a very short time frame since the earths creation...just a few thousand years. It becomes an offense when they try to tell those of us who HAVE studied the matter out that Genesis supports old earth views....it very clearly doesnt, and its intellectually dishonest to claim it does.

 

[animal]

It's faith, that's all. Some have it, some don't. Pointless to quibble over the specifics if one's mind is already made up - on either side. Move on.

Agreed.
But one should at least be honest with themselves by not trying to play off as tho the Bible supports old earth or evolution theory.
Frankly I dont care what anyone choose to believe, but I find it quite pathetic when a person doesnt just accept the fact that scripture shows a very short time frame since the earths creation...just a few thousand years. It becomes an offense when they try to tell those of us who HAVE studied the matter out that Genesis supports old earth views....it very clearly doesnt, and its intellectually dishonest to claim it does.

Agreed.

 

[Free]

I don't think that Genesis necessarily supports a young earth. And it is not intellectually dishonest to make such a claim.

 

[follower of Christ]

I don't think that Genesis necessarily supports a young earth. And it is not intellectually dishonest to make such a claim.

Again, you have to do the study.
I believed in old earth and evolution theory until about 1999.
It was ONLY the study of Genesis and scripture and the underlying Hebrew that confirmed the english that caused me to give it up.

Ive talked to atheists who have no religious motivations in the matter so they can just accept Genesis for what it shows, who have agreed that the text itself in both languages absolutely does not allow for a creation just a few thousand years ago (less than 10,000) and is absolutely in opposition to evolution theory (points such as common descent and millions of years, not mutation, etc).

I had believed in old earth for so long, and some details are actually more convincing than others...for example evolution wasnt so much a problem where old earth was concerned, but starlight is.
Even now the logical mind wants to run back and hide behind at least millions of years because of the starlight issue.
But Ive chosen to believe Gods account regardless of what my senses tell me to think. Its a choice.
There are a lot of things we ASSUME that may or may not have been true when God was creating it all.

I do personally believe that its being dishonest with oneself to claim that when scripture goes to the extent of saying 'and evening and a morning, the third day'., that its supposedly confused enough to still be vague.
If it had only just said 'day', then maybe....but that evening/morning thing....well...I just dont know how anyone really trying to be honest with themselvse can ignore that part.

Especially when scripture is notorious for repetition when its trying to get a certain point across, as all bible students know, or should know. The OT does it, Jesus does it in the NT...repeating phrases a few times when the point is important.

Anyway. I disagree. I believe Genesis doesnt allow for long ages and I do believe its being dishonest with oneself to claim that long ages fit into the text of Genesis 1.

 

[jasoncran]

if one cant accept genesis the way it is what about the revelation reference of the new jerusalem coming down and the light of that city being jesus christ and sun was no more? foc you aren't the only one to have a hard time with starlight, what about these that i have a hard time with in my logical mind, no rain until the flood, the plants created before the sun, melchisedek? the sun being held still for joshua, or the sun dial turning back 15 degrees for hezekiah.

Our natural mind cant understand the things of the Lord, and it's by faith the we see him and know him and he gives the spiritual revalation. like you i choose to believe what genesis says is true, if we dont where in the bible do we believe, the ressurection,no man has ever died like that and come back to life, the healing , no, miracles such as the blind recieving sight are hard for some to believe,and the instanteous healing of the lepers, that's a hard one too.

Faith comes by hearing the word of god, but we must believe that its the word of lord as well,those that preach it.

Jason

 

[Free]

foc,

I said nothing about evolution.

 

[follower of Christ]

foc,

I said nothing about evolution.

Eh..they seem to go hand in hand...didnt mean to misrepresent you or anything
My point is basically old earth anyway. The bible is very clear that Adam was the first man, so evolution isnt even in the running to begin with as far as scripture is concerned.

 

[Heneni]

The bible says that god stretched out the heavens. Like an umbrella that opens. As he did that he stretched out time as well. That is why in the few short moments god created the expanse it aged to billions of years. It really isnt billions of years old, it just appears that way, because when god stretched space he stretched time as well and things aged with it as well and things that take millions of years to happen from our perspective happened in a few short moments as he stretched out time, and therefore all processes that depend on time was accellerated during those few moments. In other words, as he stretched the universe so he stretched time, and everything that depended on time, happened very quickly in those few moments, making the universe appear to be billions of years old.

I'm repeating myself too much! Sorry

The end comes when as the bible says god will roll up the sky like a garment, in the same way he 'rolled it out'.

As he rolls up the sky, he rolls time up as well, and in the same few moments he stretched it out to make it, he will roll it up and and time will cease to exist.

Heneni

 

[follower of Christ]

The bible says that god stretched out the heavens. Like an umbrella that opens. As he did that he stretched out time as well. That is why in the few short moments god created the expanse it aged to billions of years. It really isnt billions of years old, it just appears that way, because when god stretched space he stretched time as well and things aged with it as well and things that take millions of years to happen from our perspective happened in a few short moments as he stretched out time, and therefore all processes that depend on time was accellerated during those few moments. In other words, as he stretched the universe so he stretched time, and everything that depended on time, happened very quickly in those few moments, making the universe appear to be billions of years old.

I'm repeating myself too much! Sorry

The end comes when as the bible says god will roll up the sky like a garment, in the same way he 'rolled it out'.

As he rolls up the sky, he rolls time up as well, and in the same few moments he stretched it out to make it, he will roll it up and and time will cease to exist.

Heneni

There are some very interesting theories about Time Dilation that you seem to have already looked at based on your post. If not, you should do a search and check some of them out

A God who created space, light and time CERTAINLY has control over those things

 

[jasoncran]

did he slow time down twice in the bible, for joshua and hezekiah?

of course we may never be able to prove it with the scientific method, but i believe it by faith