[_ Old Earth _] Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible

[jsarber]

When studying the science of the ancient world, one is more apt to be impressed with its ignorance than to admire its accuracy. However, the Bible offers a definite exception to this rule. The scriptures are replete with statements suggesting scientific knowledge which predates the corresponding discoveries of secular science. Given that Bible writers were not scientists, and given that the scientific information at their disposal was generally misleading, the accuracy of the Bible can only be attributed to the inspiration of God. Here are a few of the more striking examples of scientific accuracy in the Bible:

1) The Genesis account of creation asserts that all humans descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve. There is now considerable debate in the scientific community over recent genetic studies which indicate that all men have a common father and all women have a common mother. In fact, the latter claim is sometimes called the Eve hypothesis. Some scientists are skeptical about these studies, and even those who are supportive would not generally accept the Genesis account; however, Bible believers should expect further research to add yet more evidence supporting these hypotheses.

2) Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth were once combined into a single continent called Pangaea. This belief is based upon the fact that present continents appear somewhat as pieces out of a puzzle. There are also other evidences, including several geological similarities on matching continental edges.

3) The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars.

4) There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible.

First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating whales on the fifth day of creation. The Hebrew word translated here as whales is generally translated dragons. It is translated as monsters once, whale(s) twice, serpent(s) thrice, and dragon(s) 21 times.

Second, Job's statements concerning the behemoth (Job 40:15-24) might be referring to dinosaurs. Its tail is compared to a cedar tree. Its strength, and apparently its bulk, is in its loins. It is said to be the chief of the ways of God, and is described as having the ability to drink up a river. No modern animal meets this description in all points.

Third, Job's description of the leviathin (Job 41) very much resembles a dinosaur. Some would dismiss this description as fictitious because the leviathin is described as breathing fire; however, some creation scientists believe this could have happened. The creature would merely need glands to produce a chemical which would combust when exposed to air. The bombardier beetle does in fact have this ability. The fact that nearly every major culture of the world has traditions about such dragons lends yet further credibility to the possibility of their existence in the past.

5) The fact that the earth is of spherical shape is generally considered to be recent knowledge. However, Isaiah 40:22 spoke of the circle of the earth approximately 750 years before Christ.

Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole.

6) In possibly the oldest book of the Bible, Job asserted that God hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500.

7) The rotation of the earth was likely revealed in Job 38:12, where God asks of Job:

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

God asks Job if he has ever dictated the time of the morning or the location of the sunrise (dayspring). As soon as the sun is risen, its light will take hold of the ends of the earth in the sense that it touches all of the landscape, and the wicked are shaken out of it (the earth) in the sense that thieves, drunkards, adulterers, and others who practice their sins in darkness are forced to desist from these activities as they retreat from the light. Also, the beauties of the earth are revealed by the light, and its coloration is made to appear as that of a beautiful garment. Finally, the text asserts that God's command of the morning derives from His control of the earth, which is turned as clay to the seal. Hence, the suggestion is that God regulates the morning by rotating the earth as a potter rotates the clay. Yet ancient wisdom would have asserted that God regulated the morning by control of the Sun, and indeed, this is the perception of any uninformed mind.

8) Paul asserted in Acts 17:26 that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. Until recent times, it was believed there was significant differences in the blood of various human races. We now know that all races of men are of common blood.

9) Psalms 8:4-8 likely reveal the existence of systematic ocean currents:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is commonly known as the father of oceanography. He was among the first to discover and chart systematic ocean currents. Maury claimed that his research was inspired by Ps 8:4-8.

10) Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.

11) The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts:

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7

For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28

It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6

12) It was not until this century that medical science had a full understanding of the fact that most diseases are caused by infection of microscopic organisms. Accordingly, the medical values of sterilization, sanitation, and quarantines were virtually unappreciated. Yet the Bible is so replete with such wisdom that time and space are not sufficient to cover them in paper such as this. Here are some examples:

This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean. And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. - Num 19:14-16

Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. - Lev 6:27,28

And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be. - Lev 13:45,46

These considerations, and many other evidences, serve to confirm the necessity of Divine inspiration to account for the wisdom of the Bible. May we therefore concur with Paul:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - II Tim 3:16,17

 

[Barbarian]

When studying the science of the ancient world, one is more apt to be impressed with its ignorance than to admire its accuracy.

If one was ignorant, perhaps.
Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 240 BC) inferred from observations that the Earth orbited the sun.

Democritus of Abdera (ca 300 BC) accurately measured the circumference of the Earth. He had a much more accurate estimate than Columbus.

Heron of Alexandria (ca 300 BC) produced the world's first steam-powered engine, used complicated hydraulic systems to make self-opening doors, and invented the first coin-operated liquid dispenser.

Roughly that time, someone invented the first analog computer capable of accurately predicting the movement of the sun, planets, and moon. (Antikythera Mechanism}

So no rational person would consider them to be "ignorant and inaccurate."

However, the Bible offers a definite exception to this rule. The scriptures are replete with statements suggesting scientific knowledge which predates the corresponding discoveries of secular science.

Well, let's take a look.

1) The Genesis account of creation asserts that all humans descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve. There is now considerable debate in the scientific community over recent genetic studies which indicate that all men have a common father and all women have a common mother.

No. You've garbled the idea rather badly. And these putative last common ancestors of all living humans were not the first humans. They were just the last to have all of us descended from them.

2) Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth were once combined into a single continent called Pangaea. This belief is based upon the fact that present continents appear somewhat as pieces out of a puzzle. There are also other evidences, including several geological similarities on matching continental edges.

The problem, of course, is that no one thought that's what it meant, until scientists discovered that the continents had moved over millions of years. The Peleg story is just foolishness; you don't need to invent stories to shore up Christian faith.

The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12).

So did a lot of other cultures. Seems obvious, when you look.

There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible.

First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating whales on the fifth day of creation. The Hebrew word translated here as whales is generally translated dragons. It is translated as monsters once, whale(s) twice, serpent(s) thrice, and dragon(s) 21 times.

I'm having trouble you actually believe this. The Bible mentions whales, which are sometimes called dragons or monsters, and you think this means "dinosaur?" Why not just accept what it says, "whales?"

Second, Job's statements concerning the behemoth (Job 40:15-24) might be referring to dinosaurs. Its tail is compared to a cedar tree.

Um, "tail" is a euphemism for penis. We know this, because it also talks about the creature's "stones" wrapped in sinews. Since dinosaurs lacked external genetalia, we can safely conclude that's not what a behemoth was.

Third, Job's description of the leviathin (Job 41) very much resembles a dinosaur. Some would dismiss this description as fictitious because the leviathin is described as breathing fire; however, some creation scientists believe this could have happened. The creature would merely need glands to produce a chemical which would combust when exposed to air. The bombardier beetle does in fact have this ability.

Um, no. No fire, no combustion. And if you scaled a beetle up to dog size, it would blow itself apart.

The fact that nearly every major culture of the world has traditions about such dragons lends yet further credibility to the possibility of their existence in the past.

Or maybe there were whales then, or just big reptiles. You hear hoofbeats, and you're imagining unicorns.

The fact that the earth is of spherical shape is generally considered to be recent knowledge. However, Isaiah 40:22 spoke of the circle of the earth approximately 750 years before Christ.

The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was a sphere (not a circle) because they could see circular shadows on the moon during eclipses, they could see the tops of distant mountains first as they approached the coast, and so on.

Buy the time of Isaiah, most educated people knew the Earth was a sphere. "Circle" was an earlier theory.

However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north.

This was one of the first observations made by very ancient humans; seasonal winds.

In possibly the oldest book of the Bible, Job asserted that God hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500.

You're off by nearly 3000 years.

8) Paul asserted in Acts 17:26 that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.

First, people assumed we were all from Adam and Eve, hence one blood. But that's not what Paul is speaking about here.

9) Psalms 8:4-8 likely reveal the existence of systematic ocean currents:

The Greeks and Phoenicians depended on them over 3000 years ago.

Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.

No. They are superheated vents from volanic action, not springs.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7

For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28

You have to remember the ancients weren't stupid. They watched these processes and learned about them.

It was not until this century that medical science had a full understanding of the fact that most diseases are caused by infection of microscopic organisms.

People had long recognized the fact of contaigion. They just didn't know what caused it. But over time, they did learn how to avoid it.

The Bible is about God, and us, and our relationship. We don't need to tell contrived stories to make it credible or applicable to us. Let us take it as it is, without invention.

 

[jsarber]

This is a Christian forum, right? I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything except that the level of interesting points in the scripture is endless. While some of my scientific facts may be out of order, they are all based on mainstream thinking, which I suppose, is probably not good. I'm not a scientist by any means. I came across these "facts" and found them quite interesting. I'm a bit surprised at your seemingly strong desire to remove any kind of scientific text from the Bible. I mean, come on. Superheated vents from volanic action, not springs? Even some of the points you do agree with you've found a way to make it seem foolish that I think it's neat it was talked about.

I would agree with some of your points. Some I'm not sure of because you're telling me what Greeks did over 3000 years ago. I don't know if that's true or not. Others points I do disagree with.

 

[Slevin]

1) The Genesis account of creation asserts that all humans descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve. There is now considerable debate in the scientific community over recent genetic studies which indicate that all men have a common father and all women have a common mother. In fact, the latter claim is sometimes called the Eve hypothesis. Some scientists are skeptical about these studies, and even those who are supportive would not generally accept the Genesis account; however, Bible believers should expect further research to add yet more evidence supporting these hypotheses.

No, there isn't an indication that all mean have a common father and all women have a common mother. That's completely ridiculous, try to look up "Mitochondrial Eve" and learn something.

2) Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth were once combined into a single continent called Pangaea. This belief is based upon the fact that present continents appear somewhat as pieces out of a puzzle. There are also other evidences, including several geological similarities on matching continental edges.

Try to keep up, there were many instances in the geological time of earth where supercontinents formed and broke up. It was also commonly indicated that Pangea broke apart 250 million years ago into two separate continents, which then broke into our concept of the earth now.

3) The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars.

Just like everything else, you're putting the cart before the horse. As if you know exactly the intentions of the Bible writers.

4) There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible.

No, there isn't.

5) The fact that the earth is of spherical shape is generally considered to be recent knowledge. However, Isaiah 40:22 spoke of the circle of the earth approximately 750 years before Christ.

A circle isn't a sphere, and the spherical shape of the earth has been known for a long time.

6) In possibly the oldest book of the Bible, Job asserted that God hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500.

The earth isn't "hung", that's a non-concept in space.

7) The rotation of the earth was likely revealed in Job 38:12, where God asks of Job:

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

God asks Job if he has ever dictated the time of the morning or the location of the sunrise (dayspring). As soon as the sun is risen, its light will take hold of the ends of the earth in the sense that it touches all of the landscape, and the wicked are shaken out of it (the earth) in the sense that thieves, drunkards, adulterers, and others who practice their sins in darkness are forced to desist from these activities as they retreat from the light. Also, the beauties of the earth are revealed by the light, and its coloration is made to appear as that of a beautiful garment. Finally, the text asserts that God's command of the morning derives from His control of the earth, which is turned as clay to the seal. Hence, the suggestion is that God regulates the morning by rotating the earth as a potter rotates the clay. Yet ancient wisdom would have asserted that God regulated the morning by control of the Sun, and indeed, this is the perception of any uninformed mind.

Only if you already know that the Earth rotates and are reading it with that knowledge.

8) Paul asserted in Acts 17:26 that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. Until recent times, it was believed there was significant differences in the blood of various human races. We now know that all races of men are of common blood.

Until recent times? Christianity is founded on the Judaic belief that mankind originated from Adam and Eve...how is that an amazing assertion given that they believed that this was true?

9) Psalms 8:4-8 likely reveal the existence of systematic ocean currents:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Poetry doesn't indicate knowledge of oceonography. Anybody who works on a boat knows about currents.

10) Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.

Assuming that is what Job meant.

etc. etc.

 

[jsarber]

Alright then. Should I apologize for my post? Apparently, noting neat observations made in the Bible (regardless of scientific discoveries) was wrong of me to do. I am sorry. I'll find a "Christian" forum better suited for this kind of discussion. I have no problem if someone disagrees with me but it's how you disagree that bothers me. Good thing I didn't post my views on eternal salvation (http://doctrinaldebate.com/docdeb/viewtopic.php?t=26).

 

[Barbarian]

The problem, of course, is that when people bring up erroneous things like this, they make it harder for nonbelievers to come to Christianity, as man of them know better.

St. Augustine addressed this a long time ago:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.â€Â

– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecimââ¬Â

 

[MrVersatile48]

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/

Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously.

To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time.

To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, “I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment.â€Â

In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.

Some take a more thoughtful approach and attempt to develop some sort of belief system.

In other words, they know what they believe and are often very committed to those beliefs. Yet, they are not so different from those who ignore the question, though they may conceive themselves as being different by virtue of the fact that they at least answer the first half of the question: what do you believe?

They are not so different because setting forth what one believes is not enough.

What one believes is irrelevant if he does not know why he believes it. If one does not know why he believes something then he is his own authority and has relegated himself to a position of relativism, or, to put it more aptly, arbitrariness. That is, he is philosophically uncertain about anything because he has no ground for what he believes.

He simply believes it because he believes it.

Others are more thoughtful still. Not only have they answered the first half of the question, but they have wrestled with the second half as well.

These individuals know what they believe and offer some justification for it. In other words, they have attempted to answer the question: why do you believe it?

They have consciously committed themselves to a particular worldview. Of course, those who ignore the question and those who answer only the first half have committed themselves to their respective worldviews to be sure.

The difference between those individuals and the one who wrestles with the “why†question is that the former are unconsciously committed to their worldviews and the latter is consciously committed to his worldview. The latter is attempting to make some sense out of his world.

There is yet another category to be brought forth momentarily.

The concept of “worldview†must be dealt with first. A “worldview†quite obviously has to do with the way a person looks at the world. In one sense, it is the totality of what one believes.

In another sense, it is the lens through which a person views the world or ultimate reality. It consists of one’s presuppositions or assumptions about the nature of our world.

A worldview is made up of those presuppositions that individuals believe without evidence or outside support; they are merely taken for granted or on faith.

Then there are those presuppositions or beliefs that persons hold to based on some kind of rationale. A person will always speak from his particular worldview whether he is conscious he is doing so or not, whether he is consistent or not, or whether he has determined to do so or not.

Everyone brings his worldview to the marketplace of ideas.

To pick up on the opening question once again is to put these issues in sharper focus. It is not difficult to see that the individual who has ignored the question has no ground for what he believes. And, it is perhaps quite clear that the one who has only set forth what he believes without asking why he believes it has no ground for what he believes either.

And yet, it is also true that the one who has answered both sides of the question, the one who knows what he believes and why, has no rational, philosophical ground for what he believes if he holds to any worldview other than a biblical worldview.

In other words, the one who does not presuppose the God of the bible has no ground for believing what he believes about anything. He has relegated himself to a life of intellectual futility and philosophical inconsistency.

By way of example, one committed to an evolutionary/naturalist worldview must live with philosophical contradictions.

He conceives of the universe as a box. The only things that exist are those things within the box. One may not go outside of the box to search for answers to anything or to explain anything. There is only the physical universe in which we live. There is nothing metaphysical. Thus, he says there is no God.

Yet, there are a number of things that he cannot justify on his worldview.

He presupposes laws of logic to engage in scientific method or have a conversation, etc...

But laws of logic are immaterial, that is, metaphysical and cannot be justified on his worldview.

He cannot justify concepts like honesty on his worldview though he presupposes those concepts in the reporting of data or in formulating hypotheses or theories, etc.

He violates his own worldview by presupposing the uniformity of nature though he says the origin of the universe was a random chance accident.

He posits a natural law that says matter and energy cannot come from nothing yet he says just that: the universe came from nothing.

He posits a natural law that says that life cannot come from non-life yet in the beginning life did in fact come from non-life says he.

On an evolutionary worldview, we are but an accident with no real purpose for being here. On that worldview, values mean nothing and there is no life after death.

Evolutionists do indeed attempt to inject meaning into our existence. But, they have no justification for doing so on their worldview.

Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.

The question must be put to him, “how do you know there is no God?â€Â

On his worldview, one of observation and data, he does not know. He has not searched every corner of the universe. He has limited knowledge and limited investigative ability.

He posits a statement of absolute fact concerning the existence of God but he is relegated to a position of complete uncertainty on his worldview. He cannot justify his claim...

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/ - 2 more pages there

Ian

 

[Barbarian]

It would be helpful if you could offer more than simple assertions. It appears that you have nothing to back them up.

 

[Ted]

Barbarian :D

An absolutely excellent post, well thought out and presented.

You are quite correct about creating stories out of biblical quotations. The Bible itself is not history and was never intended to be so though it does contain some historical facts and I emphasize some. It is written in a particular ancient Hebrew style called midrash which makes extensive use of metaphor and past events to interpret more recent events. It is certainly not the absolute and inerrant word of God which rightly belongs to one Jesus of Nazareth.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[Ted]

We could look at the inconsistencies within the Bible and exterior to the Bible but that is another thread I suspect.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[Heidi]

We could look at the inconsistencies within the Bible and exterior to the Bible but that is another thread I suspect.

Shalom
Ted :D

Sorry, but what you call an inconsistency is anything that disagrees with the changing minds of scientists. : Scientists have changed their minds about astronomy, how the world was formed, how humans came into being, etc. so many times since the bible was written, that the credibility of scietists is zero. So one thing we can count on with scientists, tomorrow's science will prove today's science untrue as they do in every single century. But the bible remains the same and always will because the truth never changes. ;-)

 

[Ted]

Science is not the be all and end all of the world. However, yes scientists change their minds on occasion. This is the nature of science to be self correcting as more and more evidence becomes available.

Unfortunately the Christianity of the reformation has stagnated and is not self correcting. It persists in ancient and medieval concepts that are simply erroneous.

As far as inconsistencies go there are two kinds. One is the internal consistency such as in Matt. 27:5 where Judas went out and hanged himself and then later in Acts 1:18 he doesn't hang himself but falls prey to an accident where he falls down and splits his abdomen open. Or we can look in Matt. 1:16 and read that Joseph is the son of Jacob whereas in Luke 3:23 Joseph is the son of Heli. There are of course dozens of these in the Bible.

The second kind of inconsistency is the external where historical and archaeological research simply have shown the Bible to be incorrect. For instance by the time Joshua reached Jericho it was an abandoned and derelict city with the walls already knocked down. "The Bible Unearthed", Finkelstein and Silberman, archaeologists Kenyon and Wagner in lectures.

Now I have no problem if you choose to stay where you are. I do think that you should realize there are other Christians with equally valid interpretations. For example; one patient, one set of medical data, three physicians and three different diagnoses.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[wavy]

The scriptures are replete with statements suggesting scientific knowledge which predates the corresponding discoveries of secular science. Given that Bible writers were not scientists, and given that the scientific information at their disposal was generally misleading, the accuracy of the Bible can only be attributed to the inspiration of God.

Lol! Any 'scientific accuracy' in the bible is the result of coincidence, and much of even this 'accuracy' is loosely based. There are by far more unscientific things in the bible to neutralize any special divinely inspired 'scientific accuracy'.

1) The Genesis account of creation asserts that all humans descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve...

Nonsense, plain and simple, and not worth refuting.

2) Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided....

Ridiculous. Most fundamentalists wouldn't agree to this. The 'division' of Genesis 10's [rather inaccurate] human history is referring to the 'division' of the next chapter: the Tower of Babel, where the people of the earth were scattered, and their languages were diversified.

3) The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number...

Abysmal. Any ancient person would have a difficult time counting all the stars. The author is in no way thinking of multiple galaxies and all the stars they contain. You have also contorted the context. Abraham's seed/descendants were to number the stars of heaven. This was considered fulfilled in Deuteronomy 1:10. The children of Israel number roughly about 2 million.

So much for your 'accuracy'.

4) There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job...
First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating whales on the fifth day of creation...
Second, Job's statements concerning the behemoth (Job 40:15-24) ...
Third, Job's description of the leviathin (Job 41) very much resembles a dinosaur. Some would dismiss this description as fictitious because the leviathin is described as breathing fire; however, some creation scientists believe this could have happened. ..

So 'creation [pseudo]scientists' would rather believe in dragons, and in an early Flinstone community than to actually preach real science. Right. This is terrible and has been refuted countless times. The 'whales' are mythical creatures, and can be found in other cultures. Sad that these 'whales' couldn't use their fire, as they were created underwater (Genesis 1:21).

5) The fact that the earth is of spherical shape is generally considered to be recent knowledge. However, Isaiah 40:22 spoke of the circle of the earth approximately 750 years before Christ.

Wrong. While this may refer to no more than a flat (Daniel 4:11), disk-shaped landform, it more likely refers to the firmament/dome above the earth -- you know that mythical solid heaven/sky (Job 37:18) created on the second day (Genesis 1:6-8), above which is water.

If the Hebrews wanted to describe the earth as 'spherical' they would have used the word duwr. The modern Hebrew word for 'sphere' derives from the textual form of duwr in the Hebrew bible.

6) In possibly the oldest book of the Bible, Job asserted that God hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500.

Wrong. This speaks of his ability to displace the mountains (see Job 9:6). Or it likely refers to that primordial pre-existent deep (Genesis 1:2) that lies beneath the earth (eg. Exodus 20:4). Everytime something is 'hung' in the bible, it is always 'hung' a solid object. Water is not solid. And the Hebrews definitely believed water was beneath the land/earth (same 'word'). Compare Psalm 24:2.

7) The rotation of the earth was likely revealed in Job 38:12, where God asks of Job:

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

God asks Job if he has ever dictated the time of the morning or the location of the sunrise (dayspring). As soon as the sun is risen, its light will take hold of the ends of the earth in the sense that it touches all of the landscape...

Nice try. But it's nice to see you completely overpassed 'ends of the earth' which definitely refers to something flat, and you can not explain it away by saying 'in the sense that it touches all the landscape'...

And don't forget those mountain pillars! (Job 9:6), which keep the earth in place so it won't orbit the Sun!!!

8) Paul asserted in Acts 17:26 that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. Until recent times, it was believed there was significant differences in the blood of various human races. We now know that all races of men are of common blood.

Adam and Eve, anyone? You know, from that mythical garden story adopted from the Babylonians, who's paradise account is older than the Hebrew nation itslef, and thus, older than Genesis?

9) Psalms 8:4-8 likely reveal the existence of systematic ocean currents...

Loosely based eisegesis.

10) Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.

Eisegesis. The Hebrews believed beneath the land was water, and they also believed there was water above the sky (Psalm 148:4). These 'springs' refer to the same 'fountains' described in Genesis 7:11, you know, where the water from beneath the land shot up, and the water from above the solid sky fell through windows?

11) The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts...

Reading science back into the text. Choose any ancient literature, and we'll read 'science' into it together, okay? The ancient world wasn't blind. They could observe phenomena.

12) It was not until this century that medical science had a full understanding of the fact that most diseases are caused by infection of microscopic organisms. Accordingly, the medical values of sterilization, sanitation, and quarantines were virtually unappreciated. Yet the Bible is so replete with such wisdom that time and space are not sufficient to cover them in paper such as this. Here are some examples...

Right, and that is why the bible oh so scientifically confuses mold in one's house as a manifestation of leprosy...