[_ Old Earth _] Job and Science

[Atonement]

Scientists like to limit their disciplines to evidence from observations in nature and the book of Job is filled with illustrations from nature. An example of scientific accuracy relates to foundation sockets in 38:6. An odd word (Hebrew) ארניה 'adaneyah is used for "foundations" which is transliterated as eden. This word is used for the sockets holding up the staves in the tabernacle (Ex 26:19). It is used in this manner a total of 52 times. Then it is used for the "sockets" of the ideal king in Songs 5:15. The only place in Scripture where it is used for "foundation sockets" is in Job 38:6. The Alaskan earthquake struck on Good Friday of 1964. Through use of more than 200 seismographs operating worldwide, using push waves and shock waves, scientists determined that foundation rock of earth is mantle rock. Surprisingly it was learned that underneath the oceans, this mantle rock extends down for 2-5 miles but underneath each of the continents it extends downward 300 miles, truly providing a socket for each of the seven continents. This statement made 4000 years ago in the book of Job was proved accurate.

In Job 38:16 we find the expression "springs of the sea." It is one of the 39 scientific questions asked Job by God and it relates to inorganic material. Job was to learn how small was his knowledge and how great and infinite was God's wisdom. Los Angeles and San Diego, and the nation of Israel, have supplied water for their citizens by piping it across mountains. Perhaps they should look for springs in the sea. They actually did use these in Aradus, a Phoenician town, 3000 years ago, when they put a leather pipe down on a fresh-water spring in the ocean. Force of the spring carried up fresh water from a salty ocean. The reference is in "The Phoenicians" by Gerhard Herm, Wm. Morrow, N.Y., 1975, pg.68.

This will be developed particularly as we distinguish between "wisdom" (Hebrew) חכמה chokmah (Job28:28) and "understanding" (Hebrew) בינה biynah (34:16), "prudence" (Hebrew) שכל sekel (22:2, 34:27) and" "data" or "knowledge" (Hebrew) דעת da'at (34:35) and "heart understanding" (Hebrew) לב leeb (36:5). Some try to distinguish between what is learned through observation of nature and "wisdom" in Job 28:28. Science, they claim, is not wisdom or (Hebrew) חכמה chokmah. However, what is generally regarded as science, is covered by the word "data" (Hebrew) דעת da'at in Job. From Prov. 1:7 we learn that even these "data" need the Gospel fear of the Lord to become true science or real "data." The Gospel fear of God is the beginning of science as it is the beginning of what Job calls wisdom (28:28). Job teaches, as do Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, that Scripture ought not be separated from science.

 

[Barbarian]

The Alaskan earthquake struck on Good Friday of 1964. Through use of more than 200 seismographs operating worldwide, using push waves and shock waves, scientists determined that foundation rock of earth is mantle rock.

No. It is only the middle layer of the earth.

Surprisingly it was learned that underneath the oceans, this mantle rock extends down for 2-5 miles

No. The crust not the mantle extends below the oceans, just a few kilometers.

but underneath each of the continents it extends downward 300 miles,

The crust, however, is about 40 km, except where there are mountains. Isostasy means that the crust there will be deeper, to compensate for the greater mass of rock.

truly providing a socket for each of the seven continents.

Not exactly. There are many such "sockets", one for each mountain. But it doesn't describe them in Job.

In Job 38:16 we find the expression "springs of the sea." It is one of the 39 scientific questions asked Job by God and it relates to inorganic material. Job was to learn how small was his knowledge and how great and infinite was God's wisdom. Los Angeles and San Diego, and the nation of Israel, have supplied water for their citizens by piping it across mountains. Perhaps they should look for springs in the sea. They actually did use these in Aradus, a Phoenician town, 3000 years ago, when they put a leather pipe down on a fresh-water spring in the ocean. Force of the spring carried up fresh water from a salty ocean. The reference is in "The Phoenicians" by Gerhard Herm, Wm. Morrow, N.Y., 1975, pg.68.

Never heard of them. Do you have a checkable source? Seems to me that if they exist, we should be able to find and use them.

Job teaches, as do Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, that Scripture ought not be separated from science.

Unfortunately, modern science is unable to address the supernatural. On the other hand, it has been spectacularly more successful than earlier systems at effectively learning about the physical universe.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Unfortunately, modern science is unable to address the supernatural.

You mean, modern philosophy.

Nope. Modern philosophy seems pretty comfortable doing that. But science is too weak a method to deal with the supernatural. It can't even say whether or not there is a supernatural. Fortunately, scientists can.

If your conducting real science, you don't Edit:if the explanation is natural or supernatural.

No way to do that with science. It can only find natural causes, without denying that supernatural causes exist.

The exclusion of extranatural occurances proves the brainwashed state of the evolutionary camp.

Nope. That was part of science long before Darwin.

That's why evolutionists won't commit to the full naturalistic origin explanation.

Some of them do, and some of them are theists. Because science takes no position on that issue, and can't, people of all persuasions can do science.

You back up to the big bang, and your Edit:. "Anything that begins to exist, has a cause".

What causes virtual particles?

WATCH THE LANGUAGE
All Edits made by Atonement

He's just a little worked up, Boss. He'll get over it.

 

[JM]

Walter Lang, classic.

 

[Barbarian]

:-D

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Unfortunately, modern science is unable to address the supernatural.

Sure it can. Inference to best explanation is used by scientists all the time in historical matters.

You think history is supernatural?

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Modern philosophy seems pretty comfortable doing that. But science is too weak a method to deal with the supernatural. It can't even say whether or not there is a supernatural. Fortunately, scientists can.

Right, evolution being that philosophy.

Nope. There's a philosophy of science, but no philosophy of evolution.

Evolution is not science.

That was settled over a hundred years ago. There's a few who still object. A few people still think the Earth is flat, too.

And the scientific method is not too weak to determine if the supernatural exists...again, inference to best explanation.

Nope. For that we need evidence. And science can only postulate natural events from natrual evidence.

It's the scientists that are too "weak".

Right. If humans were sufficiently intelligent, we could dispense with science, and know all things.

Barbarian observes:
No way to do that with science. It can only find natural causes, without denying that supernatural causes exist.

Wrong. Boy, you've been brainwashed good...

Here's some places to learn about it:

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm

You've fallen for the fallacy of scientism

And so, with a stroke of the pen, anything of real importance has been relegated, by definition, to the realm of the empirical. This, of course, is not true science, but rather is the philosophy of scientism, which maintains that a complete explanation of all phenomena is possible from a few basic natural principles...

Scientists reject scientism, because the supernatural cannot be studied by scientific investigation.



Quote:
What causes virtual particles?


I have no idea...what? The Big Bang...God...?? Do they really exist, or are they just constructs to make equations work....

 

[stranger]

First principles

Barbarian observes . .

Hi Barbarian,

In technical college I had the opportunity to be taught one subject by a scientist - he was totally over qualified for the job - and had been retrenched. But the way he worked was from 'first principles' - that much I understood. In this instance the first principle he brought everything back to was Ohm's Law. The other teachers (themselves Enginners) taught quite differently. . .

For science to investigate anything it needs to have the right first principle.

As a first principle do you really believe : 'the Big Bang' theory explains anything?

Extracts from the book of Job:

38: 1-6
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
"Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
"Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
"On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

38:16-18
"Have you entered into the springs of the sea
Or walked in the recesses of the deep?
"Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
"Have you understood the expanse of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.

38:31. . 36
"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
Or loose the cords of Orion?
"Can you lead forth a constellation in its season,
And guide the Bear with her satellites?
"Do you know the ordinances of the heavens,
Or fix their rule over the earth?
. . .
"Who has put wisdom in the innermost being
Or given understanding to the mind?

40: 1-4
Then the LORD said to Job,
"Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Let him who reproves God answer it."

Then Job answered the LORD and said,
"Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
I lay my hand on my mouth.

NASB New American Standard Bible
Copyright © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

 

[blunthitta4life]

Hi Barbarian,

In technical college I had the opportunity to be taught one subject by a scientist - he was totally over qualified for the job - and had been retrenched. But the way he worked was from 'first principles' - that much I understood. In this instance the first principle he brought everything back to was Ohm's Law. The other teachers (themselves Enginners) taught quite differently. . .

For science to investigate anything it needs to have the right first principle.

As a first principle do you really believe : 'the Big Bang' theory explains anything?

Extracts from the book of Job:

38: 1-6
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
"Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
"Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
"On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

38:16-18
"Have you entered into the springs of the sea
Or walked in the recesses of the deep?
"Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
"Have you understood the expanse of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.

38:31. . 36
"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
Or loose the cords of Orion?
"Can you lead forth a constellation in its season,
And guide the Bear with her satellites?
"Do you know the ordinances of the heavens,
Or fix their rule over the earth?
. . .
"Who has put wisdom in the innermost being
Or given understanding to the mind?

40: 1-4
Then the LORD said to Job,
"Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Let him who reproves God answer it."

Then Job answered the LORD and said,
"Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
I lay my hand on my mouth.

NASB New American Standard Bible
Copyright © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

And all this proves is that you are good at quoting scripture...

Nice try.

 

[Barbarian]

Hi Barbarian,

In technical college I had the opportunity to be taught one subject by a scientist - he was totally over qualified for the job - and had been retrenched. But the way he worked was from 'first principles' - that much I understood. In this instance the first principle he brought everything back to was Ohm's Law. The other teachers (themselves Enginners) taught quite differently. . .

For science to investigate anything it needs to have the right first principle.

As a first principle do you really believe : 'the Big Bang' theory explains anything?

Yes, it explains a number of things, but I'm not sure why you think biology has to go back to the Big Bang, while circuit design only has to go back to Ohm's Law.

God is indeed mysterious and beyond our comprehension in many ways. Fortunately, He loves us, and made the physical universe comprehensible to us, and if we work at it, it becomes less and less mysterious.

Thanks be to God.

 

[stranger]

reply

And all this proves is that you are good at quoting scripture...

Nice try.

You have to start somewhere - I used the illustration because that teacher was the first scientist I ever met - and he did leave an impression.

The tread is about 'Job and science' hence I quoted some parts that were mentioned in Atonement's post.

Perhaps you might like to answer the questions in the quote that were put to Job?


In Christ: Stranger

 

[Atonement]

Re: reply

You have to start somewhere - I used the illustration because that teacher was the first scientist I ever met - and he did leave an impression.

The tread is about 'Job and science' hence I quoted some parts that were mentioned in Atonement's post.

Perhaps you might like to answer the questions in the quote that were put to Job?


In Christ: Stranger

To start quoting from the Scriptures Stranger, one would have to set the blunt or the bong down, right? Being an ex-pot smoker myself, my name should be ExBluntHitta4Life. What do ya think?

 

[stranger]

Re: blunthitta

To start quoting from the Scriptures Stranger, one would have to set the blunt or the bong down, right? Being an ex-pot smoker myself, my name should be ExBluntHitta4Life. What do ya think?

Hi Atonement,

The user name/ concept went over my head - but from your description it makes sense. If like Paul you want to be all things to all men then you have my blessing to use any number of appropriate user names.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Atonement]

I was being sarcastic Stranger :splat:

 

[blunthitta4life]

Perhaps you might like to answer the questions in the quote that were put to Job?

The scripture you quoted, in my opinion, does nothing to prove anything. It just seems to show that God is all powerful.

I understand where you can you believe in first principals, but all of man's knowledge doesn't have to go back to the big bang. We don't need to know how the universe began in order to understand how gravity works or to understand how much evolution is affecting a certain species.

 

[stranger]

The scripture you quoted, in my opinion, does nothing to prove anything. It just seems to show that God is all powerful.

I understand where you can you believe in first principals, but all of man's knowledge doesn't have to go back to the big bang. We don't need to know how the universe began in order to understand how gravity works or to understand how much evolution is affecting a certain species.

Hi,

Thanks for your response. A couple of points:
1. I have made no comments about the scripture I quoted. Again the tread was titled 'Job and science' so naturally the text has relevance to the discussion.

2. I have talked about 'first prinicples' - but not (a) tracing biology back to the big bang and (b) I have not attempted to trace all man's knowledge back to the big bang. I am happy to forget the big bang as I have never subscribed to it in the first place - even as a former atheist.

Would you agree that this is a valid scientific principle: 'Complex expressions' can be broken down to their 'constituent parts'?

In Christ: Stranger

 

[stranger]

springs in the sea

The mention of 'springs in the sea' as a potential source of water is interesting as I live in a country (Australia) that is in the midst of the severest drought in recorded history.

With summer still ahead - and a drought that has lasted several years and left the water supplies of most capital cities down to about 25% capacity or less Australias are looking at ALL options. There are water restrictions being introduced that are progressively increasing in severity.

But who would think to look for fresh water springs in the sea? Is this an instance of: What the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived - God has revealed . . .


In Christ: Stranger

 

[blunthitta4life]

Thanks for your response. A couple of points:
1. I have made no comments about the scripture I quoted. Again the tread was titled 'Job and science' so naturally the text has relevance to the discussion.

I was replying to both you and atonement. My point was to show that the text you provided in no way confirms anything scientific.

I have talked about 'first prinicples' - but not (a) tracing biology back to the big bang and (b) I have not attempted to trace all man's knowledge back to the big bang. I am happy to forget the big bang as I have never subscribed to it in the first place - even as a former atheist.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you.

Would you agree that this is a valid scientific principle: 'Complex expressions' can be broken down to their 'constituent parts'?

I don't agree that it is a "scientific principle", but I could be wrong. Of course science seeks to explain the whole picture and it usually starts with a general hypothesis and moves to less general. However, in all the biology classes I've taken (Im a junior in college studying Biology), I've never heard of "that scientific principle."

But who would think to look for fresh water springs in the sea? Is this an instance of: What the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived - God has revealed . . .

How does this relate to science? I am not sure exactly what you are trying to imply or say?

 

[Atonement]

was replying to both you and atonement. My point was to show that the text you provided in no way confirms anything scientific.

Prove me it doesn't?? I'll be waiting for your answer

 

[JohnR]

Scientists like to limit their disciplines to evidence from observations in nature and the book of Job is filled with illustrations from nature. An example of scientific accuracy relates to foundation sockets in 38:6. An odd word (Hebrew) ארניה 'adaneyah is used for "foundations" which is transliterated as eden.

Ok, so just what do you think that Eden was the "foundation" of? The Bible is clear that God put Adam and Eve in the Garden in the Land of Eden about 6,000 years ago. The question is, according to science just what began at that time. Other than civilization and written history.

I have known people who were pretty good at explaining what the various items in the Temple represent. Perhaps there is a connection there between all the various "sockets" or foundations and Eden. As far as I know a socket is a foundation for a pillar.

Then it is used for the "sockets" of the ideal king in Songs 5:15.

If you want to understand this one, then you may need to get Daniel to explain it to you.

Daniel 2:45
"Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true, and its interpretation is trustworthy."

Job teaches, as do Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, that Scripture ought not be separated from science.

That door swings both ways. There are some traditional interpretions of the Bible that does not stand up to Science. Just like there are things in Science that does not stand up to the Bible. The way of truth is not always an easy way to travel.

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[Slevin]

Prove me it doesn't?? I'll be waiting for your answer

Shifting the burden of proof.