Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

The Bible

Recommended Posts

The Bible is the best-selling book of all time. It is also the most scrutinized book that’s ever written. Scrutiny comes not only from Christians cementing their faith or skeptics seeking truth, but most intense scrutiny comes from those with hostile intentions.

This thread is created with the purpose of showing skeptics that the Bible is indeed The Word of God, to promote an open-minded interest in reading and study of the Bible, and to help strengthen the Christian faith in the face of relentless hostility and attacks.

But first, here is a brief description of the Bible.

Excerpt from the transcript of “ Word Of God” as delivered by Charles Price:

Our English word, Bible, actually comes from the plural word, “Biblos,” meaning library. It’s made up of sixty-six books. It was written by more than forty authors over a period of at least one thousand, five hundred years in three completely different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

First of all, the Bible is written by over forty authors from every walk of life. There are kings writing in this book. There are military leaders, and there are peasants, there are philosophers, there are fishermen, there are tax collectors, there are poets, there are musicians, there’s a harpist, and a drummer. A drummer wrote two psalms. His name was Asaph. There are scholars who write this book, there are shepherds who write this book, and there was a cowman who wrote part of this book. His job was looking after cattle. This has come from a huge variety of human sources.

It was written over a period of at least fifteen hundred years. That means if the last book was being written now, the first book would have been written in the closing days of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire finally was disbanded in 476 A.D. That’s just over fifteen hundred years ago. That’s a huge time span. During that fifteen hundred years, cultures changed, outlooks changed.

It was written in three completely different languages: Hebrew and Greek are the primary languages, but parts of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic, which also would have been the mother tongue of Jesus, so the original speaking of Jesus would have been in Aramaic, although written in Greek, which had become the international language.

It was written in numerous styles; in fact, almost every literary style you’ll probably find in this book. There’s history, there’s poetry, there are songs, there is law, there is biography, there is autobiography, there is prophecy, there is parable, there is allegory, and probably other things.

It was written on three continents in a day when people didn’t travel very much: Asia, Europe, and a little bit of it was written in Africa, Jeremiah down in Egypt.

It was written in scores of situations. Moses wrote part of it in the wilderness. Jeremiah and Paul both wrote in prison. David wrote some of his psalms up on the hillside; Solomon in his luxurious palace;…

The Bible’s full of controversial issues, and yet despite the breadth of authors, the huge period of time over which it was written, there is an amazing unity and harmony that runs all the way through. Because in spite of its diversity, the Bible presents one single, unfolding story. It’s the story of creation, the fall of man, the redemption of man, and the future restoration back to what God intended everything to be. To quote John Milton, “Genesis is about paradise lost, and Revelation about paradise regained.” And everything in between, including the need, the means, and the results of being restored to what God intended. In the early part of Genesis, the gate to the tree of life is closed, and in the end of Revelation, the gate to the tree of life is opened again. One continuous story.

Now if you tried to put that together humanly with a very smart editor, though no editor survives fifteen hundred years, you wouldn’t get this kind of unity and harmony. As literature, it’s been the best selling book in history. There may have been one or two occasions where another book, in a particular year, may have outsold the Bible. Apparently, Mao Tse Tung’s “Red Book” did one year. But throughout history, it’s been the best selling book.

And, of course, the story of the Bible has not been without strong opposition. It’s been declared illegal literature in some parts of the world ever since the beginning of the fourth century when, in the year 303 A.D., the Roman Emperor, Diocletian, issued an edict ordering the destruction of Christian churches and the burning of all Scriptures. And ever since then there’s never been a place in the world where the Bible has not been illegal literature. Interestingly, 25 years after Diocletian had issued that, the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christ, and he issued an edict ordering that 50 copies of the Bible should be prepared at the government’s expense. Now you say 50 isn’t very many, but remember that’s writing them by hand, word by word.

And when they wrote it by hand, they wrote it with incredible accuracy. One of the things they did – and this was just one of the checks – they would count how many letters were in each book of the Bible, identified the middle letter, and when the scribe had finished writing this particular book, they would count the letters; and if it was one letter too many or one or two short, they would throw it away, even though they’d spent hours and hours and hours writing it by hand. They’d then identify the middle letter, and if the middle letter was not the correct letter, they would throw it away. And then when the whole Bible was done, they would count every letter in the entire Bible and do the same thing. Find the middle letter again, and if it was wrong, discard the whole manuscript. Incredible! But how grateful you and I should be for the accuracy with which Scriptures have come to us as a result of that.

But it’s ironic, isn’t it, that 25 years after Diocletian ordered the destruction of all Scripture, Constantine, who became Emperor, was converted, and he ordered the government should pay for the preparing of copies of the Scripture.

In the 18th century, the Frenchman Voltaire, he was a writer and crusader against tyranny and bigotry, he predicted that in 100 years time, Christianity would be swept from existence and would pass into history. That was in the 18th century. Do you know in 50 years, Voltaire had been swept into history, and the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press to print thousands of Bibles, and they used his house to store them in before they distributed them.”

http://www.livingtruth.ca/Res-TRAN.asp

There is no doubt that Science does not contradict, but rather supports the Bible.

Several statements from The Bible – a lot of them describing or attributing to creation – have become scientific facts.

I. myself am learning as I go along researching about these.

As I’ve stated elsewhere in this forum the first 10 words of Genesis speak of time, space and matter – actually the universe is scientifically expressed in this terms: time, space, matter, power and motion.

Genesis 1(New International Version)

The Beginning

1 In the beginning (time) God created (power)the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering (motion) over the waters.

Coincidence, a skeptic might say. Is it?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: Nothing holds up Earth. It is affected by gravity.

Job 26:7 (New International Version)

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;

he suspends the earth over nothing.

Modern Science In An Ancient

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the world, yet it contains numerous references to natural systems and phenomena, some involving facts of science not discovered by scientists until recent centuries, yet recorded in Job almost 4000 years ago.

A good example is in 26:7. “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

While ancient mythologies may imagine the earth to be carried on the shoulders of Atlas or on the back of a giant turtle, Job correctly noted that it is suspended in space. The force of “gravity” is still not understood, and it is quite reasonable to believe that God Himself holds it in the assigned place in His creation.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=20124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: The earth is round.

Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars.

Jeremiah 33:22 (New International Version)

22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nothing compared to his 1935 sequel, the Urantia Book (which wasn't a best-seller at all--often a problem with sequels). That one predicted the discovery of DNA and dark matter and a bunch of other stuff I'm also not that interested in.

http://beamsdoorway.bizland.com/urantia/science.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nothing compared to his 1935 sequel, the Urantia Book (which wasn't a best-seller at all--often a problem with sequels). That one predicted the discovery of DNA and dark matter and a bunch of other stuff I'm also not that interested in.

http://beamsdoorway.bizland.com/urantia/science.htm

The Urantia Book apparently originated between 1924 and 1955, according to Wiki.

It's non-comparable at all with the Biblical facts that were clearly stated at least a thousand years ago - and have been supported by science.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.

Jonah 2:3-6 (New International version)

3 You hurled me into the depths,

into the very heart of the seas,

and the currents swirled about me;

all your waves and breakers

swept over me.

4 I said, I have been banished

from your sight;

yet I will look again

toward your holy temple.

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.

Towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the oceans were discovered in the last century.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: Noahs Ark and Ship Building

In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the ark he was to build.

In 1609 at Hoorn, in Holland, the Netherlandish Mennonite, P. Jansen, produced a vessel after the pattern of the ark, only smaller, whereby he proved it was well adapted for floating, and would carry a cargo greater by one-third than any other form of like cubical content" (J.P. Lange, A Commentary). It revolutionized shipbuilding. By 1900 every large vessel on the high seas was definitely inclined toward the proportions of Noah's ark (as verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping," The World Almanac). Later, ships were built longer for speed, a matter of no concern to Noah.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+8&version=AMP

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's non-comparable at all with the Biblical facts that were clearly stated at least a thousand years ago - and have been supported by science.

That's true. It's much more compelling. Its science was much more "clearly stated" than anything in the bible. If it was referring to the fact that the earth is a sphere when it referred to the "circle", why did they say "circle" and not "sphere"? They're two different things, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. It's much more compelling. Its science was much more "clearly stated" than anything in the bible. If it was referring to the fact that the earth is a sphere when it referred to the "circle", why did they say "circle" and not "sphere"? They're two different things, you know.

Apparently the use of "circle" is indeed a controversial statement. One of the views presented is this:

Hebrew Text

The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very controversial. There are five main views of this phrase. The first interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of "sphere" into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations.

The second interpretation is that the earth is a round flat disk. Although the ancient world thought the earth was round and flat, this phrase seems to refer to the shape the vaulted heavens above the earth from which the inhabitants look like grasshoppers.

The third view, which is set forth by Seybold, is that "circle" refers to the ring of the ocean that surrounds the earth. This is mainly based on the supposed meaning of the word guros used in the LXX for gwj.

The fourth interpretation is that "circle" refers to the vault like sky over the earth. This seems to be partly right as well as the next view where "circle" refers to the horizon. It may be best to combine theses two views so that "circle" refers to the circle of the horizon that arches up over the earth. From the top of this dome God looks down to see the inhabitants on earth as small as grasshoppers. In the later part of this same verse (Isa.40:22) the heavens are described like a curtain and a tent. There seems to be a descriptive parallelism of the heavens in this poetic verse.

Stadelmann (1970, 42) states that gwj refers to the horizon which was the boundary between earth and heaven, and indicates how the heavenly dome was linked with the earth. In Job 26:10 gwj is the boundary between light and darkness. It is the circular line that separates the light of heaven from the darkness under the ocean and earth. In the ancient world the horizon prevented the earth from being flooded by primeval waters by holding the sky and the earth firmly together (Ibid, 43). In Job 22:14 it seems that the gwj is more than the horizon, and includes the vault of heaven as well. This seems to be the case in Isaiah 40:22 as well. Therefore, gwj is the part for the whole of heaven in certain passages in Job and Isaiah. This would be called "Synecdoche of the Part" by Bullinger (1968, 640, see also 892).

In Isaiah 66:1 it says, "Thus saith the LORD, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool." The imagery of Isaiah 66 and 40 shows clearly that gwj means the vaulted heavens.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm

Anyway, the circle is a two-dimensional geometric representation of a sphere.

Btw, I stumbled onto this which might be of special interest:

The shape of the Earth closely resembles a flattened sphere (a spheroid)

Because of the combined effects of gravitation and rotation, the Earth's shape is roughly that of a sphere slightly flattened in the direction of its axis. For that reason, in cartography the Earth is often approximated by an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance

And here I was envisioning a perfect round. :)

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Colossians 1:15-17 (New International Version)

The Supremacy of the Son of God

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the use of "circle" is indeed a controversial statement. One of the views presented is this:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm

Anyway, the circle is a two-dimensional geometric representation of a sphere.

Btw, I stumbled onto this which might be of special interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance

And here I was envisioning a perfect round. :)

And it is another flimsy excuse by fundamentalist bible literalists, since Hebrew has two different words for circle and sphere. If the writer of Psalms wanted to describe a round spheroid Earth, he had the proper word for it, and did not have to use a 2D reference.

The truth is that ancient Hebrews, like ancient Mesopotamians, had a three level cosmology as described here. If they believed in a round Earth, they would have said so, and not written supporting literature describing a flat earth that was the center of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from Tom Paine really fits here:

"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the use of "circle" is indeed a controversial statement. One of the views presented is this:

That's how it always goes, isn't it... whenever the Bible says something we don't like, we can just blame it on the translation and fix it in the next edition and then it's a perfect document again.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from Tom Paine really fits here:

"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed."

That's just plain rubbish! Just check out the books written for it...and against it! Any book that dwells on the subject of religion, God, beliefe etc.., is sure to bring up the Bible.

It's so scrutinized by its detractors who're trying to find something to say against it or disprove it!

You, yourself, had indicated that you've read - and I assumed tried at least to understand, if not scrutinized - the Bible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from Tom Paine really fits here:

"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed."

Golly! Of all the scientific facts I've given so far, you can only come up with this one? Circle/sphere. :rolleyes:

I remember drawing a circle representing the earth!

Anyway, that's just one guy's personal comment on it....one of the many personal comments thrown around everywhere.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just plain rubbish! Just check out the books written for it...and against it! Any book that dwells on the subject of religion, God, beliefe etc.., is sure to bring up the Bible.

It's so scrutinized by its detractors who're trying to find something to say against it or disprove it!

You, yourself, had indicated that you've read - and I assumed tried at least to understand, if not scrutinized - the Bible!

Personally, I don't really care alot about what sort of metaphysical beliefs people have, but when you make scientific claims for your religion, you have to back it up with evidence, not bombast! Sure, the Bible has been scrutinized...for hundreds of years now...but the results of language, textual, and archaelogical evidence are not addressed by the fundamentalist clowns that you are getting all of your information from. A real scientist...or even just a really honest investigator, does not begin with the conclusion and work his way back picking out shards and nuggets to present as evidence for the conclusions that he's already arrived at! These people have a stake in conclusions they've arrived at, whereas those liberal or unchristian bible scholars that you're horrified by, have nothing to gain by chipping away at the evidence for biblical literalism. They are mostly tenured professors, who discuss their research and their ideas among themselves or others in elite intellectual circles, and have not interacted with the public. That's probably why "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman created such a hubbub a few years ago when it was released. Ehrman presented what every one of his colleagues who study ancient languages and ancient texts already knew about the Bible we have today: it has been shaped by the many copying errors and deliberate additions and omissions that were made over the centuries before the printing press was invented. The subject of scriptural analysis is usually considered too dry and too esoteric to present to a general audience -- but, it's a subject that both the believers and non-believers should be aware of, since the more we know about the facts and the histories of these books protects us from the flim flams and misuse of present day self-purported authorities who offer bad advice for their followers and try to apply them to everyone else where they have political power to do so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the Biblical stories are open to interpretation, and were adapted from older stories from other cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the Biblical stories are open to interpretation, and were adapted from older stories from other cultures.

Also true! That ancient Hebrew cosmology comes from the ancient Sumerian's beliefs about the Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT: “Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists!”

Excerpts from....

Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books—if they are creationists, they are not true scientists!

Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity, and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.

Well, no matter. At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and for that matter, were also Bible-believing Christians, men who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose.

And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method." In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.

TABLE I

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY/ JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)

BACTERIOLOGY/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULUS/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

CELESTIAL MECHANICS/ JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

CHEMISTRY/ ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY/ GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

COMPUTER SCIENCE/ CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS/ LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

DYNAMICS/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

ELECTRONICS/ JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

ELECTRODYNAMICS/ JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

ELECTRO-MAGNETICS/ MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ENERGETICS/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS/ HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)

FIELD THEORY/ MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

FLUID MECHANICS/ GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)

GALACTIC ASTRONOMY/ WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

GAS DYNAMICS/ ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

GENETICS/ GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

GLACIAL GEOLOGY/ LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

GYNECOLOGY/ JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

HYDRAULICS/ LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)

HYDROGRAPHY/ MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

HYDROSTATICS/ BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

ICHTHYOLOGY/ LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY/ WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

MODEL ANALYSIS/ LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

NATURAL HISTORY/ JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY/ BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)

OCEANOGRAPHY/ MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

OPTICAL MINERALOGY/ DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

PALEONTOLOGY/ JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)

PATHOLOGY/ RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)

PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY/ JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS/ JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)

STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS/ JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

STRATIGRAPHY/ NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY/ CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

THERMODYNAMICS/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

THERMOKINETICS/ HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY/ GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

TABLE II

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ACTUARIAL TABLES/ CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

BAROMETER/ BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

BIOGENESIS LAW/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULATING MACHINE/ CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

CHLOROFORM/ JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM/ CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

DOUBLE STARS/ WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

ELECTRIC GENERATOR/ MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ELECTRIC MOTOR/ JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

EPHEMERIS TABLES/ JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

FERMENTATION CONTROL/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

GALVANOMETER/ JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

GLOBAL STAR CATALOG/ JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)

INERT GASES/ WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

KALEIDOSCOPE/ DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

LAW OF GRAVITY/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

MINE SAFETY LAMP/ HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

PASTEURIZATION/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

REFLECTING TELESCOPE/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

SCIENTIFIC METHOD/ FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)

SELF-INDUCTION/ JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

TELEGRAPH/ SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)

THERMIONIC VALVE/ AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

These identifications are to some degree oversimplified, of course, for even in the early days of science every new development involved a number of other scientists, before and after. Nevertheless, in each instance, a strong case can be made for attributing the chief responsibility to the creationist scientist indicated. At the very least, his contribution was critically important and thus supports our contention that belief in creation and the Bible helps, rather than hinders, scientific discovery.

In each case, the scientists listed were strict creationists, unreservedly believing in the Bible and the God of the Bible. Some were "progressive creationists," but none were theistic evolutionists, so far as can be determined. They came from a variety of denominational backgrounds and doctrinal persuasions, but all were at least professing Christians, committed to the basic doctrines of Christianity

http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I’ve stated elsewhere in this forum the first 10 words of Genesis speak of time, space and matter – actually the universe is scientifically expressed in this terms: time, space, matter, power and motion.

Genesis 1(New International Version)

The Beginning

1 In the beginning (time) God created (power)the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering (motion) over the waters.

Coincidence, a skeptic might say. Is it?

"Power" isn't a fundamental property ("energy" is the one you're looking for; power is a derived quantity). And using "create" as a synonym for power in the sense you've tried to do here has no relationship to the scientific definition of "power" anyway.

One could likewise point out that pretty much any creation myth will specify a time, a sequence of events (power! motion!), matter (ie the earth) being created, and so on.

If one believes that their god created the earth from the skull of a frost giant he slew in a mighty battle, your logic would say that their creation story is equally supported by scientific fact.

FACT: There is an incalculable number of stars.

Jeremiah 33:22 (New International Version)

22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’”

It might be surprising to people who've never been outside a big city, but anybody who has been outside on a clear night in the country can observe a countless number of visible stars. That somebody might use this as a metaphor for a large number is hardly surprising.

FACT: Mountains and trenches in the deep blue sea.

(...)

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.[/i]

Towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the oceans were discovered in the last century.

He says the roots of mountains are under the sea, but makes no claim as to entire mountains (or trenches). If I said that the roots of trees are underground, would you assume I meant that entire trees were underground?

FACT: Invisible atoms, the building blocks

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Colossians 1:15-17 (New International Version)

The Supremacy of the Son of God

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Suggesting that the world is made of things both visible and invisible is hardly a prediction of atoms. The claims of invisible things are more likely discussing things like "spirits" and "souls".

You couldn't go through the Bible and predict scientific facts from it. You're going through with the hindsight of knowing what has been discovered and finding Biblical references that at best vaguely relate to some scientific discovery and suggesting it is evidence that the Bible contains knowledge that must have come from a higher power.

This is really no different from getting advice from a psychic or a horoscope and finding events in your own life that fit the description. "My horoscope said I would receive exciting news. And wow! This tech blog says that an iPhone 5 is now in the works! That must be what my horoscope was talking about!"

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also true! That ancient Hebrew cosmology comes from the ancient Sumerian's beliefs about the Universe.

Noah's Ark is also based on the ancient Assyrian story about Gilgamesh and a flood. His farm was being flooded, so he built a boat to save himself, his family and his farm animals. Over time, this story grew into the one about Noah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I’ve stated elsewhere in this forum the first 10 words of Genesis speak of time, space and matter – actually the universe is scientifically expressed in this terms: time, space, matter, power and motion.

Genesis 1(New International Version)

The Beginning

1 In the beginning (time) God created (power)the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering (motion) over the waters. :)

Coincidence, a skeptic might say. Is it?

"Power" isn't a fundamental property ("energy" is the one you're looking for; power is a derived quantity). And using "create" as a synonym for power in the sense you've tried to do here has no relationship to the scientific definition of "power" anyway.

So let's correct it then.

FACT: ENERGY

Genesis 1 (New International Version)

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light (energy). 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Oh boy, imagine that! The way the universe is expressed on these terms - time, space, matter, power energy and motion - Genesis 3 still came up with the needed word!

Coincidence, skeptics may say. Is it?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's correct it then.

FACT: ENERGY

Genesis 1 (New International Version)

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light (energy). 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

That isn't a "fact". That is an idea a bronze age person created and handed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Power" isn't a fundamental property ("energy" is the one you're looking for; power is a derived quantity). And using "create" as a synonym for power in the sense you've tried to do here has no relationship to the scientific definition of "power" anyway.

One could likewise point out that pretty much any creation myth will specify a time, a sequence of events (power! motion!), matter (ie the earth) being created, and so on.

IFyou're basing it only on these statements alone - and as you can see, it's not the only basis of this thread!

He says the roots of mountains are under the sea, but makes no claim as to entire mountains (or trenches). If I said that the roots of trees are underground, would you assume I meant that entire trees were underground?

First you have to consider the other verses given with that line.

Jonah 2:3-6 (New International version)

3 You hurled me into the depths,

into the very heart of the seas,

and the currents swirled about me;

all your waves and breakers

swept over me.

4 I said, ‘I have been banished

from your sight;

yet I will look again

toward your holy temple.’

5 The engulfing waters threatened me,

the deep surrounded me;

seaweed was wrapped around my head.

6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;

the earth beneath barred me in forever.

The context clearly depicts Jonah sank to the bottom of the sea. All the way to the "roots of the mountains. In those days, who would've thought there'd be mountains under the sea?

As for the "roots of mountains," notice the plural form. From what I understand there are mountain ranges at the depths of the ocean....and with mountain ranges, definitely they come along with "valleys" that can also be described as trenches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggesting that the world is made of things both visible and invisible is hardly a prediction of atoms. The claims of invisible things are more likely discussing things like "spirits" and "souls".

You couldn't go through the Bible and predict scientific facts from it. You're going through with the hindsight of knowing what has been discovered and finding Biblical references that at best vaguely relate to some scientific discovery and suggesting it is evidence that the Bible contains knowledge that must have come from a higher power.

Aren't you going through with the hindsight of knowing there are references of spirits and souls in the Bible, and that you're trying to fit that in?

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

The key word is: universe. And the key line is "not made out of"....stated along the context of the universe being formed or created.

"Not made out of what was visible." Therefore it's made out of what was invisible.

Everything is made out of atoms. It's God's building blocks!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...