Six days or 14 billion years? How about both :D

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except if you read the article you would see the whole point is saying the Bible and Science dont contradict

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except if you read the article you would see the whole point is saying the Bible and Science dont contradict

I did read the article. It is just flimsy reasoning to try to justify the Bible's relevance. The Bible is VERY contradictory with science when you start analyzing the details, but I guess if you try to interpret it so broadly it can be made to fit. Too bad science doesn't deal in vagueness and broadness. It deals in specificness and that is where the Bible fails the contradictory test.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did read the article. It is just flimsy reasoning to try to justify the Bible's relevance. The Bible is VERY contradictory with science when you start analyzing the details, but I guess if you try to interpret it so broadly it can be made to fit.

There are parts that disagree with Science. For example, Paul when speaking of the head covering makes reference to the work of Hippocrates. The belief was that women had long hair because it stored seamen or something weird like that. The argument could even be made that the Bible says the earth is flat. This is irrelevant imo, but I'd assume we have different views on Biblical inerrancy. I feel most of the western world has the wrong idea.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It's easier to just distrust the Bible and believe science since scientists know more about the universe at large than the goat herders who wrote the Bible knew.

But science has all sorts of stuff that is just ridiculously unfeasable.

Like the superluminal expansion of the universe after the Big Bang (how is that not myth?).

Because we have direct and observable evidence of this being the case. Present some evidence of it not being true and then we'll talk, but just remarking how unbelievable something is doesn't make it a myth.
...

As there were no witnesses at the time, the evidence is hardly 'direct'.

The theory of superluminal expansion is based upon the interpretation of very little data (the CMB) and other theories (like the Hubble constant, which may not exist, either).

We do have directly observable and mathematically calculable science that says that superluminal expansion (which has not been observed) is impossible.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did read the article. It is just flimsy reasoning to try to justify the Bible's relevance. The Bible is VERY contradictory with science when you start analyzing the details, but I guess if you try to interpret it so broadly it can be made to fit.

There are parts that disagree with Science. For example, Paul when speaking of the head covering makes reference to the work of Hippocrates. The belief was that women had long hair because it stored seamen or something weird like that. The argument could even be made that the Bible says the earth is flat. This is irrelevant imo, but I'd assume we have different views on Biblical inerrancy. I feel most of the western world has the wrong idea.

The Bible makes several references to the circle or curve of the Earth and to the vault (or curve) of the sky.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes it describes a circle with a dome enclosure over it or it describes a sphere. That is why I said the argument could be made that it says the earth is flat. Ancient Hebrews took it as flat earth with Dome enclosure. Micahel Heiser has videos on this. Honestly the topic seems irrelevant because I don't think the Bible has to be scientifically accurate, because I believe God chose men who he knew would get his message across properly but I don't think the Bible was created thru some form of auto-writing as that would go against the nature of God. The portion in Paul's writings I mentioned is a perfect example that is completely based on incorrect science.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It's easier to just distrust the Bible and believe science since scientists know more about the universe at large than the goat herders who wrote the Bible knew.

But science has all sorts of stuff that is just ridiculously unfeasable.

Like the superluminal expansion of the universe after the Big Bang (how is that not myth?).

It's a myth, called theory and practically accepted as fact.

Myth, called religion and accepted as history is the same principle but a different profession and it is all just as ridiculous. If you take the Bible literally that is( and/or accept the big bang as fact). You can always hold it sacred and inspired without believing it is literally true.

Or the step that goes from theories of chemical aboigenesis, to a living cell, based upon DNA coding and that replicates and metabolizes (as if that step were somehow trivial or we even had any theory as to how that could arise?).

Or how even the optimal quantum path seems to be taken in the process of photosynthesis and yet we can't explain why (but science does reveal that it is happening).

Or that science is constantly being superceded by new ideas and so is really only the current best guess, most of which will hardly last a few decades before being superceded (I have a stack of old science textbooks which are laughably wrong).

At least the Bible has remained largely unchanged and is still exactly as relevant and 'true' as it was when it was written (2,000 to 5,000 years ago).

If those "goat herders" (a largely incorrect generalization) had revelation from God (which is what the Bible purports), then it is probable that God may know a bit more than all the "scientists".

I'd say that science comes in a poor second.

Science has more proven facts and usable knowledge than religion ever will. No matter how many ridiculous theories science has it is more important to the world than religion.

We will have both so you can always learn both, neither or something else. It's a good world and science is the knowledge of the operation of the world and Universe and will always increase.

Religion uses a book for thousands of years and tries not to evolve or increase in knowledge.

Spiritual practices have however enhanced scientific research and understanding in little known but profound ways. But not the New Testament just the Old and kabbalistic thought plus Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy which enhanced Judaism and science both.

It is the spiritual knowledge that became science today, not the blind faith of religion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It's easier to just distrust the Bible and believe science since scientists know more about the universe at large than the goat herders who wrote the Bible knew.

But science has all sorts of stuff that is just ridiculously unfeasable.

Like the superluminal expansion of the universe after the Big Bang (how is that not myth?).Or the step that goes from theories of chemical aboigenesis, to a living cell, which based upon DNA coding, and that replicates and metabolizes (as if that step were somehow trivial or we even had any theory as to how that could arise?).

Science doesn't have an answer to this and it is a strawman to suggest it does. Science just doesn't care about saying "I don't know".

Because "I don't know" is a valid answer in science.

But surely, that is the definition of ignorance.

I was pointing out that there is a lot of nonsense that is embraced as scientific.

Science can tell us nothing about our spirit or ethics or philosophy or morality or many other topics.

Essentially what you are saying is that you reject the validity of something because you have evidence of something entirely different. Put as a hypothetical metaphor, your reasoning goes something like; 'I don't believe in what doctors tell me because I have a Ford F100 workshop manual'.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes it describes a circle with a dome enclosure over it or it describes a sphere. That is why I said the argument could be made that it says the earth is flat. Ancient Hebrews took it as flat earth with Dome enclosure. Micahel Heiser has videos on this. Honestly the topic seems irrelevant because I don't think the Bible has to be scientifically accurate, because I believe God chose men who he knew would get his message across properly but I don't think the Bible was created thru some form of auto-writing as that would go against the nature of God. The portion in Paul's writings I mentioned is a perfect example that is completely based on incorrect science.

But surely, the difference there is the interpretation of what the Bible says.

Really, the Bible is not about the shape of the earth or the charge on the electron.

Accepting or rejecting it on the grounds of what it isn't even about is not rationally valid.

The Bible definitely uses metaphor and similie to convey its message. Usually showing it by using such words "as" or "like". A good chunk of the Bible is poetry and song. Some of it is wordplay.

I don't see the Bible as wrong, scientifically, because it isn't a textbook where that might matter.

It's only deviation from absolute truth (which science can never falsify and so can never expose) is in how we interpret it.

I think the problem of interpretation is largely due to taking things out of context which is encouraged by the artificial verse divisions added to the text to assist referencing and also by the fact that things like the wordplay and poetry were broken in translation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...

It's a good thing you put true in quotes though, because "true" and "bible" don't belong in the same sentence.
...

I used quotes because there are different 'truths'.

There is scientific truth, which to be testable must be falsifiable (i.e: have an exclusive and alternate explanation), and there is absolute truth, which cannot be falsified because there is no alternate case.

The Bible contains absolute truths and is therefore untouchable by science which requires that its truths must be falsifiable to be testable.

Google up on Carl Popper if you haven't heard of him before.

In every case that I have investigated where someone has said that the Bible is in error, it is due to a misinterpretation of what the Bible describes.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did read the article. It is just flimsy reasoning to try to justify the Bible's relevance. The Bible is VERY contradictory with science when you start analyzing the details, but I guess if you try to interpret it so broadly it can be made to fit.

There are parts that disagree with Science. For example, Paul when speaking of the head covering makes reference to the work of Hippocrates. The belief was that women had long hair because it stored seamen or something weird like that. The argument could even be made that the Bible says the earth is flat. This is irrelevant imo, but I'd assume we have different views on Biblical inerrancy. I feel most of the western world has the wrong idea.

My ideas of bible accuracy are when the bible is 100% accurate with what is going on. So when the bible doesn't align even slightly with science then it is wrong. Your inaccuracies above are just a few. If god exists and created the universe, then god should know how the universe works. If god is going to tell humans how it works, you'd think he'd get it right.

originally posted by: chr0naut
As there were no witnesses at the time, the evidence is hardly 'direct'.

That's not what I mean by direct and observable. As we've talked many times before you should know damn well that I'm talking about Neutrino Background Radiation and the Cosmic Microwave Background.

The theory of superluminal expansion is based upon the interpretation of very little data (the CMB) and other theories (like the Hubble constant, which may not exist, either).

Better than anything the Bible has.

We do have directly observable and mathematically calculable science that says that superluminal expansion (which has not been observed) is impossible.

You saying it is impossible on a conspiracy theory forum isn't evidence that it is impossible.

originally posted by: chr0naut
But surely, that is the definition of ignorance.

I was pointing out that there is a lot of nonsense that is embraced as scientific.

Science can tell us nothing about our spirit or ethics or philosophy or morality or many other topics.

So what? Science only sets out to answer what it sets out to answer. Saying science is flawed because it can't answer these topics is dumb because science never attempted to do so. That's like complaining that you took a History class and they didn't teach you Calculus.

Essentially what you are saying is that you reject the validity of something because you have evidence of something entirely different. Put as a hypothetical metaphor, your reasoning goes something like; 'I don't believe in what doctors tell me because I have a Ford F100 workshop manual'.

Essentially what you are trying to do is give credit to the Bible because it makes up things to answer things about philosophy, morality and ethics. But the real thing is that I can go to MUCH better sources than the Bible to get answers to all of those things.

And of course I don't believe in something that I have evidence that contradicts it. Why would I believe something that the evidence says is impossible? That's stupid.

a reply to: chr0naut

No that is just religious and philosophic nonsense. There is only one truth. The correct answer.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My ideas of bible accuracy are when the bible is 100% accurate with what is going on. So when the bible doesn't align even slightly with science then it is wrong. Your inaccuracies above are just a few. If god exists and created the universe, then god should know how the universe works. If god is going to tell humans how it works, you'd think he'd get it right.

Depends on where you read. Sometimes scientific data is from God other times its human influence in the Scripture. Paul's would be an example of human influence. I personally can't think of anywhere in the Bible that God is quoted saying something scientifically inaccurate.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you saying that the Bible isn't totally God's words? If that is the case then how do you tell which is which?

I personally can't think of anywhere in the Bible that God is quoted saying something scientifically inaccurate.

The entirety of the Creation account is scientifically inaccurate, and that's without using the 6000 year interpretation.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, but ancient Jews wouldn't have agreed with that interpretation. I agree the Bible wasn't created to give us scientific knowledge before our time. My point was simply that the Bible has human influence within it. It was written by humans after all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you saying that the Bible isn't totally God's words? If that is the case then how do you tell which is which?

The Bible is a collection of text from people God chose to get his message across. These people sometimes use the Science of the Day to make certain points.

The entirety of the Creation account is scientifically inaccurate, and that's without using the 6000 year interpretation.

The Creation account is 31 sentences of a hebrew poem. Do you expect it to give you all the knowledge we have today in 31 sentences of a poem? That is kinda silly imo.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The Bible is a collection of text from people God chose to get his message across. These people sometimes use the Science of the Day to make certain points.

How do you know this? I've talked to other Christians that have told me that all of it is God's word.

The Creation account is 31 sentences of a hebrew poem. Do you expect it to give you all the knowledge we have today in 31 sentences of a poem? That is kinda silly imo.

I expect it to at the very LEAST be accurate in what it is saying. I wouldn't expect it to go over the finer details of evolution, but I DAMN well don't expect it to be saying things like a fully grown woman was created from a man's rib.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know this? I've talked to other Christians that have told me that all of it is God's word.

That is how the majority of people view the Bible in the western world. Ask a messianic Jew from Israel and they will find it odd that you are trying to pull literal Scientific data from the Genesis account.

I expect it to at the very LEAST be accurate in what it is saying. I wouldn't expect it to go over the finer details of evolution, but I DAMN well don't expect it to be saying things like a fully grown woman was created from a man's rib.

No where does the Bible imply this is how all women were made. Just the first. This would be God preforming a creation miracle imo. The poem is polemic aimed at the Egyptian Gods and that is why you'll see God use different modes of Creation in Genesis 1. Of course miracles are inaccurate with Scientific data that is why we call them miracles.