It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible and Science Part 2 / The Science of Hydrology

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I dont dispute what scripture is saying. The problem is your taking scripture that is talking about two completely different events. The act of God for the flood and The scientific facts of hydrology are two totally different stories that scripture talks about. You also forget the bible is an ancient book. Firmament descibing one thing in one context doesnt mean that firmament describes all others that are off the earth and above for example.

Plus you have to remember the literal translations are Greek and Hebrew. A Greek word can have several basic meanings and depending on the word in Greek for example it can dramatically change the tone of the setting.. Just like The English language or many others.
edit on 29-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


You just gave all the reasons why the bible is not to be considered a reliable source of facts. Who decides what was translated correctly and what is questionable? Who says the firmamment in Genesis and the firmament in Job are not the same? Why is one persons interpretation any more valid than another's? After all they are just opinions.

Also you never really answered why there are seperate storehouses for snow and hail when in fact they both form within the clouds which, until they are formed, are really only water vapor. If they had a real understanding of hydrology there would have been only one type of storehouse that contained water which was turned into whatever god wanted to send down.

I see that the problem is always something that I am doing. I didn't read the OP, I don't understand, I read without concern in my heart or I don't realize the dynamics of the languages in which the bible was written. This doesn't mean that I am offended but I will point out that this often happens when the evidence offered really can't stand on its own. Then it's the other person who must be doing something wrong.

Here is a thread similar to this one. You may be interested. 37 pages of what seems to be starting here. I will duck out now if you don't mind.
Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!


edit on 29-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I think you misunderstood me. I said,,



Firmament descibing one thing in one context doesnt mean that firmament describes all others that are off the earth and above for example


What I was saying is that the word Firmament is literally, the expanse of the skies and or heavens whatever you want to call them. But it doesn't mean you have to call the objects or space around the earth and beyond the same name. If I go outside and say I was looking up at the stars is that incorrect? I could say the sky, the heavens .

I am not talking about interpretation of the book. I am talking about the meaning of some words. . I am not saying your always the one thats wrong, I am saying The Bible in my opinnion is accurate in what it says. There is no need to be offended or think I am attacking you or your God given right to think and feel as you wish , as long as you allow the same in others my friend.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I'm not offended and I believe that everyone is free to believe what they like. The problem here is that you are claiming that those people knew about hydrology and the only proof is a few lines of an ancient book which also includes lines which may or may not contradict depending on who is interpreting.

That is to vague to be considered scientifically proven. Science as a tool includes certain criteria which must be met for something to by deemed proven and not just one persons or another's opinion because the amount of proof to convince someone personally will vary.

So when someone says that something isn't scientifically proven they may not be giving their opinion but instead pointing out that what is being presented doesn't meet that criteria.

I'll give you an example. I believe that there are other dimensions. Other worlds that exist in this space and time but we can't experience them. Now there are some theories out there that offer an explanation of how this could be but it would be wrong for me to say that other dimensions have been scientifically proven. I can differentiate between my personal criteria and that of science.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
There's really no real conflict between the Bible and science. You can be a Christian and still be very, very capable as a scientist. For example, you have such Christians as Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Liedmitz, Newton, Pascal, and on and on. It is true that the Bible doesn't use scientific jargon, but that doesn't make it nonscientific. The Bible talks in everyday language.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


The Bible also claims that outer space is actually filled with water. For instance during the flood the "windows of heaven" are opened. A firmament is also mentioned, which is a dome over the Earth that separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (believed to be in the heavens).

The Bible has a lot of interesting things to say on a lot of subjects but it's not a scientifically accurate book by any stretch of the imagination. To make matters worse centuries of mis-translation and re-translation, and cultural distancing from ancient myth and beliefs, has made much of scripture a mystery to the average person. After all how many Christians know that the Bible even mentions a firmament, how many even know what the firmament is? How many recognize the references to Lillith, Adam's 'first wife', or the references to the Nephilim and the entire (removed) book of Enoch made in Genesis?




Man on his own never really never understood until a couple of centuries ago.


Some man you mean. Job apparently understood it, or whoever the author of Job was.



There is no conflict with science there, only absolute accuracy.


But as I pointed out above the Bible does have plenty of conflict with science. So it describes clouds as the storage place of snow and rain, that's hardly a detailed description. It's hardly the sort of technical description one would expect from the grand physicist of the Universe (God) who designed the system himself. It's more the description that a man would give, an ancient man inferring that rain and snow are stored in clouds by observation and past experience.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


The bible does not claim outter space "Is" filled with water. The Bible said that God seperated the firmament in the creation. I agree the bible doesnt us technical language. I just want to say my point isnt to make the bible a science book. I am simply saying there are science facts in the bible and some are very strange for the time of the writing.

Cloudes are the storage place for snow and hail, if your trying to describe a revelation from God 5000 years BC approx.

You say.


an ancient man inferring that rain and snow are stored in clouds by observation and past experience.


except for one other key comment by that "Man" below


"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there without watering the earth


How would he know 5000 BC that the water followed a circut before returning to the clouds. How in that same time period would anyone know that rain was due to evaporation from the oceans and so on Evaporation is the only way the return there phrase can happen. That didnt come till the 17th century .

One other thing did you know that Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Liedmitz, Newton, Pascal, were Christians. ?
My point is that these men weren't idiots or uneducated for the time they lived in. They were scientists.

As far as references to Adams wife or the nephilim what are you saying? I just don't know what you are trying to say in regards to Adam etc

edit on 30-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
One other thing did you know that Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Liedmitz, Newton, Pascal, were Christians. ?
My point is that these men weren't idiots or uneducated for the time they lived in. They were scientists.

The point is that these men, as far as I know, never said "the Bible is scientifically proven". That is what you are saying.

They may have believed it to be true but they wouldn't say that it was scientifically proven. I'm sure they were smart enough to understand that their beliefs and science are 2 different things. Each with their own requirements to accept something as true.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 





How in that same time period would anyone know that rain was due to evaporation from the oceans and so on Evaporation is the only way the return there phrase can happen. That didnt come till the 17th century .


Because not all cultures develop knowledge at the same rate. Also, Job wasn't written in 5000 BC, the Pyramids weren't even built at that point. From what I understand Job was actually written somewhere between 600 and 400 BC.

It's true that in the Middle Ages science wasn't well understood however back in Greece at the same time Job was being written there was plenty of scientific speculation and discovery going on. For instance the Greeks had posited the Earth was round by 600 BC and, in fact, earlier civilizations than that had speculated the Earth as round. So scientific knowledge wasn't something that developed universally, it developed separately in different areas of the world and sometimes progress was kept back by those in power.




One other thing did you know that Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Liedmitz, Newton, Pascal, were Christians.


Yeah I did actually. I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. If I point out that Einstein was Jewish (loosely anyway) and Stephen Hawking is an atheist does that validate those two things? Newton also believed in Alchemy and declared on his death bed that his greatest achievement in life was lifelong CELIBACY




They were scientists.


The majority of human beings cling to superstition of one kind or another, scientists are no exception.




As far as references to Adams wife or the nephilim what are you saying? I just don't know what you are trying to say in regards to Adam etc


In Jewish mythology Adam had a wife before Eve, named Lillith, who is briefly referenced in the Old Testament. Originally she was a demon from Mesopotamia supposedly however she later developed into Adam's first wife.


In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th centuries Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards, Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam


Lillith

Lillith is referenced in the modern Bible only once, in Isaiah 34, and even that I had to learn from a scholarly Bible since it only becomes clear in the Hebrew.

Same for the Nephilim, who are born from human women taking fallen angels as husbands, I'm merely trying to say that most Christians don't know their Bibles very well. When I was a Christian I began to read my Bible more and more, question more and more, and explore the other books that had been tossed out of it. The more you read the Bible and research how it was put together and written entirely by men the less faith you can have that any higher power is reflected in it's pages.

What science the Bible has to offer is highly unimpressive and certainly doesn't reflect some higher level of knowledge and hardly makes up for all the other questionable material.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I will start with I know my Bible very well.

If your going to start that 400-600 years BC the Book of Job was written you cann just take your folly to another person who is willing to entertain it. I know better and so do multitudes of scholars and thats all there is to it. If you dont have a decent guess at the age of the book of Job your homeless with any other historical data on the thread topic. It all goes right back to square one , post #1 that said Isaiah 55:10 explains the whole topic of the thread but you seem to choose to ignore the simple fact that the rains fallls and does its work and eventually evaporates and is carried into the clouds again and the cycle continues. If you can produce evidence that the bible didnt say that then do it. If you can produce textss that are 5600 hundred years old that explain the basic principles of hydrology the produce them.


Don't mock your own intelligence with trying to make the book of Job 4oo-600 years BC. Its moronic to do so with the information highway available.


For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there without watering the earth"


BTW the book of Isaiah is approx 5600 years old and Job is the oldest book of the Bible.
edit on 31-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
OK. I will try to give an example of what you are doing with something that probably has no importance to you to point out your fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

The Mayan believed in rain gods called Chaac.
The idea is that these gods caused the rainy season (precipitation) they then became subterranean old men that went to the ocean (collection) and were there replenished before .ing back to the sky (evaporation) where they could make it rain again (precipitation).

Does this scentifically prove that the mayan gods are real? Are you willing to accept that the mayan gods are real? That is what you are asking us to do.

I offered in my original post that these types of musing about rain gave people a general sense of its nature but it doesn't mean that they had the understanding that we do today. This makes sense and it can be seen in other ancient beliefs but it doesn't mean that this scientifically proves that they are true.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
OK. I will try to give an example of what you are doing with something that probably has no importance to you to point out your fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

The Mayan believed in rain gods called Chaac.
The idea is that these gods caused the rainy season (precipitation) they then became subterranean old men that went to the ocean (collection) and were there replenished before .ing back to the sky (evaporation) where they could make it rain again (precipitation).

Does this scentifically prove that the mayan gods are real? Are you willing to accept that the mayan gods are real? That is what you are asking us to do.

I offered in my original post that these types of musing about rain gave people a general sense of its nature but it doesn't mean that they had the understanding that we do today. This makes sense and it can be seen in other ancient beliefs but it doesn't mean that this scientifically proves that they are true.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------

But you and I know that little men are not going down in the ocean and accending to give us rain and percipitation. We both know that that rain falls and it waters the earth and evaporates without the help of man. and the Bible simply said it does this and nothing more. WE both know that it is not the hand of man that causes rain so pink elephants men that claim to be God or should I say "One of The Gods"are not a parelell to the description in the bible



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Well in Mayan beliefs that elements are the gods so they are in fact talking about water. I will use the same excuse that you used and say that they are just using language as they understood it and not modern or scientific jargon.

So the same kind of evidence in the bible that you want us to accept is not acceptable if it is from another belief? You may not hold them in parallel to the bible because you hold the bible to be true. I don't so, to me, both sound like general musings.

The bible does not describe how the water returns. Job could have believed that god sent angels with bottles to collect it since Job 38:37-38 say "Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven, When the dust hardens in clumps, And the clods cling together?"

We both know that water in the sky isn't kept in bottles but you have no problem with accepting that description as true. Stop being hypocritical.
edit on 31-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You see this is how the problems start. The reference to angels with bottles is the prophecy of the angels ministering to Jesus after being tempted in the wilderness for 40 day and nights by Satan
You calling me hypicritical is not accurate and I am far from being hypocrite.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


The reference to angels was added by me because Job doesn't say how the water gets back into heaven. Seeing that god sends angels to do his work, it would not be unreasonable to think that he would send them with the bottles that he uses to store the rain until he pours them out.

You can claim to not be a hypocrite but your posts and the dismissal of other beliefs while claiming yours to be true, based on the same kind of evidence, shows otherwise.


edit on 31-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Enjoyed your thread.
Am adding here a link to the discoveries of possibly 5 times the amount of water in the oceans below the earth. There are the biblical waters of Noah's time that came out of the 'deep.' Science is always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the bible but eventually, as in this explanation, they get there and we need to encourage them as much as possible to correctly understand.

groups.google.com...

What precipitated the waters emerging from the deep is the deeper question and a timely one for us.



That article is highly misleading and questionable as it doesn't mention the percentage of water. This article clears it up a bit.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Apparently it's not an "ocean" at all. It's simply lots of moisture trapped in rocks. The moisture level is actually about 0.1 that's less moist than a dry sponge lol. It's absolute ridiculous to call this an ocean. Typical creationist lie.

edit on 31-12-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by daskakik
 


You see this is how the problems start. The reference to angels with bottles is the prophecy of the angels ministering to Jesus after being tempted in the wilderness for 40 day and nights by Satan
You calling me hypicritical is not accurate and I am far from being hypocrite.


Notice the 40 days and night theme connected with water you have pointed out here. This is a common theme in the bible.

Why?......Because it's a different way of telling the same stories.

Jesus was not a living person. He is a personification of the rainbow of ascension. He is the veil.

Look at circumcision, it is symbolic of cutting the veil.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 


Your statement:




That article is highly misleading and questionable as it doesn't mention the percentage of water. This article clears it up a bit.


shows that you didn't read beyond the 5th paragraph of the link you presented:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

so let me quote from it for you:


Given the region's size, however, that's enough to add up to a vast amount of water.



"There's a consensus that not all hot spots are equal. Some are hot spots; some are wet spots."



When the planet was young, steam came from the deep interior to the surface as volcanic gas and eventually produced today's oceans. But as Earth's interior ages and cools, it becomes easier for water to return below the surface.


and let me quote also from the link I presented since you didn't read that either:

groups.google.com...


The story of the Flood is a Biblical story about the universal deluge as recorded in Genesis. Some people regard it as a myth. However, many scientists believe the Flood did occur in days of Noah. Scientists point out numerous traces of the flooding still existent in various parts of the globe. They also believe that the salt-water lakes scattered around the land thousands kilometers away from a shoreline are the remainders of Noah's Flood.



The question is: Where did all that water come from?



“The specific attenuation characteristics of the lengthwise seismic waves clearly indicate the presence of water. Those characteristics are pertinent to water,” said Prof. Wysession.



The researchers also designed a 3-D model of the area on the basis of sounding data. They are confident that the underground oceans contain as much water as the Arctic Ocean does. The
water is located at a depth ranging from 1,200 km to 1,400 km.



The findings released by the American researchers indicate that a catastrophic event may happen again, at least from a theoretical point of view. Prof. Wysession stresses the point that
the areas located beneath the underground oceans have water too. He specifically refers to the parts of the mantle that have not been researched yet. Prof. Wysession believes there is plenty of water out there. According to his estimates, the amount of water may be five times as greater as that of all the oceans on the earth’s surface.


and last but not least and maybe I should have put this first for you - the definition of hydrology:

www.merriam-webster.com...


: a science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and below the earth's surface and in the atmosphere


To me the interest is in what precipitated Noah's Flood and not the ignorant rehashing of whether it's possible or not. The bible recorded a mega hydrological event and, as in the OP, hydrological principles were stated in the bible some 3500 years ago.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Seriously?

You quote from 'Bible Prophecy News', which provides no source. *sniff* *sniff* I smell an agenda...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   


"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there without watering the earth"
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


So at the time of writing of this script I'm wondering if you are trying to say that this individual had some greater knowledge of the workings of hydrology than they did in say 500ad? As a child, without studying this particular subject, it was pretty evident that clouds dropped rain and snow and the earth was watered. I'm failing to see how this is some great revelation in scripture. I do think man at the time of this particular scripture was written had some understanding of how the cycle worked. Have you ever seen water seep into the ground? Did you need a god to explain that water just fell down and the ground soaked it up making it wet.

I actually do understand trying to show a correlation of fact with scripture and thats fine do a degree. But using an observable event like this doesnt honestly show much more than man knew it rained, knew it made mud and made the assumption that since the mud dried out in the sun and then it rained again it must have went back to the clouds.

If you remove yourself from your current environment and actually spend time living outdoors you will quickly find the things you take notice of. Thousands of years ago man lived by taking notice of nature and knowing how things operated to survive. While an understanding of these processes don't seem to be as in depth as they are today, they would have known quite a bit. So personally, sure, whoever wrote this did understand it do a degree. Not the degree that you are hoping, but enough to make a guess as to what was going on. It doesn't take a god or a scientist to sit outside and notice these thing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join