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.

 

Can science explain the Bible?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Can Science Explain the Bible?
15-Apr-2003



With Easter and Passover coming soon, it's time to look at what scientists have to say about the stories in the Bible. British scientist Colin J. Humphrey says Mount Sinai, where Moses received God's Law, is really in Saudi Arabia, and not in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, because the mountain must have been an active volcano, since it shook and emitted fire and smoke (Exodus 19:18). He thinks the site is Mount Bedr in northwestern Saudi Arabia, since there were no ancient volcanoes in what was later named the Sinai Peninsula. And he thinks the "burning bush" was caused by flammable natural gas or volcanic gas escaping from a small vent in the ground. Another scientist thinks Christ didn't die on the cross, but was drugged instead.
Some scholars say Exodus couldn't have happened because the arid wilderness couldn't have provided food and water for 603,550 men (the usual translation of Numbers 1:46), or 2 million people, counting women and children. But Humphreys says the Hebrew word often translated "thousand" also means "clan" or "troop," which could reduce the number to 20,000.

He thinks the Red Sea crossing occurred at the Gulf of Aqaba, near present-day Eilat. The Israelites could have escaped thanks to a powerful "wind tide" or "wind setdown," a natural phenomenon that would allow people to hurry across the sea floor. Then the sea water returned through a "wind setup" and drowned the Egyptians.

He thinks that escalating natural disasters explain each of the 10 "plagues" that convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelite slaves leave. The Nile "turned to blood" means that toxic red algae killed fish; the dead fish forced frogs ashore; gnats and flies were drawn to the dead fish and frogs; then insects transmitted a virus that killed livestock, etc.

Canadian neuroscientist Michael Persinger has an explanation for the Resurrection. He performed experiments with rats studying temporal-lobe epilepsy. Patients with temporal-lobe epilepsy temporarily lose consciousness but don't suffer grand mal seizures. Some people think this disease can explain UFO and religious experiences. He discovered that when rats are injected with the certain drugs while being physically restrained, their body temperature plummets and they appeared to have died. But three days later the rats revived, although their brains were extensively damaged and they had lost their memories.

Persinger says Christ may have had temporal-lobe sensitivity, which could explain his religious experiences (such as being tempted by Satan). He was immobilized on the cross. But how would he have gotten the right drug? He was given a sponge of what is described as "vinegar" to drink; maybe this was actually a plant extract that induced a trance-like state. He thinks Christ may not have been recognized after death by the disciples and others who had known him, due to his brain damage.

Of course, it could be that the resurrection simply happened. Learn the suppressed secret behind the Middle East conflict—a secret that dates back to Biblical times.

Can Science Explain the Bible? Part II
18-Apr-2003



In Can Science Explain the Bible, we told about some scientific explanations for Biblical stories that may or may not be true. Now two Italian journalists say the Bible is filled with mistakes. They claim Eve didn't eat an apple and Jesus didn't die at the age of 33 and wasn't born in the first year AD. The Jews didn't escape by walking across the floor of the Red Sea, there were eleven or twelve commandments, manna didn't fall down from heaven, and Jonah's whale didn't exist. The three Wise Men weren't really wise, and there weren't three of them. Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, and the apostle Paul didn't fall off a horse on his way to Damascus. And this is being reported by journalists from the Pope's official newspaper!
Roberto Beretta and Elisabetta Broli of the newspaper Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Pope's Biblical Committee, have published a book called "The Eleven Commandments," in which they've collected examples of false Bible interpretations. Their research is based archeological evidence and new readings of ancient manuscripts.

They say Eve couldn't have eaten an apple, because there were no apple trees in the place where the Garden of Eden was. An unknown Biblical writer translated "malus-malum" ("evil" or "fruit") as an apple. Jews believe that Eve picked a fig or a nut, while Orthodox Christians believe the apple was really an orange. Muslims believe Eve offered Adam a glass of wine (much more tempting than an apple).

The Ark that Noah built wasn't actually a boat, but more like a submarine. The rain didn't last for 40 days, it lasted for a year and ten days. Also, Noah took only seven pairs of "clean" animals and one pair of "unclean" animals, not two of everything.

Jews didn't escape across the floor of the Red Sea, they went to a place called Bitter Lakes or the Reed Sea, which wasn’t deep, so they could cross it at low tide. Egyptian soldiers were stopped by the rising tide. The Reed Sea sounds like a marshy place, so Egyptian chariots might have gotten bogged down in the mud, while the Jews escaped on foot. John Wyclif correctly translated the area as the Reed Sea in the 13th century, but it was confused with the Red Sea 300 years later.

Twelve commandments were given and it wasn't Moses who received them. Biblical scholars say the commandments appeared gradually, one after another, and weren't put into their final form until the end of the 7th century BC. The last 7 commandments were already in force in Egypt long before the time of Moses. Jews still learn twelve commandments.

Manna was a resinous substance that can still be found on bushes in the Sinai area. The walls of Jericho didn't tumble down because the town did not exist at that time. A whale didn't swallow Jonah—the Bible says a common man, who plunges into thought and turns to God, can become a prophet and overcome any obstacles—even being swallowed by a whale.

Joseph, the father of Jesus, wasn't a carpenter who married Mary in old age. He was a successful builder who got married when he was 18-25 years old. There were no Wise Men, no Bethlehem star, no stable birth.

Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, because shepherds aren't in the fields in the winter. He wasn't born at night, and he was born either in the fifth or the seventh year AD. The mistake was first made by a monk named Dionisio el Exiguo, who created the calendar we still use. There's some evidence that Jesus was crucified on April 7th, in the year 30, so he would have been 36 or 37 years at that time.

Now, is all this true or not? And does that matter? In faith--in true faith--it does not matter at all. Blessings of the season.




posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 07:43 PM
link   
perhaps it worked out the way god intended and he controlled the forces of nature.



posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   
That is kind of my train of thought: There is a God, but he is essentially the ultimate scientist/physicist/engineer I guess. He designed the natural laws and let it run like a fine machine.



posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
perhaps it worked out the way god intended and he controlled the forces of nature.


Nature will always win through.

Dues et natura no faciunt frusta
god and nature do not work together in vain.



posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 08:02 PM
link   
On the same topic, our family's friend works at The Institute For Creation Research(ICR) and they believe that Noah's Ark may be up in Mount Ararat. They were not allowed to get close enough to verify it, but it looks like a huge wooden structure up there. Anyone else heard this?



posted on Apr, 18 2003 @ 08:06 PM
link   
On the same topic, our family's friend works at The Institute For Creation Research(ICR) and they believe that Noah's Ark may be up in Mount Ararat. They were not allowed to get close enough to verify it, but it looks like a huge wooden structure up there. Anyone else heard this? Posted by Endisnear

Yes as a matter of fact, I understand the CIA/NRO actually have a complete analysis file (classified) on the subject, based on numerous surveillance satelite photos of Ararat.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

english.pravda.ru...

www.noahsarksearch.com...

www.virtuallystrange.net...



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 09:26 AM
link   
that the stories in the Bible, were exagerations by uninformed bystanders who didn't understand the science behind such things. Not understanding it, they took it to be a little grander than it otherwise was, and thus, embellished the description a bit (red water became a river of blood, etc.).



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Agree with Dragonrider and Endisnear!

God and Nature are normally co-existent but there are days that you wish you had made a bigger prayer to one of them!

I don't believe in a higher being but i will respect what others think and since being name after a wind..i won't say who i'm cheerleader for!



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 10:23 AM
link   
There are many science explanations about the universe in the genesis and the others books of the bible.
Many peoples say that the Big-Bang is explained by the first sentence of the bible : "A GOD say let the light be, and the light is" : The word of GOD; is this verse, is creation source...



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
There are many science explanations about the universe in the genesis and the others books of the bible.
Many peoples say that the Big-Bang is explained by the first sentence of the bible : "A GOD say let the light be, and the light is" : The word of GOD; is this verse, is creation source...


...well said ..........

Many of the arguments between "evolutionists" and "anti- evolutionists" are useless, for one basic reason: they are usually not arguing about the same thing. Each one of them means one thing when he hears the word "evolution," and the other means something else; and they argue in vain because they are not even talking about the same thing. Therefore, in order to be precise, I will tell you exactly what I mean by the word "evolution," which is the meaning it has in all textbooks of evolution. But first I must show you that in your letter you have used the word "evolution" to mean two entirely different things, but you write as if they were the same thing. You have failed here to distinguish between scientific fact and philosophy.

link..........

orthodoxinfo.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
That is kind of my train of thought: There is a God, but he is essentially the ultimate scientist/physicist/engineer I guess. He designed the natural laws and let it run like a fine machine.


Dragonrider,....
.....can i add to your Quote////'
'''''That is kind of my train of thought: There is a God, but he is essentially the ultimate scientist/physicist/engineer I guess. He designed the natural laws and let it run like a fine machine....

only people thought it wise and selfish to claim itas their own invention!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join