Science And The Bible

[DavidLeon]

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept as a philosophy would have an influence in on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle.

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?

[Miles]

Like all grasshoppers, locusts both walk, leap, and fly.

On hatching, a locust emerges wingless as a nonflying nymph, which can be either solitary or gregarious. A nymph can also change between behavior phases before becoming a flying adult after 24 to 95 days. Locusts move through several phases before maturing into flying adults. (source)

Yup.

Not as long as it says hares chew cud, as the NWT bible does.

I've explained this to you once. The Bible isn't a scientific manual. If it says that rabbits chew cud or the sun sets and rises or flying squirrels fly it is because people relate to those things not because they are scientific facts. People don't describe everything in scientifically accurate phrases. The process of the rabbits is close enough to chewing the cud that it is called chewing the cud though it differs somewhat than that of cows. Get over it. (source)

Isn't science's responsibility, but that of teachers and, in this case, the bible.

If those representing science want to criticize the Bible in the name of science, which they do, then it is their responsibility. If you ain't science then don't speak for science. If you are then have enough sense to know what you are talking about. Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name. Don't be overly critical and ideologically possessed.
[/quote]

[otseng]

He's an atheist. You have to pity them. The power that an atheist moderator has on a Christian forum is very important for a variety of reasons.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments about others, including moderators.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

Don't be overly critical and ideologically possessed.

In other words, don't be like Christians.

Moderator Comment

This is not going down a productive path. Please just stick to the debate.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DavidLeon]

And as I've explained a couple of times now, it doesn't matter that the Bible isn't a scientific manual, but that far too many people take everything it says as truth.

That's their business, but I've demonstrated to you that terminology was used which may not be strictly scientifically accurate. It was employed in the Bible just as it is still today employed. It isn't realistic to suggest that the writers of the Bible in the time it was written were catching eating and observing insects and they were unaware of how many legs they had in using that terminology just because they didn't have a YouTube video or a time machine in order to determine the current scientific classification. It's nonsense.

And in light of this today's bibles owe it to their readers to correct the error and set them straight. Of course that they don't is a typical Christian approach to biblical errors: "We don't care. Pass the offering plate."

I don't agree. It's up to the reader.

And they do, but to little effect. For the most part Christians don't care that they pass along misinformation as long as they Praise Jesus!

They haven't passed along misinformation, that's what you are doing.

"If you ain't science . . . ."? What kind of odd remark is that?

You like that? I got it from George Carlin. Here's the question that needs to be addressed by scientific atheism. What is science? A: Truth or B: Investigation. If you say truth you become an ideologue of a quasi religious institution. You now have to establish and rigidly defend truth. In a simple answer you destroy science, at least for yourself or anyone adhering to that proposition.

Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name.

Yeah, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light, doesn't it.

No. It doesn't.

[Miles]

And as I've explained a couple of times now, it doesn't matter that the Bible isn't a scientific manual, but that far too many people take everything it says as truth.

That's their business, but I've demonstrated to you that terminology was used which may not be strictly scientifically accurate. It was employed in the Bible just as it is still today employed. It isn't realistic to suggest that the writers of the Bible in the time it was written were catching eating and observing insects and they were unaware of how many legs they had in using that terminology just because they didn't have a YouTube video or a time machine in order to determine the current scientific classification. It's nonsense.

It isn't important what the writers of the Bible at the time wrote, but what writers of the Bible today are saying. And today they're saying that grasshoppers "goeth upon all four," which is untrue, or a lie if they know the facts. AND letting the error stand without correction or comment.

And in light of this today's bibles owe it to their readers to correct the error and set them straight. Of course that they don't is a typical Christian approach to biblical errors: "We don't care. Pass the offering plate."

I don't agree. It's up to the reader.

Which implies the reader should be checking out each and everything the Bible says. The Bible says:

Matthew 2:4 "And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born."

Check out the claim that he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together

Check out the demand to see if it's true

Matthew 2:5 " And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

Check out the assertion that this is what they really said.

Genesis 5:30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters.

Check out the claim that Lamech lived 595 years

Check out the statement that he had other sons and daughters.

Get the point?

And they do, but to little effect. For the most part Christians don't care that they pass along misinformation as long as they Praise Jesus!

They haven't passed along misinformation, that's what you are doing.

Not that what you say has a scintilla of truth to it, but exactly what misinformation do you think I passed along?

"If you ain't science . . . ."? What kind of odd remark is that?

You like that? I got it from George Carlin. Here's the question that needs to be addressed by scientific atheism. .

Nah, the real question that needs to be addressed is, what the heck do you mean by "scientific atheism," because as I recall it has to do with Marxist–Leninist atheism, the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, which isn't at issue here.

Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name.

Yeah, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light, doesn't it.

No. It doesn't.

Yes it does. Sure it does. Pretty much does Without a doubt Yup, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light


.

[DavidLeon]

And as I've explained a couple of times now, it doesn't matter that the Bible isn't a scientific manual, but that far too many people take everything it says as truth.

That's their business, but I've demonstrated to you that terminology was used which may not be strictly scientifically accurate. It was employed in the Bible just as it is still today employed. It isn't realistic to suggest that the writers of the Bible in the time it was written were catching eating and observing insects and they were unaware of how many legs they had in using that terminology just because they didn't have a YouTube video or a time machine in order to determine the current scientific classification. It's nonsense.

It isn't important what the writers of the Bible at the time wrote, but what writers of the Bible today are saying. And today they're saying that grasshoppers "goeth upon all four," which is untrue, or a lie if they know the facts. AND letting the error stand without correction or comment.

And in light of this today's bibles owe it to their readers to correct the error and set them straight. Of course that they don't is a typical Christian approach to biblical errors: "We don't care. Pass the offering plate."

I don't agree. It's up to the reader.

Which implies the reader should be checking out each and everything the Bible says. The Bible says:

Matthew 2:4 "And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born."

Check out the claim that he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together

Check out the demand to see if it's true

Matthew 2:5 " And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

Check out the assertion that this is what they really said.

Genesis 5:30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters.

Check out the claim that Lamech lived 595 years

Check out the statement that he had other sons and daughters.

Get the point?

And they do, but to little effect. For the most part Christians don't care that they pass along misinformation as long as they Praise Jesus!

They haven't passed along misinformation, that's what you are doing.

Not that what you say has a scintilla of truth to it, but exactly what misinformation do you think I passed along?

"If you ain't science . . . ."? What kind of odd remark is that?

You like that? I got it from George Carlin. Here's the question that needs to be addressed by scientific atheism. .

Nah, the real question that needs to be addressed is, what the heck do you mean by "scientific atheism," because as I recall it has to do with Marxist–Leninist atheism, the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, which isn't at issue here.

Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name.

Yeah, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light, doesn't it.

No. It doesn't.

Yes it does. Sure it does. Pretty much does Without a doubt Yup, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light


.

This is what you unbelievers always do. You lose the argument you are making so you branch out with random complaints you've apparently come across in your quest for atheism.

"Yeah, well, the Bible is wrong here, here and here" sounds an awful lot like some playground tactic, "Yeah, well remember that one time YOU did something wrong."

[otseng]

Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name.

Yeah, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light, doesn't it.

No. It doesn't.

Yes it does. Sure it does. Pretty much does Without a doubt Yup, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light


.

This is what you unbelievers always do. You lose the argument you are making so you branch out with random complaints you've apparently come across in your quest for atheism.

"Yeah, well, the Bible is wrong here, here and here" sounds an awful lot like some playground tactic, "Yeah, well remember that one time YOU did something wrong."

Moderator Comment

Please cease the tit-for-tat and the unproductive comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

With the advent of the scientific method humanity has progressed in leaps and bounds. It is important to everyone, Bible believers included. Conflict arises when people use their interpretations of Bible passages to deny the truths discovered by science. How long did it take to remove the Earth from the centre of the universe? Science has provided us with the means to save lives through blood transfusion, but extremist religious views based on narrow interpretation of the Bible prevent its use as the will of God. Ironically, similarly narrow interpretation also allows sexual predators to be protected, presumably also as the will of God.

Science fiction and the Bible have a lot in common. Magical events that defy the laws of nature are a feature of both. Science fiction is replete with such stories and the Bible has its own fair share. Gravity defying events such as parting of a sea or walking on water. Corpses returning to life. Talking animals, magic fruit, water turning into wine, living inside a fish, rods turning into snakes, a woman turning into a pillar of salt, food falling from the sky, a tiny boat with all the features of the Tardis allowing representatives of the animal population of the world to fit inside. No doubt, others can add to the list. When you believe all of that is literal truth without evidence, then you really have no right to criticise any science with its wealth of supporting evidence. Today we've got the likes of Marvel and DC comics, back then they had the writings that ended up in the compilation known as the Bible. It’s clearly possible to study the Bible for decades and still flunk reality.

[Clownboat]

The parts I thought really problematic were the accounts of Job and Samson and Delilah. They read like fables to me. The rest of it, aside from the supernatural aspect, read to me like real people and real events.

People are neat!

Here I was, a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the Holy Ghost street evangelising Christian who decided to read the Bible on his own.
What facinates me is how the Job story, and the Samson and Delilah story are the ones that read like fables to you, an unbeliever at the time. Myself, a believer at the time who had already dedicated his life to Christ read much of the Bible to be fable and started to doubt my beliefs.

Aren't people neat!

[Difflugia]

The parts I thought really problematic were the accounts of Job and Samson and Delilah. They read like fables to me. The rest of it, aside from the supernatural aspect, read to me like real people and real events.

People are neat!

Here I was, a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the Holy Ghost street evangelising Christian who decided to read the Bible on his own.
What facinates me is how the Job story, and the Samson and Delilah story are the ones that read like fables to you, an unbeliever at the time. Myself, a believer at the time who had already dedicated his life to Christ read much of the Bible to be fable and started to doubt my beliefs.

The story that first poked at me as a teenager was Jacob using sticks to manipulate goat and sheep phenotype.

The church I attended wasn't super literalist, so it was OK that most of the fantastic stuff in Genesis was allegory. The story of Jacob's goats, though, combines being wrong with specific details in such a way that I had a hard time considering it either history or allegory.