The Bible and Science

[The Tanager]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

[The Tanager]

So, are fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales events? No. They're fictitious stories. A fictitious story is not an event.

actual being defined as: "existing in fact or reality."
event being defined as: "a thing that happens."
fictitious being defined as: "something that is false or does not exist."
story being defined as: "an account of incidents or events."

Have a good day.

Thank you. I hope your day is going wonderful, too. But your question above wasn't the question we were talking about. Of course types of fictional stories are not actual events by the very definition; no one is contesting that. The question is whether at least some of the supposed miracles in the Bible are actual events or fictional stories. Do you think those supposed miracles contradict science? If so, then by your definition of what science is, you should be able to show the "consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach" that leads one to that conclusion. Please do.

[William]

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

Is there support that the Bible makes direct scientific claims? If not, then there is no conflict.

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

A blanket statement at best.

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

The statement ignores the many nuances of beliefs presented throughout the books which make up the Bible. If everything were as plain as the statement implies, there would be no explanation for why there are so many competing factions among those who use the Bible.

4. Something else

Probably. But "what"?

I think the subject stems from the long and damaging battle between two types of philosophies which appear - at least on the surface - to be at odds with each other. Supernaturalism and Materialism.

Science is different from scientists, and the majority of scientists are materialists so the conflation occurs when science and scientists are thought of as the same thing, which is generally implied with most arguments coming from Materialism giving the impression that science itself agrees with Materialist Philosophy, when in fact, the philosophy is simply what has come about through the interpretation of what the science has so far revealed.

This also occurs re Supernaturalist Philosophy as the physical universe is interpreted through the belief in a non-physical supernatural "realm" claimed to being responsible for creating said physical universe, and conveniently unavailable to scientific scrutiny.

[myth-one.com]

I was taught that Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round. However, did someone know that fact thousands of years before Columbus sailed?

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth... (Isaiah 40:22)

And the Bible addresses the power or life in the blood. But the best doctors in past times drained the "bad blood" out of the sick as a medical procedure. I saw such a tool in a Washington DC museum.

The Bible thus relates scientific facts that man in all his wisdom only discovered many years after the Bible scriptures were written!

Since men did not even scientifically discover these facts until hundreds or thousands of years later, these facts written down in the scriptures could not have come from the minds of the men who wrote them at the time they were written!

This lends credence to claims that the scriptures were inspired by God and not mankind.

My favorite scientific Bible fact is that the max life span of an individual man is 120 years.

Sometime around 1975-1980, a group of scientists concluded that human beings could live to a maximum of one hundred and twenty years of age. It was discovered that shortly before reaching one hundred and twenty the process that causes body cells to reproduce fails. The cells then die as well as the person.

They believe it is caused by what they call telomeres. Telomeres are repeating DNA strings (TTAGGG) that cap chromosomes. Each time a cell divides its telomeres become shorter. When they reach a preset length, the cell ceases to divide, ages, and dies -- as does the person.

But Moses came up with the same identical number about 3400 years ago when he wrote the following:

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

How did he know that scientific fact?

Was it a guess, or inspired by something else?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #23]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. What do you do with passages that seem to speak to scientific claims that science would disagree with (that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars, has/had a hard dome over it, etc.?

[2timothy316]

My favorite scientific Bible fact is that the max life span of an individual man is 120 years.

Sometime around 1975-1980, a group of scientists concluded that human beings could live to a maximum of one hundred and twenty years of age. It was discovered that shortly before reaching one hundred and twenty the process that causes body cells to reproduce fails. The cells then die as well as the person.

They believe it is caused by what they call telomeres. Telomeres are repeating DNA strings (TTAGGG) that cap chromosomes. Each time a cell divides its telomeres become shorter. When they reach a preset length, the cell ceases to divide, ages, and dies -- as does the person.

But Moses came up with the same identical number about 3400 years ago when he wrote the following:

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

How did he know that scientific fact?

Was it a guess, or inspired by something else?

There is another view on this point. While the science about the telomeres is fine and the telomeres might most certainly have something to do with the aging of mankind. But it seems unlikely that when Moses was writing Genesis he had the lifespan of a human in mind. As the Bible later states in Psalm 90:10, "The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away." Equating telomeres with the lifespan and Genesis 6:3 doesn't really match up.

This goes back to what I said about context. What was said at Genesis 6:3 in context was Jehovah speaking about the coming flood. Genesis the whole 6th chapter isn't speaking about the life span of a man. Rather is speaking about how Jehovah had decided that in 120 years He was going to "put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth." - Gen 6:13.
So it is more likely that Genesis the 6th chapter is speaking, not the life span of a man, but the horrible state of all mankind and that God "will not tolerate man indefinitely".

[onewithhim]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #25]
The Bible and Science are compatible. They need not be put into two separate and disagreeing categories. Good Science will always consider the Scientific Method, to prove theories in the lab. Bad Science makes statements as fact even though their ideas haven't been proven. Good Science does not disagree with the Bible. (The Bible does not teach that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.)

[John17_3]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

Something else.
The Bible is correct, even when it touches on science. So, current scientific understanding is wrong, if it conflicts, and the truth will be discovered, as is often the case.

Examples:

1. An Eternal and Uncreated Universe or the Big Bang?
   The Big Bang theory is now considered the only one able to explain the observational data we have, including the existence of the cosmic background radiation, the mutual recession of the galaxies, and the abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the Universe. But first, it had to overcome competition from another cosmological model, the steady-state theory
   
   While it is still being debated, whether or not the universe had a beginning, the Bible's explanation is final, and will not change. Genesis 1:1
   Man will never be able to prove their ideas about this past event.
2. How did Earth get its water?
   A recent study showed that enstatite chondrites, a type of meteorite thought to be representative of the raw materials that formed Earth, “contain sufficient hydrogen to have delivered to Earth at least three times the mass of water in its oceans.” It’s not clear when these meteorites might have delivered their water, but they are a good match for the rocks found in Earth’s interior. If Earth started out with water trapped beneath its surface, volcanic activity could have released it as water vapor, which would have condensed and fell back to Earth as rain.
   
   There is still ongoing studies to try to figure out how earth got its oceans.
   • There are numerous theories about how Earth got its water. Most fall into two categories: Either Earth was born with the molecular precursors of water already present, or water-laden space rocks like asteroids and comets brought water here after the planet’s formation.
     
     Many of these theories are compatible with each other, meaning Earth could have gotten its water from multiple sources. That makes things a little more complicated, but scientists are continually refining models of what happened in the early Solar System and how Earth got its water.
   However, man will never be able to prove their ideas about this past event.
   The Bible's conclusion on this, is final, and will not change. Job 38:8; Proverbs 8:29

These are just a few examples, but the Bible has proved trustworthy in these, and other discoveries, and facts.
So far, I have not found reason not to accept the Bible as having the final say - the correct conclusion.

[John17_3]

Lets take a look at two examples that speak of the same thing but in different ways.

The Earth
There is metaphorical explanation in the Bible. Example: 1 Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them."
Then there are direct explanation in the Bible. Example: In Job 26:7 says, “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

So one says that the Earth is on pillars and the other says the Earth hangs on nothing. Context is important. In 1 Samuel 2:8 we see in context that it is speaking not really speaking about Earth or its creation but how He supports everything and everyone. It is through Him things thrive or not. The Earth itself is no exception. Yet in Job 26:7 it is directly speaking about the details of creation and how wondrous they are.

I definitely think context is important, but I’m not sure this is as clean as you are making it out to be. Job 26:11, just 4 verses later in the same context, speaks of the pillars of the heavens. Job 9:6, which seems to be in the same kind of context of the conversations between Job and his 3 friends, speaks of the Earth’s pillars trembling. In Job 37:18 the skies are said to be as hard as a bronze mirror.

Today, it is common to use metaphors.
It is nothing new, since the Bible writers did the same, but that does not mean everything is a metaphor, or must be literal.

It is the same as today.
In one breath, we use literal phrases, and metaphors - a mixture.

[William]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

Overall, I would go with 4.
But let’s examine each in turn.

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims: This view suggests that when the Bible and science conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both). It assumes the Bible is making statements about physical reality that can be directly compared to scientific findings.

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text: This perspective treats the Bible as entirely metaphorical, not making direct claims about physical reality. It focuses on spiritual truths conveyed through symbolic language rather than offering any historical or scientific accounts.

3. The Bible is mainly concerned with spiritual guidance: This view holds that the Bible is primarily focused on teaching what is necessary for salvation or providing practical instruction for a life of faith. It uses the linguistic and cultural understandings of the time to communicate its messages, but it may also include non-spiritual elements such as historical and cultural contexts.


4. (Something Else.)The Bible is largely a culturally political book with snippets of spirituality included: This view posits that the Bible is primarily shaped by cultural and political agendas of its time. While spiritual insights are present, they are secondary to the larger political and social influences embedded in the text.

[The Tanager]

4. (Something Else.)The Bible is largely a culturally political book with snippets of spirituality included: This view posits that the Bible is primarily shaped by cultural and political agendas of its time. While spiritual insights are present, they are secondary to the larger political and social influences embedded in the text.

Thanks for sharing your view. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think this is the case.