Originally posted by scottishinnzIncorrect from what standpoint? Historically incorrect? Probably lots!
Well, if one part of the bible (an allegedly immaculate document, the WORD of GOD as blindfaith would say) can be shown to be wrong, then what other parts are incorrect?
But, if, in my opinion, you are looking at the Bible as a reflection of
history, you're already looking at it the wrong way. I opine that the
Bible (or any spiritual text, really) should be viewed as a spiritual
manual, not a history book.
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzI did give a conclusive old-earth interpretation of Genesis somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.
Okay, I still haven't recieved a satisfactory (or, in fact, any) response to why the bible states that land plants (first showed up in the fossil record ~400 million years ago) were created before the sun (c. 6 - 10 billion years, as a guess). Or that birds (150 million years old, the first being archaeopteryx) were created before land animals (again probably ~ 400 million years ago).
Originally posted by NemesioI guess I'm going for factually correct. I agree there are probably many errors in the bible what with multiple translations and scribes having to make copies of copies before printing. In this case, it undermines any confidence that these creation stories are factually correct. Basically it shows that creationism has the potential to simply be a made up thing (anyone played chinese whispers?), a mistranslation, an exageration, or just plain false.
Incorrect from what standpoint? Historically incorrect? Probably lots!
But, if, in my opinion, you are looking at the Bible as a reflection of
history, you're already looking at it the wrong way. I opine that the
Bible (or any spiritual text, really) should be viewed as a spiritual
manual, not a history book.
Nemesio
If you take the bible as a general policy guide of how to live then I have no problem. But what with the nomber of possible errors in the bible it cannot be viewed as either a historical document or a source of evidence.
Originally posted by yousersYes, some things in science may be true. But can you tell exactly which are going to remain in place and which will not? Not unless you can see the future. So which are "God's laws" and which are not?
Yes, some things in science may be true. But can you tell exactly which are going to remain in place and which will not? Not unless you can see the future. So which are "God's laws" and which are not? How can you deny relevance to God's word because it is inconsistent with some principles we think might be true?
A second point: If you cannot be debunke ...[text shortened]... al principles, He is not subject to his own creation; it is quite the other way around, I think.[/b]
Look, we can find out a lot of things about God’s creation through science. Science is simply the method that humans have devised to examine God’s creation. That’s it. Where’s the harm in that?
What exactly is your position? That God created the physical universe but because we don’t know everything about it we shouldn’t try to? Is that it? Yes, science is constantly getting revised, but this doesn’t mean that science hasn’t given us much new insight into God’s creation.
If we determine the properties of a given substance through science, then that is the way God made it. If we discover that the chemical composition of water is H2O (atoms of coarse) then that is how God created water. What harm is there in finding out about God’s creation? Just because we don’t get it right the first time, does not mean that it is all irrelevant.
My point is that the laws of the physical universe were put there by God. God created the universe and the way that it works. It’s foolish to think that finding out about God’s creation alienates us from God.
How can you deny relevance to God's word because it is inconsistent with some principles we think might be true?
I don’t. In fact I’ve already answered this way back on page 1.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Mankind as a whole knows almost nothing about religion and even less about science. Perhaps it is premature to say how the two support or contradict each other.
My opinion is that God and religion in fact support one another. Perhaps one day science will be able to explain the miracles that Jesus performed. Jesus did God’s will. It’s not to far a stretch to assume that he also used God’s laws.
A second point: If you cannot be debunked from this outrageous view that scientific law is God's law…
If it sits better with you how about this. The natural, physical laws of the universe are God’s laws. People try to understand them through science.
why are you convinced that God's workings must be coherent with scientific law? As an all-powerful being who created these laws (according to your standing), He cannot possibly be subject to them and forced to work under them. As creator of physical principles, He is not subject to his own creation; it is quite the other way around, I think.
As I’ve stated above, I believe that one day we will have scientific explanations for miracles, but as an all powerful being I also believe that God is above everything else, so you have a point. Rather then being forced to abide by the laws of science, I think it is just God’s method of choice.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWell said, gets my rec. 🙂
[b]Yes, some things in science may be true. But can you tell exactly which are going to remain in place and which will not? Not unless you can see the future. So which are "God's laws" and which are not?
Look, we can find out a lot of things about God’s creation through science. Science is simply the method that humans have devised to ...[text shortened]... er then being forced to abide by the laws of science, I think it is just God’s method of choice.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge of the sciences with us, but I didn’t really say “all cells.“ Of coarse prokaryotic cells have no nucleus. There are many exceptions in science.
I agree with your posts generally, but I'm not letting others away with sloppiness so I can't really let you away with it either. Can't be seen to not correct errors on both sides, otherwise I have no integrity.
Not all cells have a nucleus, only eukaryotic (or eucaryotic, if you're american) cells have a nucleus, like those in 'higher' plants ...[text shortened]... dy these things improves there is unlikely to be a large scale shift away from current thinking.
Science has not once disproved the bible ,but the bible has disproved science.For instance lets look at the story about joshua asking the Lord to sustain a day, nasa in trying to calculate futer orbits had to follow a pattern and in researching found that a day was truly missing.For more evidences on science history and the bible look up some creationism sites ,one site is called God said man said .com.May God truly open your heart and mind to the truth that is evident.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOne look at my record will convince anyone that I am not a “Chess Engine.”
You claim to be a scientist? Why then did you not catch Chess Engine's basic mistake that not all cells are eukaryotic? I have not extrapolated anything, I have merely stated that the bible makes two claims that can be scientifically rebutted. I have asked how these two things can co-exist and you have refused to answer. You merely say that God need not follow rules. That's fine, but my point is that the bible is in error.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou didn't specify a group, prokaryotes or eukaryotes. Best to be as precise as possible.
I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge of the sciences with us, but I didn’t really say “all cells.“ Of coarse prokaryotic cells have no nucleus. There are many exceptions in science.
I didn't mean to second guess, but i thought i'd better just fill that hole!
Originally posted by mattlockTry reading the thread through. You'll find I quote the biblical creation order, and using scientific fact, show it to be false. What part of that don't you understand?
Science has not once disproved the bible ,but the bible has disproved science.For instance lets look at the story about joshua asking the Lord to sustain a day, nasa in trying to calculate futer orbits had to follow a pattern and in researching found that a day was truly missing.For more evidences on science history and the bible look up some creationism si ...[text shortened]... lled God said man said .com.May God truly open your heart and mind to the truth that is evident.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
I guess I'm going for factually correct.
With the Bible, I almost never am. Whether the Bible recounts an event
accurately, semi-accurately, or asserts an event took place that didn't makes
nearly no difference to me.
I agree there are probably many errors in the bible what with multiple translations and scribes having to make copies of copies before printing. In this case, it undermines any confidence that these creation stories are factually correct.
Yes, and no. The Semetic oral/written tradition is very strong and notable consistent.
I'm not denying that errors have and did occur, but as things go, they were pretty damn
good at it.
Basically it shows that creationism has the potential to simply be a made up thing (anyone played chinese whispers?), a mistranslation, an exageration, or just plain false.
If you view Creation literally and adopt a Creationist perspective, you have all
manner of trouble reconciling with the Scientific community. If you view it as
a myth which arouses in the reader introspection and contemplation, then
If you take the bible as a general policy guide of how to live then I have no problem. But what with the nomber of possible errors in the bible it cannot be viewed as either a historical document or a source of evidence.
Hold a second. It is a historical document. It reflects how the Jews viewed
themselves in the history of the world. It is a mirror which allows us to see the past.
It is a source of evidence for precisely that: 1500-200ish BCE Jewish self-perception.
What it isn't is an accurate reflection of history.
And I'm not suggesting that it is a policy guide for how to live. It is a vehicle for
self reflection. That is, using it to examine yourself and your actions, you can guide
yourself on how to live. This technique is and should not be peculiar to the Bible,
but to any text. The Bible just lends itself to that because of its profound allegory.
Nemesio
Originally posted by mattlockOh, and I'd like proof on your Nasa statement.
Science has not once disproved the bible ,but the bible has disproved science.For instance lets look at the story about joshua asking the Lord to sustain a day, nasa in trying to calculate futer orbits had to follow a pattern and in researching found that a day was truly missing.For more evidences on science history and the bible look up some creationism si ...[text shortened]... lled God said man said .com.May God truly open your heart and mind to the truth that is evident.
Did you know that a few years ago there was a joint US-Europe space mission, i forget which one (although i'll look it up if you wish), where some parts were made in Europe and other parts made in the US. When they tried to assemble the pieces they wouldn't fit. The US had been using old imperial measurements, whilst the Europeans were using metric. So you see, even Nasa's mathematicians aren't perfect.
