Science In The Bible

[tosca1]

You think Moses knew about Pangaea?

EH?

Why does he have to know about Pangaea? Lol.

He said something that....thousands of years later....turned out to be a good description of the infant earth!

How did he know that - that would be the LOGICAL question!

To say that he was the Jeanne Dixon of his time...... is a gross understatement!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Folks, knee-jerk responses would most likely go unanswered...........unless I think they're worth responding to.

So you will selectively not respond to anything that you feel uncomfortable about being able to answer. That seems consistent.

 

[sooda]

EH?

Why does he have to know about Pangaea? Lol.

He said something that....thousands of years later....turned out to be a good description of the infant earth!

Millions of years later.. 10s of millons of years. You are trying to pin down the details of a myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You said that? I must've missed that!

Anyway...whether manic or not....here I am again!

Lol. I have to ask......are you my shadow? Am I a magnet to you?

Of course. It must now be made to seem that I am following you, though there is no indication of that. Since you will not be able to provide any meaningful response, you have to have something.

Go ahead. It is the best you have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

On genders.....


Genesis 1
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birdsg]">[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.


24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


26 Then God said, “Let us make manh]">[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”


27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.



All the creatures that God created - He just spoke them into creation. He told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Nothing is stated about genders. But the phrase, "after their kind" is repeatedly stated. Why?

The only time God referred to genders - male and female - was when He created man. Why?

Is it a coincidence that God never mentioned any genders when it came to the creation of creatures?
And the phrase, "after their kind," is repeated?


Science discovered that some creatures are asexual. They can reproduce without having any mate.

Using science, there is no principle or evidence that supports all living things being spoken into existence. Where is this connection with science that you are claiming is there? What is your point here in making these claims? Is this going somewhere are you just meandering around?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.
From an evolutionist's perspective - Genesis is loaded!

Like this one:



Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,


Moving creatures that has life, came to life in the water!
salt water.....freshwater pond ........water is water.




https://phys.org/news/2012-02-scientist-life-began-freshwater-pond.html


Doesn't that strikes a chord with Darwinists?

Yes, much of the Bible is very vague and can be reinterpreted after the fact to appear to match reality. You are cherry picking, the few verses that can roughly match up to reality while ignoring those that are refuted by what we can observe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Folks, knee-jerk responses would most likely go unanswered...........unless I think they're worth responding to.

Then try not to make knew jerk posts.

Can you explain how Genesis got so much wrong?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You think Moses knew about Pangaea?

He thinks a lot of strange things and comes unglued when pressed about them.

I do not think he even knows where he is going with this, given that he should have stopped at his opening statement that the Bible is not a science book.

 

[tosca1]

This Day-Age Interpretation says.......

THE BIBLE DESCRIBES THE CORRECT ORDER OF CREATION



Day-Age interpretation means that each day in Genesis 1 is actually a long period of time during which God had created life.

This interpretation of Genesis 1 is not figuratively in any way, and is astoundingly consistent with scientific findings/ theory. Read the article given below for the interpretation.


Day-Age Genesis Interpretation
Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then try not to make knew jerk posts.

Can you explain how Genesis got so much wrong?

My guess is that he will run out of here like he did the last time without presenting anything substantial.

His main focus seems to be in finding some way to ridicule others, but he definitely does not like getting any of that back. Kind of thin-skinned for someone doing what he does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This Day-Age Interpretation says.......

THE BIBLE DESCRIBES THE CORRECT ORDER OF CREATION



Day-Age interpretation means that each day in Genesis 1 is actually a long period of time during which God had created life.

This interpretation of Genesis 1 is not figuratively in any way, and is astoundingly consistent with scientific findings/ theory. Read the article given below for the interpretation.


Day-Age Genesis Interpretation
Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation

Big deal. What is it supposed to mean?

 

[tosca1]

He thinks a lot of strange things and comes unglued when pressed about them.

I do not think he even knows where he is going with this, given that he should have stopped at his opening statement that the Bible is not a science book.

If that's how you feel about me and my posts - why do you persist to enter my threads?
And, you only do personal attacks.

Are you trying to intimidate me from posting things that do not meet your approval?
Do I need your approval?

If you don't like what you read from me - then, don't follow me around.
I'm not tricking you into coming to my thread - the title says it plainly!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

EH?

Why does he have to know about Pangaea? Lol.

He said something that....thousands of years later....turned out to be a good description of the infant earth!

How did he know that - that would be the LOGICAL question!

To say that he was the Jeanne Dixon of his time...... is a gross understatement!

I see. You are saying that the writers of the Bible had no clue about the subjects they wrote about. That is a pretty sweeping statement with a lot of implications in religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This Day-Age Interpretation says.......

THE BIBLE DESCRIBES THE CORRECT ORDER OF CREATION



Day-Age interpretation means that each day in Genesis 1 is actually a long period of time during which God had created life.

This interpretation of Genesis 1 is not figuratively in any way, and is astoundingly consistent with scientific findings/ theory. Read the article given below for the interpretation.


Day-Age Genesis Interpretation
Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation

Nope, plants before the Sun, how does that work?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If that's how you feel about me and my pots - why do you persist to enter my threads?

Are you trying to intimidate me from posting things that do not meet your approval?

I have no opinion regarding your pots.

Are you trying to suppress my freedom of speech?

I leave the intimidation to you. Poor as your attempts are, they are amusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that's how you feel about me and my pots - why do you persist to enter my threads?
And, you only do personal attacks.

Are you trying to intimidate me from posting things that do not meet your approval?
Do I need your approval?

If you don't like what you read from me - then, don't follow my around. I'm not tricking you into coming to my thread - the title says it plainly!

It would be nice if you could learn from your mistakes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If that's how you feel about me and my posts - why do you persist to enter my threads?
And, you only do personal attacks.

Are you trying to intimidate me from posting things that do not meet your approval?
Do I need your approval?

If you don't like what you read from me - then, don't follow my around.
I'm not tricking you into coming to my thread - the title says it plainly!

Would you care providing answers to my questions and those of others.

What is the point you are trying to make, given that you started off by saying the Bible is not a science book? How have you determined that your interpretation and cherry picking is so reliably linked to later discoveries about the world that were carried out using the methods of science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would be nice if you could learn from your mistakes.

It would not be as funny though.

 

[siti]

Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
However, with that being said - I couldn't help but see the science in it.

In a sense, parts of the Bible might be understood as 'science' - being, as some of it is, based on observation. But you can't confuse its misunderstandings for modern scientific ideas. It simply doesn't work. Genesis 1 is probably allegorical - its a story meant to reinforce the idea of a creator God - not a blow by blow narrative of what God actually did. Any perceived correspondence with scientific fact as we now understand it is entirely coincidental and accidental to the purpose of the writer. On the other hand, I do think we can still learn some things that are kind of scientific from a careful reading and interpretation. Let me give an example.

One of the laws in the OT forbids the eating of pork - the pig is declared an unclean animal - fit neither for sacrifice nor human consumption. On the face of it that seems arbitrary - although some have argued it was because God knew better than humans about the health risks associated with eating improperly prepared and cooked pork. But there is a more obvious (if we think carefully enough about it) reason why a blanket ban on pork consumption would have been beneficial in a middle eastern agricultural society in the iron age.

The Israelites raised animals that were “chewers of the cud”, most probably because these animals fed on grass and did not compete for the same food as humans.

Pigs are, in fact, much more efficient at turning vegetation into protein-rich meat than cows, sheep or goats. But in time of famine, societies that depended on pork for protein would have found themselves in a difficult dilemma. Feed themselves and face a shortage of meat long after the crops recover or feed the pigs and risk malnutrition or starvation themselves. (Compare Luke 15:14-16)

The author of Leviticus may also have observed how poor humans are at controlling their appetites (Ecclesiastes 6:7, 9). Once the taste for a certain kind of food had been kindled, it would have been very difficult to quell. In the light of these observations, a blanket ban was probably the most effective option to protect the long-term nutritional interests of the group.

So in a sense, the prohibition on eating (and sacrificing) pigs might very well have been 'scientific' (based on observation of nature) - but it was iron-age 'science', not science as we know it today - and its findings were enforced religiously - you'd never get away with that in the modern world - if we did there'd be no tobacco consumption, no cars, far more trees and considerably fewer cows. But there's nothing about any of that in the Bible.

 

[tosca1]

Millions of years later.. 10s of millons of years. You are trying to pin down the details of a myth.

Lol. Whether it's a myth or not, is not the point.

The point is the Book still got several things consistent with, or confirmed by science - Thousands of years later. Not millions!

We're talking about the Bible- the Book!
Without it, how would I know that there was even an Abraham who said all those things?