That supports his original claim that the Bible is not a science book.Nope, plants before the Sun, how does that work?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That supports his original claim that the Bible is not a science book.Nope, plants before the Sun, how does that work?
I wonder how all the people that knew about Abraham did it before the Bible was written?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?
Vague verses can often be reinterpreted to match reality. By your standards the Qur'an is correct. Have you not heard it when Muslims play this game?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?
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?
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.
Vague verses can often be reinterpreted to match reality. By your standards the Qur'an is correct. Have you not heard it when Muslims play this game?
That is a very interesting take on the position on pork recorded in the Bible. My view had largely been based on the diseases that come from poorly cooked pork. Though I have heard some speculate that the similarity in the taste of human flesh and pork may have had something to do with it as well.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.
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,
So, there is nothing substantial in your thread other than the point that you think your interpretation of Genesis is confirmed by science. No chance that interpretation was driven by the fact that the scientific findings are known to you and you are just back filling?I'm not saying that. Read my OP again.
I'm saying "I can't help but see the science in it." And, now I'm giving a list of that.
I'm marvelling at all that!
Cherry picking does not mean that science is in the Bible. If you want to take that stance you have to look at the failures as well.I'm not saying that. Read my OP again.
I'm saying "I can't help but see the science in it." And, now I'm giving a list of that.
I'm marvelling at all that!
Maybe you have a very low threshhold of "marvelling".I'm not saying that. Read my OP again.
I'm saying "I can't help but see the science in it." And, now I'm giving a list of that.
I'm marvelling at all that!
That does not matter, you are making the same claims that Muslims are. By your standards the Qu'ran is correct. You are not being consistent.I'm not talking about the Qu'ran. I haven't read the Qu'ran.
This is about the Bible.
Excellent point. I would like to say you beat me to it, but I have been trying to figure out what his point is and had not considered the other implications yet.Seeing that you're new around these parts I'll cut you some slack, but as a reminder to the others, for the millionteenth time the origin of life, be it through the hand of god, abiogenesis, or the rutabaga man, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Biological evolution is ONLY concerned with change within life forms. FULL STOP!....PERIOD!
So when you bring up the issue of origins with evolution every pro-evolutionist on the forum pretty much shuts down, with the sometime exception of newbies such as yourself, whom we want to help.
BTW, Welcome aboard.
.
Sorry Skwim....I mistook you for the other one.Seeing that you're new around these parts I'll cut you some slack, but as a reminder to the others, for the millionteenth time the origin of life, be it through the hand of god, abiogenesis, or the rutabaga man, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Biological evolution is ONLY concerned with change within life forms. FULL STOP!....PERIOD!
So when you bring up the issue of origins with evolution every pro-evolutionist on the forum pretty much shuts down, with the sometime exception of newbies such as yourself, whom we want to help.
BTW, Welcome aboard.
.
Posturing is such an important cornerstone of your posts. You seem to spend more time on that than you do on substance. Given that you have yet to provide some point for this thread, that fact is glaring.You'll cut me some slack?
Lol, for a newbie - it was me who was actually cutting you some slack!
And, I've been doing it for quite some time - you can't tell?
But that seems to be a mistake! You're disrupting.
All your posts can be summed up in "nay, not true." And that's it! You gave nothing to rebutt at all! You just gave insults. And he says he'll cut me some slack......hahahahaha
Lol - and, for some reason, you couldn't resist my thread!
Well....darn, for the first time, I might be using the ignore button, after all.
....or, the "report."
Gosh. You have been doing this for so long, I am surprised that you would make such a rookie mistake.Sorry Skwim....I mistook you for the other one.
Okay, back to your post.
the origin of life, be it through the hand of god, abiogenesis, or the rutabaga man, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Biological evolution is ONLY concerned with change within life forms. FULL STOP!....PERIOD blah....blah....blah......
What's that got to do with this thread?
You mistook Popeye for a rabbit? Interesting. So there could be some glaring errors that you have mistaken for some kind of evidence of something and really be entirely wrong.Sorry Skwim....I mistook you for the other one.
Okay, back to your post. You were saying....
the origin of life, be it through the hand of god, abiogenesis, or the rutabaga man, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Biological evolution is ONLY concerned with change within life forms. FULL STOP!....PERIOD blah....blah....blah......
Uhhhhhm.....
What's that got to do with this thread?
Seeing that you're new around these parts I'll cut you some slack, but as a reminder to the others, for the millionteenth time the origin of life, be it through the hand of god, abiogenesis, or the rutabaga man, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Biological evolution is ONLY concerned with change within life forms. FULL STOP!....PERIOD!
So when you bring up the issue of origins with evolution every pro-evolutionist on the forum pretty much shuts down, with the sometime exception of newbies such as yourself, whom we want to help.
BTW, Welcome aboard.
.
And the phrase, "after their kind," is repeated?
Vague verses can often be reinterpreted to match reality. By your standards the Qur'an is correct. Have you not heard it when Muslims play this game?