Scientists say...

[YoursTrue]

I mean... A house isn't quite on par with reality as we know it

It's not? Most people know what a house is.

 

[Soandso]

It's not? Most people know what a house is.

There's other examples of houses we can compare a house that we don't know it's origins to know that it's built by human hands. What other realities are there that we can compare to our own to know that ours was constructed by a god's hands?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There was a start to the universe. Kind of, more or less. Like it blasted from a teeny, tiny substance. Moses knew the universe had a beginning. How did he know that? No telescopes, no space travel...so how do you think Moses knew that there was a beginning to the existence of the universe including the earth?

Seems to me this is a reasonable assumption by anyone to make. It either did or didn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seems to me this is a reasonable assumption by anyone to make. It either did or didn't.

Frankly, to assume that something was there before it blasted does not make sense to me. But if Dr. Hawking and other esteemed individuals think so, obviously many might agree.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's other examples of houses we can compare a house that we don't know it's origins to know that it's built by human hands. What other realities are there that we can compare to our own to know that ours was constructed by a god's hands?

Again, it depends on how one sees or more specifically, how one sees. I can't speak for everyone, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's other examples of houses we can compare a house that we don't know it's origins to know that it's built by human hands. What other realities are there that we can compare to our own to know that ours was constructed by a god's hands?

Plus there are different types of houses.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Frankly, to assume that something was there before it blasted does not make sense to me. But if Dr. Hawking and other esteemed individuals think so, obviously many might agree.

Why not? It actually makes more sense that there has always been something rather than nothing produced something.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not? It actually makes more sense that there has always been something rather than nothing produced something.

I'm thinking, like the apostle Paul (formerly Saul) was well schooled in Jewish traditions and thought. But he changed his viewpoint after a revelation from Jesus Christ. Meantime, only the Almighty God was apparently always there without beginning. To me, it just makes sense. Now.

 

[Madsaac]

The bible authors were people who believed that the "stars" could literally "fall from the sky" to earth.

Go figure.


I think it's safe to say that this is not a great source for solving the mysteries of cosmology.

Yeah, are you agreeing with me and disagreeing with OP?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, are you agreeing with me and disagreeing with OP?

The Bible is not a science textbook and can use expressions that are poetic or symbolic in certain circumstances.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible is not a science textbook and can use expressions that are poetic or symbolic in certain circumstances.

Not only is it not a science textbook... its authors clearly had no clue about scientific facts or the world they lived in.
It's pretty obvious that their knowledge was first rather primitive and second didn't extend any further then a 500 mile radius from where they lived.

I mean... to write something down like "the stars will fall from the sky to earth" is mindblowingly ignorant about what stars are.
Which, off course, is normal considering the age in which these people lived.

It is not normal if you assume that the very creator of the universe told them this one way or the other.

 

[shunyadragon]

Many think he did not. I've been thinking about that lately. For instance, I was reading about Charles Dickens, the English author. There are some things about him that many do not really know but were discussed in a more recent book about his life and relationship with his wife. It's kind of a sad story. But if that had not been revealed people would believe only one side of it, namely, Dickens' side. And why am I saying this? Because many things that happened against the earthly rulers do not come to light. Printing presses and newspapers weren't around thousands of years ago and even if they were, nothing might have been written explaining the real stuff that happened if it looked bad for the ruler. Or the writings simply did not survive.

The Hebrews before 800 to 600 BCE simply did not have writing. All ancient culture had pottery, clay tablets, and stone to write on. There are a lot of archaeological evidences of Hebrews using clay to make pottery, idols, and carved stone objects, but no writing before 800-600 BCE

 

[shunyadragon]

The Bible is not a science textbook and can use expressions that are poetic or symbolic in certain circumstances.

Then why do you reject the science of evolution based on this ancient tribal writings that are not a science book..

 

[Madsaac]

The Bible is not a science textbook and can use expressions that are poetic or symbolic in certain circumstances.

I'm glad we agree, here we are thinking the bible had facts in it. A book or poetry and symbolism.

 

[Madsaac]

Not only is it not a science textbook... its authors clearly had no clue about scientific facts or the world they lived in.
It's pretty obvious that their knowledge was first rather primitive and second didn't extend any further then a 500 mile radius from where they lived.

I mean... to write something down like "the stars will fall from the sky to earth" is mindblowingly ignorant about what stars are.
Which, off course, is normal considering the age in which these people lived.

It is not normal if you assume that the very creator of the universe told them this one way or the other.

Yes I agree.

The bible is not a science textbook, and as you say, a primitive book, full of mindblowingly ignorant information written for it's age and not the present.

 

[Tomef]

Yes I agree.

The bible is not a science textbook, and as you say, a primitive book, full of mindblowingly ignorant information written for it's age and not the present.

It’s not at all primitive as a work of literature, which is what it is. Given that the notion of science as a pursuit didn’t exist, evaluating it from a scientific standpoint is a red herring. There’s no comparable book in terms of influence and in terms of how effectively it achieved its goal - providing the fledgling Jewish nation with a sense of identity and purpose - given that later Abrahamic texts built on what was already there, at least not in our hemisphere. The Republic is a close second maybe.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm glad we agree, here we are thinking the bible had facts in it. A book or poetry and symbolism.

Certainly not always. But there are poetic terms used upon occasion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I agree.

The bible is not a science textbook, and as you say, a primitive book, full of mindblowingly ignorant information written for it's age and not the present.

Not necessarily. There were directives given to the Israelites, but again, the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Way before modern science was introduced.
You might want to look up information about Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, a physician who changed the course of medical conditions to employ sanitary conditions not that long ago. I suggest you read about him if you have not done so already. His contemporary physicians thought he was crazy. But he wasn't. And it wasn't that long ago.

 

[F1fan]

I'm thinking, like the apostle Paul (formerly Saul) was well schooled in Jewish traditions and thought. But he changed his viewpoint after a revelation from Jesus Christ. Meantime, only the Almighty God was apparently always there without beginning. To me, it just makes sense. Now.

It doesn't make sense in the 21st century. You just want stories written 2500 years ago to be literally valid. They aren't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Frankly, to assume that something was there before it blasted does not make sense to me. But if Dr. Hawking and other esteemed individuals think so, obviously many might agree.

I agree.