• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science In The Bible

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Believe it or not, this one was unwittingly contributed by an atheist in another forum. He was questioning something - can't recall - and we ended up with this:


AXIAL TILT


1 Chron 16
30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.



Psalm 93
1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.




Psalm 96
10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.





What I'm bringing up here may not be within the context of the actual message with those verses - but, the highlighted parts can be taken literally, if we refer to science for physical explanations!



Isn't the earth stable in its course? Isn't it on its axis?

Are we ricocheting all over the universe like a pinball?



What is Earth's Axial Tilt? - Universe Today



Earth has a set course, and even its so-called "imperfection" - the serious variations over time is also set (seasonal changes)!



Axis Tilt is Critical for Life

Doesn't the Earth move?

Yes, people knew thousands of years ago that the plane of the ecliptic and the axis of rotation of the sky are different. But, I see *nothing* in that Bible verse to suggest even this knowledge. It also very explicitly claims the Earth is unmoved.

The ancient belief was that the Earth was at the center of the universe with the stars and planets going around them once per day. The belief is that the Earth did not move: it was stable. These verses are an example of that belief set: they are saying that the Earth is *stable and does not move*.

And yet it moves.
 

tosca1

Member
Doesn't the Earth move?

Yes, people knew thousands of years ago that the plane of the ecliptic and the axis of rotation of the sky are different. But, I see *nothing* in that Bible verse to suggest even this knowledge. It also very explicitly claims the Earth is unmoved.

The ancient belief was that the Earth was at the center of the universe with the stars and planets going around them once per day. The belief is that the Earth did not move: it was stable. These verses are an example of that belief set: they are saying that the Earth is *stable and does not move*.

And yet it moves.

Well, read it again!

It does not say the earth does not move!
It does not say the earth is not moving.
It does not mean the earth stands still.

It says it is stable it can't be moved!


1 Chron 16
30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.



Psalm 93
1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.




Psalm 96
10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.




KEY PHRASES: CANNOT BE. SHALL NOT BE. BE NOT!

KEY WORD: BE!

It does not say, "it cannot move, it shall not move or it will not move!"


It cannot BE, and shall not BE moved, from its set course.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Even the science of mathematics has something to say about the Bible!



MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: ORDER OF CREATION


The Book of Genesis had described the order of creation, accurately. There are 13 definite claims by Moses alone (author of Genesis), as having been accomplished in the order given:



1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (v.1).

2. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (v.2).

3. "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (v.2).

4. "And God said, Let there be light ... and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (vv. 3-5).

5. "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (v. 7).

6. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place" (v. 9).

7. "And let the dry land appear" (v.9).

8. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind" (v. 11).

9. "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years... " (vv. 14-18).

10. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind" (v. 21).

11. "And every winged fowl after his kind" (v. 21).

12. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind" (v. 24).

13. "So God created man in his own image" (v. 27).



Take note: We're talking only of the claims made in the Book of Genesis here.


Science Speaks, Peter W. Stoner, Chapter 1, Changes in Science



Peter Stoner - Wikipedia

I notice that you leave out the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars. Funny about that: it seems to be *completely* out of order.

Stars existed LONG before the Earth (and it's waters--which were *before* the first day). The Sun is what *makes* the difference between Day and Night (which the author of Genesis seems to be unaware of---formed on the first day). The Sun formed before the Earth and the Moon after that.

Then there is that whole 'firmament' on the second day to contend with (which, I note again, you omitted). What, precisely, is that? Separating waters above from waters below? Now, to be sure, the *ancient* belief system was that the sky was a solid bowl (later, a ball) above the Earth and the stars were on that bowl. That bowl was called, guess what, the *firmament*. It separated the 'material realm' of the Earth from the 'heavenly realm' about it.

Not exactly correct there either.

And about those 'waters' and 'the deep'. Exactly, which waters are these? Notice that they have a *face*, which means a surface. So we aren't talking about water in space here. We are talking about something like a grand ocean. Now, in the ancient world (before it was known that the Earth is spherical), it was widely believed that the Earth was a *flat disk* floating on an ocean. The sky was a dome on top of this. In this belief, the water was there before the Earth and the local deity raised the Earth out of the water (making dry land appear--the third day).

So, according to Genesis, there was water before the formation of 'the heavens and the Earth' and God was above these waters. Not exactly correct here either.

Next, we notice that plants, including those with seeds, are made on the same day as dry land appeared and *before* the Sun, Moon, and Stars the fifth day). But land animals didn't appear, in Genesis, until after those seeded plants (on the sixth day). This is, however, wrong. Seeded plants (Gymnosperms) are actually a fairly late development and appeared well after the first land animals. So the order here is wrong. Also, birds (winged fowl) appeared before land animals and at the same time as plants (fifth day). Again, this isn't consistent with the *actual* order revealed from the fossil record.

Overall, a fairly poor performance by Genesis, don't you think?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, read it again!

It does not say the earth does not move!
It does not say the earth is not moving.
It does not mean the earth stands still.

It says it is stable it can't be moved!


1 Chron 16
30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.



Psalm 93
1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.




Psalm 96
10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.




KEY PHRASES: CANNOT BE. SHALL NOT BE. BE NOT!

KEY WORD: BE!

It does not say, "it cannot move, it shall not move or it will not move!"


It cannot BE, and shall not BE moved, from its set course.

Exactly. It says very clearly that the Earth *cannot* be moved. It says *nothing* about having a 'set course'. It says very clearly it *cannot be moved* at all.

Yet it moves.
 

tosca1

Member
The Bible had talked about brimstone in the right context, thousands of years before it's been confirmed - The Creator has intimate knowledge of His Creation.



BRIMSTONE AT THE CORE OF EARTH



Biblical views of the center of the Earth as a hellish pit raging with fire and brimstone have some support from new research.

Scientists have found that the vast majority of brimstone — reverently referred to in biblical times as "burning stone," but now known more commonly as sulfur — dwells deep in the Earth's core.

Scientists have generally understood that at the time of Earth's formation, heavy metals such as iron and nickel sunk to the planet's core, and light elements, like oxygen, silicon, aluminum, potassium, sodium, and calcium, mostly concentrated in the outer layers of the Earth, in the mantle and crust.

However, the mass of the Earth's solid inner core, which is too light to be composed solely of metal, has been an enduring inconsistency in our understanding of the planet's distribution of elements. To explain the core's lighter-than-expected weight, scientists assumed that the core had to contain some lighter elements, such as oxygen, carbon, silicon and sulfur.

"Scientists have suspected that there is sulphur in the core for some time, but this is the first time we have solid geochemical evidence to support the idea," Savage said.
Earth's Mysteriously Light Core Contains Brimstone
 

gnostic

The Lost One
"The Bible called the earth ‘the round world,’ yet for ages it was the most damnable heresy for Christian men to say that the world is round; and, finally, sailors circumnavigated the globe, and proved the Bible to be right, and saved Christian men of science from the stake."
-
Matthew Maury | Survivor Library
‘Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!’



Since this was brought up in the previous post about Matthew Maury (post #161), let's add it to the evidence being given:



The Earth is Round



Isaiah 40

22*It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

*Pictures taken from space show the earth appears as a circle since it is round.



Job 26
10*He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.



Horizon | Define Horizon at Dictionary.com


"......for ages it was the most damnable heresy for Christian men to say that the world is round;"

How many people died at the stake for saying that?


Thanks to science.
It gave evidence that to say, the world is round, is a statement of a fact!
In anticipation of someone here challenging the statement that the earth is round.....by talking about the "sphere," let me save you the trouble:


What is a sphere? A three-dimensional round thingy!


Here's Merriam's definition:

a : a globular body : ball


....and to back that up, here's wiki:


Sphere - Wikipedia

Sorry, but ancient Hebrew/Jewish geography and astronomy are based on Babylonian astronomy, which assume the roundness of the Earth, to be that of disk, not a sphere.

The Earth is a disk that sit on water, that’s how the authors viewed the universe.

And the roundness is based on a person’s viewpoint of the horizon around him, not the actual shape of the planet.

Second, the Bible in several places, assumed the Earth is stationary, while the sun and moon from horizon to horizon.

Well, that’s only partially true, the moon does move, but the sun is moving across the sky, which is astronomical wrong.

The Bible doesn’t say the Earth move, like the Earth rotate on its axis or the Earth orbits around the sun, which is astronomically correct. Instead, the Bible indicated the sun, move from horizon to horizon, and in the battle of Gibeon, God stopped the sun above Gibeon, until the Israelites defeated the Amorites. The Sun and Moon didn’t move again, until after this battle, nothing about Earth’s rotational motion.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
The Bible had talked about brimstone in the right context, thousands of years before it's been confirmed - The Creator has intimate knowledge of His Creation.



BRIMSTONE AT THE CORE OF EARTH




Earth's Mysteriously Light Core Contains Brimstone

There is no “pit” in the Earth’s centre or the core. A “pit” would indicate a “hole”, and there is no pit deep enough to observe the core.

The brimstone I am assuming is molten lava, which come from the upper layer of the mantle under the crust, not the core.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Well, read it again!

It does not say the earth does not move!
It does not say the earth is not moving.
It does not mean the earth stands still.

It says it is stable it can't be moved!


1 Chron 16
30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.



Psalm 93
1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.




Psalm 96
10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.




KEY PHRASES: CANNOT BE. SHALL NOT BE. BE NOT!

KEY WORD: BE!

It does not say, "it cannot move, it shall not move or it will not move!"


It cannot BE, and shall not BE moved, from its set course.

Again you create meanings for the words even if they are the opposite to what is said. Take any verse and give it new meaning and behold it now says what you want it to say. Truly amazing. So which translation do you use? Is it a Greek version, Latin version, Hebrew version or your own version. Is it from the oldest documents found or from a newer one. You however are even more creative in blending verses. Truly creative thinking but unfortunately meaningless in view of reality.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
The Bible had talked about brimstone in the right context, thousands of years before it's been confirmed - The Creator has intimate knowledge of His Creation.



BRIMSTONE AT THE CORE OF EARTH




Earth's Mysteriously Light Core Contains Brimstone
Again you pick out a sensational article. There is sulfur (brimstone) probably throughout the earth and there is no reason to believe it is not at the core also but the core is not entirely made of sulfur! On review of recent research - studies of core composition after the one you sight - there are still uncertainties about the core other than it may contain greater amounts of lighter elements of which sulfur can be one amongst others. Other lighter elements include silicon and nitrogen. The research for mars is different with research predicting a higher amount of sulfur in its core than on earth. We however live on Earth and not Mars. Again applying singled out words since fire is not part of the core, and finding a scientific article that matches what you want to believe and ignoring all of the rest is the classic error creationists make.
 

tosca1

Member
Sorry, but ancient Hebrew/Jewish geography and astronomy are based on Babylonian astronomy, which assume the roundness of the Earth, to be that of disk, not a sphere.

Irrelevant!

Who cares where you think it is based - the Bible still says...... it is round! :)
 

tosca1

Member
Again you create meanings for the words even if they are the opposite to what is said. Take any verse and give it new meaning and behold it now says what you want it to say. Truly amazing. So which translation do you use? Is it a Greek version, Latin version, Hebrew version or your own version. Is it from the oldest documents found or from a newer one. You however are even more creative in blending verses. Truly creative thinking but unfortunately meaningless in view of reality.


Lol. If you've got a problem with that particular evidence - then, ignore it.
Go to the other EVIDENCES given! There are many to choose from! :)

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES ring any bell? Get used to that term.

Folks - some of you are not getting it.
I don't want to waste time spoon-feeding everyone who comes in to this thread.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Lol. If you've got a problem with that particular evidence - then, ignore it.
Go to the other EVIDENCES given! There are many to choose from! :)

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES ring any bell? Get used to that term.

Folks - some of you are not getting it.
I don't want to waste time spoon-feeding everyone who comes in to this thread.
I am afraid that you do not understand the concept of evidence.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Lol. If you've got a problem with that particular evidence - then, ignore it.
Go to the other EVIDENCES given! There are many to choose from! :)

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES ring any bell? Get used to that term.

Folks - some of you are not getting it.
I don't want to waste time spoon-feeding everyone who comes in to this thread.

And the *cumulative* evidence is that Genesis is a myth and has no value scientifically. Your distortions of the texts and attempts to change them into something that agrees with modern science notwithstanding.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Lol. If you've got a problem with that particular evidence - then, ignore it.
Go to the other EVIDENCES given! There are many to choose from! :)

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES ring any bell? Get used to that term.

Folks - some of you are not getting it.
I don't want to waste time spoon-feeding everyone who comes in to this thread.
How can you have cumulative evidence when you do not have any evidence at all?
 

tosca1

Member
I notice that you leave out the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars. Funny about that: it seems to be *completely* out of order.

Stars existed LONG before the Earth (and it's waters--which were *before* the first day). The Sun is what *makes* the difference between Day and Night (which the author of Genesis seems to be unaware of---formed on the first day). The Sun formed before the Earth and the Moon after that.

No, I didn't leave those out.

It's stated on the very first sentence of Genesis 1.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



The Heavens - not to be confused with heaven - is defined as the universe, or the sky as seen from earth when you look up.

****Take note that the Bible stated the creation of the heavens preceded the creation of the earth. Therefore, the sun, the moon etc., were already there.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Then there is that whole 'firmament' on the second day to contend with (which, I note again, you omitted). What, precisely, is that? Separating waters above from waters below? Now, to be sure, the *ancient* belief system was that the sky was a solid bowl (later, a ball) above the Earth and the stars were on that bowl. That bowl was called, guess what, the *firmament*. It separated the 'material realm' of the Earth from the 'heavenly realm' about it.

Not exactly correct there either.



Is this the verse you refer to?

Genesis 1
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”


7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.



Here is an explanation from a day-age theory:

Genesis 1:6-10 describe the initiation of a stable water cycle
(9) and formation of continents
(10) through tectonic activity (~2.7 x 109 years ago) (11).

Continent Formation

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation




And about those 'waters' and 'the deep'. Exactly, which waters are these? Notice that they have a *face*, which means a surface. So we aren't talking about water in space here. We are talking about something like a grand ocean. Now, in the ancient world (before it was known that the Earth is spherical), it was widely believed that the Earth was a *flat disk* floating on an ocean. The sky was a dome on top of this. In this belief, the water was there before the Earth and the local deity raised the Earth out of the water (making dry land appear--the third day).


That would be the global sea. Science says infant earth was covered with water.




So, according to Genesis, there was water before the formation of 'the heavens and the Earth' and God was above these waters. Not exactly correct here either.

Next, we notice that plants, including those with seeds, are made on the same day as dry land appeared and *before* the Sun, Moon, and Stars the fifth day). But land animals didn't appear, in Genesis, until after those seeded plants (on the sixth day). This is, however, wrong. Seeded plants (Gymnosperms) are actually a fairly late development and appeared well after the first land animals. So the order here is wrong. Also, birds (winged fowl) appeared before land animals and at the same time as plants (fifth day). Again, this isn't consistent with the *actual* order revealed from the fossil record.

Overall, a fairly poor performance by Genesis, don't you think?


Since you were wrong in your very first question about the sun/moon etc - the rest of that is wrong, too.

Refer to my answer above about the sun and the stars, etc., POST # 237.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Exactly. It says very clearly that the Earth *cannot* be moved. It says *nothing* about having a 'set course'. It says very clearly it *cannot be moved* at all.

Yet it moves.


IT MOVES.........AND YET, IT'S STABLE!

How is that? :)

Clearly, what you think it means, is not what it means!

Not only does the statement clearly says it, "cannot be moved, will not be moved"........but the earth is moving (which contradicts what you think it means)! Therefore, it doesn't mean that the earth stands still.

Science (without meaning to, may I add ), gave the explanation for that verse by its discovery!

That's the referral to earth's set course! It's stable in its course!
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
Some of you folks are missing the point:

Since the Bible is not meant to be a science text,
we shouldn't expect it to give scientific explanations!

But instead, we expect it to be CONSISTENT with scientific findings!

Like I've said before, there are declarations, claims or statements written in the Bible that could be figures of speech, or a poetic style of writing, or even reflecting the way people from that part of the world talk ( flowery or dramatic way of speaking). We learn that some of these declarations can be taken literally, if they are confirmed by science findings.
 
Top