Science and the Bible?

Augustus · Dec 8, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
We went over this before. I know as at least an ex-Catholic that you cannot argue this without extreme prejudice.

I've never been religious of any stripe, so this ad hom is invalid. This is the position of scholars, not of religious apologists. Your position is the biased and outdated one, hence secular scholars of history reject it.

Many 'Rationalists' seem to become very anti-intellectual when it comes to emotionally held beliefs regarding the conflict thesis that have been completely discredited by secular experts. Everyone is biased except them.

Are you saying that the majority scientific consensus supported Galileo, and that the Church was going against the scientific community?

Subduction Zone said:
Did you even read the source that you linked? His main objections to Galileo's work were not science based, they were religion based. Oh my.

Yes, because the letter was about the religious position, not the scientific one.

Yes, the religious position was geocentrism. The consensus scientific position was also geocentrism.

He said until this is proven otherwise, we accept the theological position as being correct. If it were to be proven otherwise, then we would have to change the religious position.

Your views seem to be clouded by modern US Protestant fundamentalism that has to stick to literal interpretation regardless. This was never the Catholic Church approach, so revising a belief that could be proven wrong was not the theological problem you seem to think it was.

Subduction Zone · Dec 8, 2019

Augustus said:
I've never been religious of any stripe, so this ad hom is invalid. This is the position of scholars, not of religious apologists. Your position is the biased and outdated one, hence secular scholars of history reject it.

Many 'Rationalists' seem to become very anti-intellectual when it comes to emotionally held beliefs regarding the conflict thesis that have been completely discredited by secular experts. Everyone is biased except them.

Are you saying that the majority scientific consensus supported Galileo, and that the Church was going against the scientific community?

Yes, because the letter was about the religious position, not the scientific one.

Yes, the religious position was geocentrism. The consensus scientific position was also geocentrism.

He said until this is proven otherwise, we accept the theological position as being correct. If it were to be proven otherwise, then we would have to change the religious position.

Your views seem to be clouded by modern US Protestant fundamentalism that has to stick to literal interpretation regardless. This was never the Catholic Church approach, so revising a belief that could be proven wrong was not the theological problem you seem to think it was.

At that time it was really too early to have a "scientific consensus". If there was a scientific consensus against Galileo you should be able to post it. You did post that there was a religious consensus.

Alone · Dec 8, 2019

Heyo said:
Reconciling the bible with science is easier when you use the right kind of bible. Try the Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia.

Oh boy I was really hoping to avoid this subject, there are just in the English language hundreds of Bible and they do not all say the same thing contrary to what some may believe, therefore how is one to know which Bible is the inspired word of God? Oops did I say that!

Valjean · Dec 8, 2019

I see no parallel.
Science is observable, testable, falsifiable, predictive knowledge. Religion is not based on observation, it resists testing, can't predict outcomes and will tolerate no challenges.
Science is an investigative modality. Religion is uncontestable dogma.

Augustus · Dec 8, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
At that time it was really too early to have a "scientific consensus". If there was a scientific consensus against Galileo you should be able to post it.

It is tempting, from a modern perspective, to propose that the leading theologians of the church ought to have modified their interpretation of the relevant biblical texts in order to get into step with scientific opinion. But we must keep in mind that the position adopted by the Inquisition was in step with the majority, if not the latest, scientific opinion. And it would have been a most remarkable event had its members taken elaborate measures to abandon their own deeply held principles of biblical interpretation, as well as the traditional cosmological opinions of the church fathers, while simultaneously rejecting the majority opinion of qualified astronomers.
David C Lindberg - Galileo, the Church and the Cosmos.

Subduction Zone · Dec 8, 2019

Augustus said:
It is tempting, from a modern perspective, to propose that the leading theologians of the church ought to have modified their interpretation of the relevant biblical texts in order to get into step with scientific opinion. But we must keep in mind that the position adopted by the Inquisition was in step with the majority, if not the latest, scientific opinion. And it would have been a most remarkable event had its members taken elaborate measures to abandon their own deeply held principles of biblical interpretation, as well as the traditional cosmological opinions of the church fathers, while simultaneously rejecting the majority opinion of qualified astronomers.
David C Lindberg - Galileo, the Church and the Cosmos.

No link? And you forgot your own massive fail. The only objection that you showed to Galileo with a link was a religiously based one.

Augustus · Dec 8, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
No link?

It's from this book: When Science and Christianity Meet

Subduction Zone said:
And you forgot your own massive fail. The only objection that you showed to Galileo with a link was a religiously based one.

It was your 'massive fail' as I have already pointed out. You keep on focusing on a strawman: that the letter was supposed to be a scientific refutation.

For the 3rd time, the point of linking to that letter was to show you that the church would revise their religious position if it were proven that heliocentrism was correct. The point was to show you that revising their theological position was not the problem that you think it was. Galileo even used the letter in his defence.

Do you believe that the majority of scientists supported Galileo or do you accept the view of secular historians of science that his views were in the minority?

Augustus · Dec 8, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
No link?

If you want a basic overview from the web: Galileo, the Church and Heliocentricity: A Rough Guide.

Galileo, Foscarini, The Catholic Church, and heliocentricity in 1615 Part 1 – the occurrences: A Rough Guide.

Galileo, Foscarini, The Catholic Church, and heliocentricity in 1615 Part 2 –the consequences: A Rough Guide.

Jim · Dec 8, 2019

Alone said:
And what does the scripture mean by saying science falsely so called:?

It might be things that people call “science,” that they use to try to discredit other people’s beliefs.

Jeremiah Ames · Dec 8, 2019

Alone said:
1st Timothy 6
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Obviously the Bible is not against the word "science", that being said how does the Bible and science relate? And what does the scripture mean by saying science falsely so called:?

Science and the Bible are completely compatible.
Science and religion are not.

Etritonakin · Dec 8, 2019

Alone said:
For me personally why do people think the Bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old, my understanding of reading the genealogy of Genesis the Earth is way older than 6000 years, and that's before the flood oh, for those who actually believe the flood, which I will say I don't discredit that account, even without proof. sometimes I wonder if we read all the other books so much and we really haven't read the Bible at all, and we just go by what other people say that the Bible says? if you sit down with a pen and a piece of paper and go to the genealogy of Genesis up to Noah that's a lot of years if somebody actually wants to sit down and do the math, and if that's the case then what?

As far as recorded numbers of years people lived, you have to consider how old they were when they had their children -not just the length of each life -so it's really not as many as it might seem.
If Adam began his life only thousands of years ago -and people assume Genesis describes the initial creation of the earth in literally 6 days to 6,000 years (as some do based the statement 'to God a thousand years is as a day'), then they tend to reject any other idea believing it is somehow against God.
In actuality, only the first verse describes -in a most vague way -the "initial" creation of the heavens and Earth -not that their "initial" creation was at all quick.
The second verse indicates that the Earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin (look up the definition of "was") -after an unspecified amount of time.
What follows is a renewal/repair in preparation for the first man to be made in God's image (not necessarily the first humanoid on Earth).
Anyway -that's a huge subject in itself.

I was not present for the flood, personally, but much evidence against it seems to be based on the idea that much water would have flowed from one part of the world to another very quickly.
What is described in the bible is essentially a uniform rain fall AND water being pushed up from beneath the Earth simultaneously. That would leave debris and other things relatively localized as waters receded compared to other ideas. Of course, the flood described must have been super-natural -and those trying to debunk it scientifically also cannot assume that a being with such power exists (or that "everything" has a mind which can change things at will). Many also make assumptions about what is written in that account -as well as assuming that it is a complete account -and there is not more to the story.

Certainly, a God capable of creating the universe -causing the sun to stand still for a whole hour -arranging celestial bodies, etc., could cause a flood.

Wandering Monk · Dec 8, 2019

Jim said:
It might be things that people call “science,” that they use to try to discredit other people’s beliefs.

Or it could refer to a proto-Gnosticism (notice the root 'gnosis' there,) the ideal that salvation was gained by attaining a 'secret knowledge' of some kind.

sooda · Dec 8, 2019

Etritonakin said:
As far as recorded numbers of years people lived, you have to consider how old they were when they had their children -not just the length of each life -so it's really not as many as it might seem.
If Adam began his life only thousands of years ago -and people assume Genesis describes the initial creation of the earth in literally 6 days to 6,000 years (as some do based the statement 'to God a thousand years is as a day'), then they tend to reject any other idea believing it is somehow against God.
In actuality, only the first verse describes -in a most vague way -the "initial" creation of the heavens and Earth -not that their "initial" creation was at all quick.
The second verse indicates that the Earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin (look up the definition of "was") -after an unspecified amount of time.
What follows is a renewal/repair in preparation for the first man to be made in God's image (not necessarily the first humanoid on Earth).
Anyway -that's a huge subject in itself.

I was not present for the flood, personally, but much evidence against it seems to be based on the idea that much water would have flowed from one part of the world to another very quickly.
What is described in the bible is essentially a uniform rain fall AND water being pushed up from beneath the Earth simultaneously. That would leave debris and other things relatively localized as waters receded compared to other ideas. Of course, the flood described must have been super-natural -and those trying to debunk it scientifically also cannot assume that a being with such power exists (or that "everything" has a mind which can change things at will). Many also make assumptions about what is written in that account -as well as assuming that it is a complete account -and there is not more to the story.

Certainly, a God capable of creating the universe -causing the sun to stand still for a whole hour -arranging celestial bodies, etc., could cause a flood.

LOLOL... its a myth from Sumer about a flood in the Euphrates River Basin.

nPeace · Dec 8, 2019

leov said:
1 Timothy 6:20 Lexicon: O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "--
it is the same sense, intent may be different. "So called"...

We don't have to debate the term. Falsely called knowledge, will still be understood in light of what people refer to as a knowing of something, and Christians would still need to know if this knowledge is in opposition to, or against Christ and his teachings.
So, for me, it doesn't matter if a translation uses the term knowledge, or science.

Consider though...
Strong's Greek: 1108. γνῶσις (gnósis) -- a knowing, knowledge
gnósis:
Definition: a knowing, knowledge
Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 1108 gnṓsis (a feminine noun derived from 1097 /ginṓskō, "experientially know") – functional ("working") knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience, connecting theory to application; "application-knowledge," gained in (by) a direct relationship. See 1097 (ginōskō).

Isn't that describing science?
Experimentally know; Working knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience; Connecting theory to application; Application-knowledge," gained by a direct relationship.

So the KJV uses this application.
Notice...
1108 /gnṓsis ("applied-knowledge") is only as accurate (reliable) as the relationship it derives from. For example, the Gnostics boasted of their "applied knowledge" gained by their personal spiritual experiences – and it was (is) disastrous!

This applies to both religious and secular knowledge, gained from...

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
knowledge, science.
From ginosko; knowing (the act), i.e. (by implication) knowledge -- knowledge, science.

see GREEK ginosko

Looking at this, and the Greek word ginosko, which you earlier referred to, it is accurate to say that knowing God, is scientific.

Thus Romans 1, is correct, when it says... 19 ...what may be known about God is clearly evident among them... 20 ...his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings...

leov · Dec 8, 2019

nPeace said:
We don't have to debate the term. Falsely called knowledge, will still be understood in light of what people refer to as a knowing of something, and Christians would still need to know if this knowledge is in opposition to, or against Christ and his teachings.
So, for me, it doesn't matter if a translation uses the term knowledge, or science.

Consider though...
Strong's Greek: 1108. γνῶσις (gnósis) -- a knowing, knowledge
gnósis:
Definition: a knowing, knowledge
Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 1108 gnṓsis (a feminine noun derived from 1097 /ginṓskō, "experientially know") – functional ("working") knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience, connecting theory to application; "application-knowledge," gained in (by) a direct relationship. See 1097 (ginōskō).

Isn't that describing science?
Experimentally know; Working knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience; Connecting theory to application; Application-knowledge," gained by a direct relationship.

So the KJV uses this application.
Notice...
1108 /gnṓsis ("applied-knowledge") is only as accurate (reliable) as the relationship it derives from. For example, the Gnostics boasted of their "applied knowledge" gained by their personal spiritual experiences – and it was (is) disastrous!

This applies to both religious and secular knowledge, gained from...

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
knowledge, science.
From ginosko; knowing (the act), i.e. (by implication) knowledge -- knowledge, science.

see GREEK ginosko

Looking at this, and the Greek word ginosko, which you earlier referred to, it is accurate to say that knowing God, is scientific.

Thus Romans 1, is correct, when it says... 19 ...what may be known about God is clearly evident among them... 20 ...his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings...

Jesus noted in Jn 14 that disciples did not understand the way because they were waiting for 'eidon' type vs using 'gnosis' type which is a part of worshiping in 'spirit and truth' rather on the 'mountain'. This is an important moment of His teaching and explanation what 'gnosis' really is method of knowing Spiritual dimension, because God is Spirit. Our Bible is an attempt to perpetuate worship 'on the mountain' unless one is able to recognize what is what.

nPeace · Dec 8, 2019

Alone said:
Oh boy I was really hoping to avoid this subject, there are just in the English language hundreds of Bible and they do not all say the same thing contrary to what some may believe, therefore how is one to know which Bible is the inspired word of God? Oops did I say that!

You probably mean, which translation has God's support.
If God is not dead...

then the words he inspired earlier writers to pen, are still as important now, as they were then.
So in that case, God would be involved in making sure his word is preserved, copied, translated, and distributed, for everyone to read.

The translation doesn't have to be 100% accurate for God to reach hearts.
For example, suppose a translation differed vastly from another (which I have never found), so that it is 50% different.
Say a person gets hold of that translation and reads about 10-20%, and becomes interested... that's all God needs.
How is that?
The translation is only like a little seed that is planted. Holy spirit is all the conditions necessary for the seed to grow.
So first, God sends the water, and he does the rest.
(1 Corinthians 3:6) I planted, Apollos watered, but God kept making it grow. . .

In other words, God can use any translation, direct the person to the appropriate passages for their need, then direct his servants who carry the good news to the person. They water - that is, share the truth with the help of a more accurate translation. If the person's heart is right (the seed is in good soil - Matthew 13:3-23), the person will get an accurate translation, and grow spiritually, with the help of God's holy spirit.

Easy as cake.

Etritonakin · Dec 8, 2019

sooda said:
LOLOL... its a myth from Sumer about a flood in the Euphrates River Basin.

That's one of many currently-accepted explanations.

nPeace · Dec 8, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
At that time it was really too early to have a "scientific consensus". If there was a scientific consensus against Galileo you should be able to post it. You did post that there was a religious consensus.

Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
In science, a theory is superseded or becomes obsolete when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it an inadequate, incomplete, or simply false description of reality. Such labels do not cover protoscientific or fringe science theories that have never had broad support within the scientific community. Furthermore, superseded or obsolete theories exclude theories that were never widely accepted by the scientific community.

Geocentric model - Wikipedia
In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, often exemplified specifically by the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the Universe with Earth at the center.

Subduction Zone · Dec 8, 2019

nPeace said:
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
In science, a theory is superseded or becomes obsolete when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it an inadequate, incomplete, or simply false description of reality. Such labels do not cover protoscientific or fringe science theories that have never had broad support within the scientific community. Furthermore, superseded or obsolete theories exclude theories that were never widely accepted by the scientific community.

Geocentric model - Wikipedia
In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, often exemplified specifically by the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the Universe with Earth at the center.

Yes we all know that you do not understand the sciences. That makes it so much easier for you to deny. I guess that comes in handy.

Augustus · Dec 9, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Yes we all know that you do not understand the sciences. That makes it so much easier for you to deny. I guess that comes in handy.

Do you think that as soon as the heliocentric model was proposed the scientific community simply went 'By jove, you are correct! What fools we were!"?

It took a long time to gather the evidence which demonstrated it was indeed correct, and up until this point there were legitimate scientific arguments against it.

People don't have the benefit of hindsight that we do, so could only go on he evidence available to them at the time. Evidence that did not yet have sufficient weight to overturn the majority consensus.

Science and the Bible?

…

Veteran Member

Banned by request

Veteran Member

…

Veteran Member

…

…

Nets of Wonder

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

…