-
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!
God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!
- Thread starter Salvador
- Start date
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
May I share some of my abstract notions, then?
"Everything visible is seen because of light".
"God is holding all things together at a level deeper than the atomic level."
"God is expanding the universe, it is growing as He stretches it."
"Israel after a very long time will become a Jewish state, despite scattering the Jewish people, they will come out wondrously from the diaspora, and found a nation, though they will again be surrounded by inimical nations."
Etc. You ought to Google scientific accuracies of the Bible.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Great examples of the Forer Effect
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, science has not proven anything relating to God.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I don't understand. The Bible says many things which science absolutely bears out. Can we start there--science proves Bible truth--even that the Bible writers had far-beyond-their-time knowledge to base from?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
How about you give an example of the Bible revealing something before science?
And it says many things science does not bear out at all. Evolution and common descent, for instance. Or the scientifically absurd notion that man has been created in its current form and shape from dust. Unless, we cherry pick what parts of science sort of agree with Bible and demote the rest to "not science". Only in this case, the Bible can be called scientific accurate. Tautologically.
Probably, throwing dices with random scientific statements on each face would achieve the same hit ratio.
Ciao
- viole
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
A "day" is usually inclusive of morning, evening and night. Right?
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Can you give one specific example of a biblical claim proven by science. I will be able to provide an explanation to it. And, since one claim in the bible being proven doesn't support any other claims in the various books in the bible, I feel like that is necessary.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Yes. All of which are impossibilities without the earth revolving around the sun and spinning simultaneously.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
The only examples I've seen are far too general to be considered proven in any way by science. Sure, they could have been talking about the same thing, but it could be that you are taking general statements in the text, trying to fit them into scientific theories when they could be referring to something else.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
In other words, it seems like you are granting the bible the benefit of the doubt rather than looking for faults, as the scientific theory demands.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
This is where I grow concerned. You have identified as a Christian, one who wishes to prod, test and explore--I think in good ways. But I'm pretty sure your quote above means no matter what I answer I give next, you plan to "explain it away". Is that being open- or closed-minded?
gnostic
The Lost One
You don't really need to look at Genesis 1 to 11, to find how inaccurate the bible is when it comes to science or to history.
Look at all the silly, non-scientific things God say in books 38 to 41 in the book of Job.
God never explain any of the things that he claim he can do, just demand answers from Job...with no explanation at all.
Science is about explaining natural phenomena and testing the explanation.
JOB, as well as Genesis creation and flood myths, never explain, it just expect people to accept what they say...that's call "faith" or "belief", not science.
And in JOB, it is filled with superstitious nonsenses, that make God sounds not only primitive and superstitious, but utterly ignorant.
What occur in JOB make God sound like primitive and superstitious man from the Iron Age.
Is God really that stupid?
Is God so primitive belief that he can only rely on "fear" and "ignorance" - which are another word for superstition?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I'm confused. Is your stand "Job's text is a-scientific" or "I'm pissed off at God because He didn't answer Job's questions"? Both are in your comments, you know--there seems to be a bit of a bias there!
gnostic
The Lost One
The book of Job, from chapters 38 to 41, demonstrate that there are no understanding of science in the bible.
They are just bunch of verses filled with superstitions and none of them explain anything. It is just God who say "I can do this or that...you ["you" meaning Job] can't do this or that"....that's not science, that's God's empty boasting.
Like I said before. Science is supposed to provide explaination that are verifiable or testable. But everything God said in JOB are wrong, because everything we know today about about nature (like about sun, stars, mountains, sea, rain, lightning, etc) can be explained through science, and we don't need superstitious belief that God is involve in anything to explain them.
Those chapters in JOB are just wrong.
If God did explain how everything about nature how nature works, instead of boasting about what he obviously can't do, i would be more impress. Instead the only impression I get from those verses about God's (nonexistent) abilities or powers is that he is not omniscience or omnipotence, he is just as superstitious man with no more knowledge in science as the author who wrote the book. If God truly exist, then he sounds like superstitiously ignorant Iron Age shepherd...but I would say that God is more like a village idiot.
If you know anything about science, today, you would know that nothing in those chapters about what God have to say, are wrong.
Last edited: