A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The bible says nothing of the kind.  On the fourth day God created a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night.  God didn't say what these lights were called.  According to you, if the greater light was called George and the lesser light was called Fred, there would be no days.

You just didn't think it out very well.    If the name for the greater light was "George" instead of "sun", then morning would be when George appears in the east.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

One or the other MUST be true, because you say the light could not POSSIBLY shine light on the planet.

You're not reading carefully.   I showed you that "big light appears in the sky" does not mean "morning."   

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

By the END of that day the seas were teeming with fish and the birds filled the air.  No dinosaurs yet.  Birds came first. 

But as you learned, the "days" are not actual periods of time, so there's no inconsistency in the fact that dinosaurs appear in older rocks than birds.

[Scott Free]

6 hours ago, Renskedejonge said:

The earth is hollow and the Sun, moon and stars are inside the hollow earth.

That is the the modern view? Sorry, I have not kept my studies up-to-date. ;)

Edited February 12, 2024 by Scott Free

[Scott Free]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Insinuating that those who disagree with you think they know everything is (ironically) both arrogant and dishonest.

So, that is what you got out of it. I think you are twisting the words out of context and missing the point. Does this help?

"Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture!" I Corinthians 13:9

"And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." 1 Corinthians 8:2

"Let no one deceive himself. If any of you thinks he is wise in this age, he should become foolish, so that he may become wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18

 

 

[Scott Free]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

A better question is, why do you post the same arguments as the unbelievers; the inheritance of damnation? 

I return the question. Why do you post the blasphemy of Galileo Galilei? If you do not repent of your sin by confessing the Earth is flat and static as the Bible states I will report you to the Inquisition. Then we will see who's right. ;)

Edited February 12, 2024 by Scott Free

[RV_Wizard]

47 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

I return the question. Why do you post the blasphemy of Galileo Galilei? If you do not repent of your sin by confessing the Earth is flat and static as the Bible states I will report you to the Inquisition. Then we will see who's right. ;)

Thou posteth foolishness.  Perhaps a good flogging of 40 stripes save one would clear your faculties.

While the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, neither does the Bible explicitly teach that the earth is spherical. Some passages do allow for a spherical earth, such as Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22. In any event, the Bible is far from affirming a naïve or unscientific understanding of the earth and the solar system. There is simply no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. Passages that seem to present a flat earth can all be explained when correctly understood. source

Rather the Bible uses concepts familiar to the original audience to describe the world. There is a vault above (Genesis 1:6-7) and the sun, moon, and stars are placed in this vault (Genesis 1:14-19). The sun moves around the earth daily, with no mention of the spin of the earth giving us night and day. Today we envision the spin of the earth rather than the motion of the sun giving rise to the sunset over the sea. The ancient audience envisioned instead the motion of the sun across the vault of the sky.   source

[Scott Free]

On 2/6/2024 at 4:46 PM, Sparks said:

Darwin, in The Descent of Man declared that eugenic proposals were an "overwhelming evil."    And they are.   It is a stain on the foundations of YE creationism.

Actually, the belief in reincarnation has provided the moral justification to cleanse swabs of humanity off Earth. They think they are doing the world a favor by giving undesirables a second chance to be reeducated or given a proper presentation when they come back.

[Scott Free]

48 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

While the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, neither does the Bible explicitly teach that the earth is spherical.

That is not how the early Bible scholars saw it. My point is you are using knowledge from the Enlightenment to enhance your interpretations. All I ask is for you is not to judge us for trying to gain a better understanding than the literal interpretations of the time.

Edited February 12, 2024 by Scott Free

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, Scott Free said:

That is not how the early Bible scholars saw it. My point is you are using knowledge from the Enlightenment to enhance your interpretations. All I ask is for you is not to judge us for trying to gain a better understanding than the literal interpretations of the time.

One does not gain enlightenment by taking phrases from the Bible out of context.  Read the entire passage and it makes more sense.  If you have the Holy Spirit within you, He can reveal it to you.  If not, take it to your pastors or you can come to forums like this with other believers to diligently seek the opinions of others.

However, suppose you see a figure walking in the distance that looks like a man.  The man beside you says, "That's an android.  I built him in my lab over the last year.  Isn't he magnificent?"  However, though you have no reason to doubt the creator, you insist that the figure is a man, and that he is at least 30 years old.  The creator then describes to you the process of how he made the android.  You refuse to believe him.  You go to the Robot and Android Fabrication page and contend that that android in fact had a mother, father, grandparents and great grandparents.

That is not enlightenment.  That is putting your limited understanding over the word of the creator and trying to convince others that you are right and the creator is wrong.

That works with those who have little or no faith in the creator.  Those who know him and know how he created the android are NEVER going to be convinced that he was born naturally.  So you take the phrases from the creator out of context and try to make an argument that the words of the creator are wrong or misunderstood.

At some point it ceases to be about finding a better understanding and becomes nothing more than an attack on the creator.  Can one continue to say he has faith in that creator if he doesn't believe a thing the creator says about his creation?

[Scott Free]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

At some point it ceases to be about finding a better understanding and becomes nothing more than an attack on the creator.

I would think an attack on God would be more on the line of not having charity or not enduring in His promises. Questioning the accuracy of a literal interpretation to a spiritually appraised text is more a challenge to one's capacity to comprehend than God's ability to act.

Edited February 12, 2024 by Scott Free

[RdJ]

I now remember what a preacher always said. 5 kilo brain can't comprehend God. Don't win discussions. Win souls.