Scientific Findings That Contradict Biblical Teachings

[Copper Scroll]

Thanks for voting everyone. This is insightful. I'm inclined to think that even the posters who didn't vote, based on their posts, their sentiment also lies with the second option. I wasn't really expecting that.

(I myself would've voted for the fifth option, but I'm not allowed to vote for whatever reason.)

I think a lot of the problem comes because it is just assumed that evolution is correct. So the findings fit evolution because evolution was assumed in the beginning.

But don't most Christians do the same thing--assume the Bible is correct and factual prior to experience and then interpret experience and the Bible under that assumption?

[Guest]

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

How do you believers usually react to information from scientific findings that appear to contradict or disprove information about the natural world contained in the Bible?

Do You Still Hear The Creation Speak Of It's Creator

Are You Aware Sin Is The Reason For Death

Do You Know The LORD Jesus Christ

A Hint, God Called You Here

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Jeremiah 31:3

WHAT WILL YOU SAY

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:11-12

I Knew Science Wasn't Lying God Almighty

And Science Did Show Me Your Power And Your Glory In The Creation God

But I Mocked Science With Empty Fables Of Man Because Everyone Was Doing It God

And I Mocked Your Love But Just For The Thrill Of It God

And I Mocked Your Bible But I Knew Better

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Romans 1:20-22

WILL YOU BELIEVE

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

And Repent

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 6:5

And Become Wise

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:7

See Jesus And Be Blessed

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[KeilanS]

Thanks for voting everyone. This is insightful. I'm inclined to think that even the posters who didn't vote, based on their posts, their sentiment also lies with the second option. I wasn't really expecting that.

(I myself would've voted for the fifth option, but I'm not allowed to vote for whatever reason.)

I think a lot of the problem comes because it is just assumed that evolution is correct. So the findings fit evolution because evolution was assumed in the beginning.

But don't most Christians do the same thing--assume the Bible is correct and factual prior to experience and then interpret experience and the Bible under that assumption?

I think Christian's do something similar, but not so much in science. The majority of scientists are either not Christian or believe the Bible is not literal, so they really don't include it in their studies.

That, and there is more reason for a Christian to believe the Bible is true than for an atheist to believe evolution is true. The Bible is a core part of Christianity, and accepting Christ pretty much means you accept the Bible as truth (whether literal or metaphorical). Atheists on the other hand, accept evolution not because it's a necessary part of atheism, but because it's pretty much all they have if they want to exclude God.

[nebula]

How do you believers usually react to information from scientific findings that appear to contradict or disprove information about the natural world contained in the Bible?

I didn't vote, because none of the choices reflect my opinion.

I believe the Bible to be literal - in context. What I mean is that I read Genesis 1 the same as I read Revelation. I wouldn't consider revelation a scientific account of the world's end. In the same way, I don't consider Genesis 1 a scientific account of the world's beginning. Besides, science as we know it did not exist until somewhere around the Rennaisance in europe, so I have a hard time believing it was meant to be read as such.

But I could never say, "The Bible should not be taken literally," as you suggested, because that makes it sound like one regards it as fable, which I don't.

[agiopolem]

If I were able to vote, I would have chosen the 4th, a combination of 1,2, and 3, although I'm not sure about 3.

I kind of stole this from somewhere (I don't know where), but:

The Bible is not a History book, yet its history is accurate.

The Bible is not a science book, yet its science is accurate.

The Bible is not a story book, yet its stories cannot be disproven.

I think that secular scientists are usually misled by their education. They go through secular classes and are taught secular doctrines, and therefore learn to rely on man's answers, not God's. Often, a secular scientist will do lots of research, and will come to the conclusion that God's Word is true, and will become a Christian based on the evidence. Overall, however, worldly scientists are misled and succumb to peer pressure.

Edited October 13, 2007 by agiopolem

[whirlwind]

What about adding "While it may appear that this situation is in opposition to biblical teachings, there probably is a reasonable explanation that doesn't involve setting aside scriptural teachings." to your "selections?" Seems to me that you have intentionally stacked the deck

I believe there is a "reasonable explanation" to the Genesis narration that allows "some" of the theories of science.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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

The word "was" in that verse is thought by some to have been mistranslated and should be "became" as is noted in some modern bibles. So...the first verse tells us God created heaven and earth but doesn't specify when that took place. It could be millions or billions of years ago, as science tells us.

And then the world BECAME void.

There must be a reason the world became that way as we know it wasn't created as such:

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.

There He tells us He didn't create it void as it is described in Gen.1:2 so what happened?

My belief, from scripture, is that there are three ages of earth....we are presently in the second age. In that first age, (Gen.1:1-2) Satan rebelled and God destroyed the age, not earth, although it was shaken. That was probably the cause of earth shifting on it's axis. That was the age of the dinosaur.

The description of this second age began in the last half of Gen. 1:2

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That was the beginning of the "first day" of this age. So, I agree with science in that the earth is ancient (I have no clue as to how old that is) but where we part is in the theory of evolution. Man did not evolve. We are made in His image.

There are other scriptures of course that solidify, in my mind, this teaching but I believe it does what you suggested above in giving us a "reasonable explanation that doesn't involve setting aside scriptural teachings.

.........Whirlwind

[Copper Scroll]

Thanks for voting everyone. This is insightful. I'm inclined to think that even the posters who didn't vote, based on their posts, their sentiment also lies with the second option. I wasn't really expecting that.

(I myself would've voted for the fifth option, but I'm not allowed to vote for whatever reason.)

I think a lot of the problem comes because it is just assumed that evolution is correct. So the findings fit evolution because evolution was assumed in the beginning.

But don't most Christians do the same thing--assume the Bible is correct and factual prior to experience and then interpret experience and the Bible under that assumption?

I think Christian's do something similar, but not so much in science. The majority of scientists are either not Christian or believe the Bible is not literal, so they really don't include it in their studies.

That, and there is more reason for a Christian to believe the Bible is true than for an atheist to believe evolution is true. The Bible is a core part of Christianity, and accepting Christ pretty much means you accept the Bible as truth (whether literal or metaphorical). Atheists on the other hand, accept evolution not because it's a necessary part of atheism, but because it's pretty much all they have if they want to exclude God.

I can't say that I really understand that first paragraph, but the second paragraph is terribly circular. You say that for a Christian to believe that the Bible is inerrant is valid, because you have to believe the Bible is inerrant in order to be a Christian. Let me know if I got that wrong.

[Copper Scroll]

Thanks for voting everyone. This is insightful. I'm inclined to think that even the posters who didn't vote, based on their posts, their sentiment also lies with the second option. I wasn't really expecting that.

I myself would've voted for the fifth option, but I'm not allowed to vote for whatever reason.

the Bible is always intended to be read literally, except when the context indicates allegory or symbol...the Books of Moses are narratives, they are not poetic or symbolic

see my thread on "Why the Gospels Make It Clear the Genesis Account Is Literal"

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=68437

I'm not convinced by the opening post of that thread. Even if we take Jesus' genealogy as fact, the fact that Adam is his ancestor does not necessitate the entire account recorded in Genesis to be literally true. Similar could be said about #s 2 and 3. #4 is interesting, but the point being made there suffers from lack of a clear definition for "humanity" and what (from a theological standpoint) distinguishes it from other forms of life.

[Copper Scroll]

How do you believers usually react to information from scientific findings that appear to contradict or disprove information about the natural world contained in the Bible?

I didn't vote, because none of the choices reflect my opinion.

I believe the Bible to be literal - in context. What I mean is that I read Genesis 1 the same as I read Revelation. I wouldn't consider revelation a scientific account of the world's end. In the same way, I don't consider Genesis 1 a scientific account of the world's beginning. Besides, science as we know it did not exist until somewhere around the Rennaisance in europe, so I have a hard time believing it was meant to be read as such.

But I could never say, "The Bible should not be taken literally," as you suggested, because that makes it sound like one regards it as fable, which I don't.

To prevent playing semantics here, could you explain what you would mean by "literal" and how regarding Genesis is non-scientific is not the same thing as regarding its account as non-literal?

[nebula]

To prevent playing semantics here, could you explain what you would mean by "literal" and how regarding Genesis is non-scientific is not the same thing as regarding its account as non-literal?

I'm sure there are better ways to explain this than I can think of right now . . .

But I'll just put it this way:

When I say, "It's raining cats and dogs," I do not literally mean cats and dogs are falling from the sky, but I literally mean it is raining hard.

Or let's say someone writes a poem about an actual event, only the poet uses animals to represent actual people, using the actions and fates of the animals to creatively express their actions and fates. When you interpret that, do you take the poem to literally refer to animals or to literally refer to actual people in a creative way.

What I mean is something along those lines.