Science of the Bible

[XxFar0wxX]

Science and the bible don't seem to go very well together ... for most people at least.

The bible starts off by saying the earth was created in 7 Days ?

while Science says it took billions of years ...

I'm Christian but i also believe Science is True

"If the bibles says apples when dropped will fly upwards, But if you drop the apple you see it falls downwards for you ... BUT people on the other side of the world the apple in fact does fly upwards ~ so both are true then right?"

So i was think about this 7 days and 16 billions years how can both be true?

well since time is different in space then it is on earth, could it be possible that time for the lord is different then it is for us people.

 

Another one is evolution and creation theory . Science says evolution is true and it is Because i myself have evolved (by running my lugs evolved to be some thing like a cheetah ) Since the lords works ONLY through people/animals he has worked through animals (apes/ monkeys ) to create Man then woman. (God may have created man before women but there is always a rough draft be for a masterpiece)

 

Then we come to Moses and the wall of water ... Ever herd of tall tales? How could a human ever make the a wall of water like they said he did?

true is man can't make walls of water, if he could i would be able to do it also.

i saw a history channel on this and they said that he and his follower waited for the high tides and low tides of the moon

 

I just want to know am i crazy trying to make these connections ?

So far ever forum i tried share my idea I've been called crazy and been told i need mental help ... I'm pretty such i don't need mental help

"Every Human on this earth is challenged mentally in there own unique way "

Edited March 19, 2009 by XxFar0wxX

[DrDNA]

Your white font is too painful to read.

Can you edit it to black?

[XxFar0wxX]

Your white font is too painful to read.

Can you edit it to black?

 

Done and Done

[iNow]

I don't think you're crazy. I think you're wasting your time. You're trying to make a work of fiction match reality, instead of spending your time trying to better understand reality itself.

 

You can make a connection with anything if you try hard enough. It doesn't mean the connection has any meaning.

[XxFar0wxX]

I don't think you're crazy. I think you're wasting your time. You're trying to make a work of fiction match reality, instead of spending your time trying to better understand reality itself.

 

You can make a connection with anything if you try hard enough. It doesn't mean the connection has any meaning.

 

point well taken

~thanks

[Ophiolite]

I was raised as a Protestant in the Church of Scotland and am now a lapsed agnostic. I see no conflict between science and the Bible. I never have. I was taught that the Genesis story, like so much in the Bible, was a metaphor. I understood that the Bible, while it might be God's word, had been filtered through human understanding that could add confusion and ambiguity.

 

By all means follow your Christian leanings. The ethical principles of the mainline churches are for the most part sound. (I exclude the unacceptable position of the Catholic Church on birth control.) If you can gain comfort and confidence from your beliefs and be a better member of society as a result, then great.

 

But also heed iNow's advice. Seek a better understanding of the physical reality of the world as revealed by science. It has been very succesful in the past and will be more succesful in the future.

 

There is no reason you cannot pursue both avenues, the spiritual and the scientific. Just avoid getting them confused.

 

Oh, and you are definitely not crazy. No one who tries to think for themselves is crazy.

[Daecon]

I'm Christian but i also believe Science is True

There's your problem right there. Science isn't based on belief, it's based on verifiable, provable, reproducible results and observations.

 

It's like saying "I believe 1+1=2". Belief is irrelevant when it comes to reality.

[Ophiolite]

Science isn't based on belief, it's based on verifiable, provable, reproducible results and observations.

I believe you are correct.

[XxFar0wxX]

There's your problem right there. Science isn't based on belief, it's based on verifiable, provable, reproducible results and observations.

 

It's like saying "I believe 1+1=2". Belief is irrelevant when it comes to reality.

 

okay that is true but lets not forget science also has belief in it.

[Daecon]

Yes but those beliefs aren't worth anything if they can't be tested. Which explains why the pseudoscience & speculations forum is so popular.

[YT2095]

I don`t think it will Ever be possible to reconcile All of the bible with Science/Nature, it`s a little bit too late after these events to do that with any degree of certainty.

However, having said that, there IS good evidence to support some of it.

for instance, the 7 plagues on Egypt stands a Very good chance (I would indeed put Money on it) that these were as the result of Volcanic activity nearby.

the sky going dark midday (dust clouds), the Frogs (the acid created altered the niles pH, frogs are Very pH sensitive and evacuated), the Blisters (tiny glass particles SiO2 with traces of Sulphiric acid on them), the Fire balls from the sky (pretty obvious) etc...

even the water turning to "Blood" was some sort of stirred up Mineral like Iron oxide IIRC.

 

You have to imagine though that You are living in those times as a simple people without todays technology or ways to do things that we can today, how might You explain it if you were see these events?

 

and I think that`s the key, Don`t look at the writings with Todays eyes and view point, try to look at it from Theirs.

 

another more recent one, and it seems perfectly rational that a Camera Can steal your soul and keep it as a photograph.

[iNow]

another more recent one, and it seems perfectly rational that a Camera Can steal your soul and keep it as a photograph.

 

And how exactly might we test that one, mate? :confused:

[YT2095]

it doesn`t require testing, it`s quite well documented that certain indian tribes beleived this to be the case, as I thought I made Abundantly clear my post, you have to try and think the way They do, and respect their beleif system for that to make sense.

 

it doesn`t to US because we know how it`s done etc...

[iNow]

Okay, I see (and saw previously) your point. I just thought this thread was about reconciling the bible with science, and in science we run falsifiable tests, so I asked how we might test that whole "camera captures soul" idea you referenced.

 

I can see that you were instead referring more to sociology and the psychology of belief as the "science" part, and had no desire to attempt falsification. Alrighty. Good times.

[Externet]

The proof a camera does not capture souls, is to take more photographs of the same 'now souless' subject from the first picture...

[YT2095]

*sheesh* talk about missing the point Entirely!

 

these people thought that wearing the skins of Animals gave them the power of the animals etc... along comes a bloke with a huge box tells you to keep still for a few mins, and comes back next day (or even longer) with your picture!

there wasn`t really an Opportunity to take Plenty like we do Today! again you have to think of the Times.

 

meh... forget it.

[XxFar0wxX]

The proof a camera does not capture souls, is to take more photographs of the same 'now souless' subject from the first picture...

 

So what ? souls aren't light camera only capture light ... i don't get it

[mooeypoo]

The bible is an interesting, sometimes-compelling, grouping of stories.

It was written as an educational book gathering dogmatic stories intended on educating the people of its time.

 

If you really intend to "reconcile" the literal reading of the bible with empirical science, you have a lot of complicated mishmashing of facts to do with quite much more than just the two examples you gave in the original post.

 

That said, the bible began its life as a verbal documentation of historical stories that took an "educational" twist to them. Itw as only written on paper on a much much later time (about 60-70 ADE). If you take this under consideration, then you can read the bible in its proper historical context: It has some shreds of historical truth in it that was distilled through hundreds of years of verbal documentation - hence, it lost a lot of its factual value and gained a lot of its mythological value.

 

The interpretations about natural occurences were made by the people of the time. A thorrough (and not so thorrough) reading shows right away that these people's knowledge of the known universe and natural phenomena was (at the very least) extremely limited.

 

If you keep this in mind, then there's little wonder that *some* of those explanations about the phenomena we now know how to explain have some logical sense in the bible.

 

For example: Pork has fatty meat that goes bad quite quickly without proper refrigeration. We know how to explain it today with biology and chemistry and circumvent the "effect" using modern tools (like a refrigerator and, if we must, chemicals to "help" it last longer). In ancient times, however, it was enough to see that the meat goes bad (specifically in an area of a desert like the middle east) and people get sick out of eating it, to result with a proper law stating it is an "Unkosher" / "Forbidden" meat to eat.

 

Picking this specific law to state that the literal bible is true is an ad-hoc fallacy, though. It's also over-simplifying reality, and is like we state that fire is evil because cavemen drew mass-extinctions on their walls due to fire.

 

It also doesn't explain the majority of the bible that is, in fact, just plainly untrue and is completely shredded by the reality we can test.

 

The world is stated to be flat, supported by beams, and that the beams support "the heavens" and "water above the heavens". That is, quite simply, untrue. The bible states quite clearly that the sun revolves around the Earth (completely untrue), and not only that, but also has an account of the sun "stopping in mid air" (if anything, the Earth stopped, but that too is an incredibly silly idea, physically and realistically) during high noon.

 

If you insist on reading the bible literally, you're going to have a lot more problems than just creation vs. evolution and the ten plagues.

Much, much more.

 

 

 

YT Is right, the ten plagues can be explained naturally - but that too is irrelevant to the literal truth of the bible. It just means that these events were so "strong" in people's minds that the stories survived the verbal story-telling throughout the years.

 

It is also a good example of where reality is somewhat lacking -- there is *absolutely no* evidence showing *any* group of slaves running away / being sent away or even *existing* in Egypt at this time or around that time. But there is a *lot* of archeological (and other) evidence about teh egyptians and their behaviour and custom and history during that time, so the fact there's no record of the "Israelites" (or any other group for that matter) is *extremely* weird, unless, of course, that group did not exist.

 

The problem (and beauty, if you're treating this as literature) of word-of-mouth storytelling is that it's mixing a grain of truth with quite a lot of exaggerated rumors and interpreted mythology. You can research where those stories come from by crossing the stories with what we DO know about our world, but going the other way (reading reality out of the bible, that is) will lead you nowhere.

 

~moo

[XxFar0wxX]

The bible is an interesting, sometimes-compelling, grouping of stories.

It was written as an educational book gathering dogmatic stories intended on educating the people of its time.

 

If you really intend to "reconcile" the literal reading of the bible with empirical science, you have a lot of complicated mishmashing of facts to do with quite much more than just the two examples you gave in the original post.

 

That said, the bible began its life as a verbal documentation of historical stories that took an "educational" twist to them. Itw as only written on paper on a much much later time (about 60-70 ADE). If you take this under consideration, then you can read the bible in its proper historical context: It has some shreds of historical truth in it that was distilled through hundreds of years of verbal documentation - hence, it lost a lot of its factual value and gained a lot of its mythological value.

 

The interpretations about natural occurences were made by the people of the time. A thorrough (and not so thorrough) reading shows right away that these people's knowledge of the known universe and natural phenomena was (at the very least) extremely limited.

 

If you keep this in mind, then there's little wonder that *some* of those explanations about the phenomena we now know how to explain have some logical sense in the bible.

 

For example: Pork has fatty meat that goes bad quite quickly without proper refrigeration. We know how to explain it today with biology and chemistry and circumvent the "effect" using modern tools (like a refrigerator and, if we must, chemicals to "help" it last longer). In ancient times, however, it was enough to see that the meat goes bad (specifically in an area of a desert like the middle east) and people get sick out of eating it, to result with a proper law stating it is an "Unkosher" / "Forbidden" meat to eat.

 

Picking this specific law to state that the literal bible is true is an ad-hoc fallacy, though. It's also over-simplifying reality, and is like we state that fire is evil because cavemen drew mass-extinctions on their walls due to fire.

 

It also doesn't explain the majority of the bible that is, in fact, just plainly untrue and is completely shredded by the reality we can test.

 

The world is stated to be flat, supported by beams, and that the beams support "the heavens" and "water above the heavens". That is, quite simply, untrue. The bible states quite clearly that the sun revolves around the Earth (completely untrue), and not only that, but also has an account of the sun "stopping in mid air" (if anything, the Earth stopped, but that too is an incredibly silly idea, physically and realistically) during high noon.

 

If you insist on reading the bible literally, you're going to have a lot more problems than just creation vs. evolution and the ten plagues.

Much, much more.

 

 

 

YT Is right, the ten plagues can be explained naturally - but that too is irrelevant to the literal truth of the bible. It just means that these events were so "strong" in people's minds that the stories survived the verbal story-telling throughout the years.

 

It is also a good example of where reality is somewhat lacking -- there is *absolutely no* evidence showing *any* group of slaves running away / being sent away or even *existing* in Egypt at this time or around that time. But there is a *lot* of archeological (and other) evidence about teh egyptians and their behaviour and custom and history during that time, so the fact there's no record of the "Israelites" (or any other group for that matter) is *extremely* weird, unless, of course, that group did not exist.

 

The problem (and beauty, if you're treating this as literature) of word-of-mouth storytelling is that it's mixing a grain of truth with quite a lot of exaggerated rumors and interpreted mythology. You can research where those stories come from by crossing the stories with what we DO know about our world, but going the other way (reading reality out of the bible, that is) will lead you nowhere.

 

~moo

 

So pretty much I'm always going to be lost .... (not understand all of it)

[mooeypoo]

That depends on your goal, as always.

[Phi for All]

So pretty much I'm always going to be lost .... (not understand all of it)

Look at it this way. Science explains or is working on an explanation for everything that occurs naturally. Religion covers supernatural occurrences. Many things that seem supernatural get debunked by science, which then makes them natural (like the flood myth, or parting the Red Sea, or that the Hebrew word "yom" can mean a 24 hour day or it can mean an indefinite period of time, like "back in King Herod's day").

 

Some things, like a god that won't compromise the faith of its followers by allowing itself to be observed, defy definition in scientific terms, so they remain supernatural until the parameters of their definition change. If the Abrahamic God decides to allow Himself to be observed, tested so experiments and predictions can be made and reproduced, then science will be able to reconcile Him with what we know to be natural.

 

Perhaps, at that time, we'll find out that God is not all-powerful, but merely more powerful than we could previously imagine. I've always had trouble with the idea of a god who could create a universe and then defy the very physics it was founded upon with omnipotence.

[YT2095]

^^^wot Mooey said^^^

 

I`m no Indiana Jones / Tomb Raider, but the subject is indeed a Fascinating one! and if you`re Serious about it, don`t let those that say "you`re wasting your time" or it`s make beleive Bullsh1t etc... deter you with their Prejudices!

 

the fact is as Mooey pointed out, it`s a historical document, and there to be decoded/interpreted and seen for what it IS (and appreciated for what it is).

 

now I`m fairly certain there`s not much Money in this particular area of study, but it has rewards of it`s own that many other areas won`t have.

 

also, if you ever get the chance, there`s another documentary of a similar ilk about the ark of the Covenant, equally fascinating, and you get to learn quite a bit about the early Jews and their journeys and an African tribe DNA proven to be direct descendants of those that were forced to flee.

 

I would recommend (and I`m a Christian myself) that you view the subject as dispassionately as possible though, and learn as many facts as you can without considering conflict with your current beleifs.

and Then you can address each in turn.

personally I find the more Science I learn, the closer to God I am.

 

(your milage may vary)

[ydoaPs]

 

Some things, like a god that won't compromise the faith of its followers by allowing itself to be observed, defy definition in scientific terms, so they remain supernatural until the parameters of their definition change. If the Abrahamic God decides to allow Himself to be observed, tested so experiments and predictions can be made and reproduced, then science will be able to reconcile Him with what we know to be natural.

 

Why did you change examples in the same paragraph?

[iNow]

don`t let those that say "you`re wasting your time" or it`s make beleive Bullsh1t etc... deter you with their Prejudices!

 

He asked for opinions, and I offered mine. Can you please stop with the personal nonsense and put it to rest, already?

[mooeypoo]

^^^wot Mooey said^^^

 

I`m no Indiana Jones / Tomb Raider, but the subject is indeed a Fascinating one! and if you`re Serious about it, don`t let those that say "you`re wasting your time" or it`s make beleive Bullsh1t etc... deter you with their Prejudices!

 

the fact is as Mooey pointed out, it`s a historical document, and there to be decoded/interpreted and seen for what it IS (and appreciated for what it is).

 

Yes, I agree, I studied the bible in its original language for 10 years in school through a scholarly/historical view point. I love it, I think it's very interesting and revealing.

 

Do I think it's assisting our understanding of historical events? Sure! Is it interesting as a sociological reference to the life of the time? Absolutely. Does it have messages about "right" and "wrong" of the society who wrote/read it? Yes.

 

Does it have ethical stories? Yes. Do I think all the stories are ethical? Hardly.

 

Does it have realistic representations of physical phenomena? Yes, sure. Does every phenomena it describes is physically accurate? absolutely not. Does it describe our reality accurately? No.

 

 

If you take the bible as a science book you will be in trouble. If you take it as a story-telling reference, it is an incredibly interesting book.

 

What you do with your own faith is your own personal business, and you should decide it on your own regardless of anyone's opinion. If you *want* to reconcile the bible with your faith in God, however, and you believe God influenced/wrote/described the bible then you will have a problem reading the bible literally. It will either be solved by reading it figuratively and, perhaps, some mental excercises with twisty-logic and assumptions, or, alternatively, you will have to ignore what is currently known about our actual reality and follow a book that has the wrong details.

 

The scientific method says nothing about belief; belief is irrelevant to the scientific method. Belief is personal and should not be mixed with science. In fact, the scientific method was created to make *SURE* that scientists -- who are human, and therefore might (and probably do) have beliefs of their own that might influence their conclusions -- are conducting their experiments in an unbiased manner.

 

The scientific method doesn't define what you should or shouldn't believe in, it defines the methodology in which you are going to get valid results about your reality. Putting personal meaning into them is the realm of philosophy and belief, which you can then do on your own, however you please.

 

There are many religious scientists who seem to work quite well in good science while keeping their religion. Personally, I am not religious, nor do I believe in God, so I can't give you any pointers on that one, but those people exist, and as long as they follow the scientific method regardless of what their personal beliefs are, then their beliefs are irrelevant to the results of their scientific endeavour.

 

But if you TRULY want to reconcile both you will have to muster some courage and keep an intellectual honesty going. The *fact* is that the bible has many things wrong. If you want to claim that this is irrelevant, because the bible is only a representation of what God's "will" is, passing through a (flawed) human perception of the time, sure, go ahead, if it works for you.

 

But reading the bible *literally* - simply, and quite honestly - is a complete antithesis to almost everything we know about our reality and stands against *proven* facts about our universe.

 

It's your choice to pick your goal in this journey, and that will determine if you "fail" or "succeed". Since it's a personal issue, I wouldn't be too quick to make that judgment before even starting on the journey, though.

 

Have some faith in yourself, eh?

 

~moo

Edited March 21, 2009 by mooeypoo