God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Faith, post inspirational and Theological memes and quotations, ask questions of a Religious and spritutal nature, and discuss how your Religious Tradition views Life and the Outdoors. This forum is completely Non-Denominational and respects all Faith Traditions, regardless of Diety. If you don't want to see God, Religion, and Theology being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you talking people out of thier Faith or to insult their intelligence. We respect your right to do so, but will not allow that kind of discussion here.
dirtwheels
Reactions:
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:35 pm
Location: SC
Hammock: SLD, Sheltowee, Amok
Tarp: UGQ, Spinn Edge
Suspension: HF Straps & Dynema
Insulation: Downy Goodness

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#16

Post by dirtwheels » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:46 pm

You appear to have stumbled upon my actual words, as I never stated the bible will never be found faulty. I never addressed that topic. Why are you trying to change the subject anyway? That's twice in 2 post.
GregD wrote: Please respond to my post right above this one and then tell me again how the Bible will never be found faulty.

If following the Bible improves your quality of life, then by all means do that. Similarly enjoy also the art and the hobbies that you find improve your quality of life. But some of the statements you make about the Bible are clearly inaccurate. The Roman Catholic Church, arguably the most historically significant Christian institution does not agree with many of these statements. Are they also under the influence of your "enemy"? Is everyone that disagrees with your mentor's positions on the Bible also under the direction of your "enemy"?

It is clear that the Bible has got some things wrong, independent of whether it has got some things right.



User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#17

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:06 pm

GregD wrote:
As there are parts of the Bible that are hard for you to explain it would seem that, in fact, the Bible is not always simple to understand.

As the Bible states that the sky (a vault; a volume of space) separates the waters above from the waters below, and that the stars are in the sky, and as there is apparently no way to reconcile this with the observed reality of the Earth orbiting the Sun embedded in one of many galaxies of stars with no suggestion whatsoever of any "water above", it would seem that, in fact, the Bible is not accurate in all things that it states.

Those are the two points I would like to make on the topic of this thread.
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:I won't go with your prophesy "evidence" until this one point is settled. This case is very clear-cut. And it refutes much of what you assert.
Greg, as you might say, this is such total BS. You won't go over to the prophecy section because you know you have no rational explanation, just as you don't for Moses correct health laws.
What I was feeling when I wrote this was that if we cannot come to some understanding on this rather simple and clear example it is hopeless to try to work issues that are more complicated and unclear. It wasn't a demand.

I am not well informed on the Bible prophesies, nor I am well informed on the history they reference and/or predict. Life is short and I don't have much interest in them either.

Also, this is going off-topic.
Sigh. I confess to frustration while going over and over this same point.

First, what understanding are we failing to come to? I do not understand what you are saying. Did we not come to an understanding about the stars being in the firmament, when I conceded to you several times that I could not make sense of that verse and it does not seem to make sense or work with the previous verse? What is it you want? Now true, I can't say that just because I can not make that verse jive with the earlier clear verses about the separation of the waters below from the waters above the expanse(NASB), which is an accurate description of our atmosphere, just because I can not explain the latter does not mean the former is invalid.

When you say "and as there is apparently no way to reconcile this with the observed reality of the Earth orbiting the Sun embedded in one of many galaxies of stars with no suggestion whatsoever of any "water above", it would seem that, in fact, the Bible is not accurate in all things that it states.", what on earth do you mean? Have you not read the NASA article I have supplied confirming the vast amount of water out in the universe, plus the comets and such? How is that not waters above separated from waters below? Unless you are going to claim there is no such thing as "above" when it comes to the earth's relationship to the earth. But the normal figure of speech from antiquity until modern times, even often for scientists, is that as we gaze into the heavens, anything between or beyond our heads or maybe eyes and the sky/heavens/stars is above us. So by that NORMAL way of speaking, there are most certainly waters above the waters below a layer that separates them. This is clear, easy to understand, and accurate. It is true that I am unable to make the verses a little later work with the 1st verses, but those verses looked at by themselves are accurate.

Second, as far as the Bible being hard or easy to understand, though I can not speak for others, I have never, as far as I can remember, claimed the Bible is always easy to understand. There are in fact some parts and concepts in the Bible that are hard for me to understand even after decades of study. Though most parts that skeptics say contradict I have found- with further study- do not contradict at all, usually they are simply discussing two different things. Or, Jesus is speaking at two or 3 different times, to different people, and uses somewhat different words. Etc. Still, there are maybe 1/2 dozen ( or less) verses out of the hundreds of pages and thousands of verses that still seem to me to contradict, or I just can't understand them. But so what? Would it not be natural that I could not understand the deeper things of God unless He revealed them to me, and help me with them? In the meantime, the vast majority is clear, straightforward, and easy to understand. Stuff like "you shall not murder", or "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" or "God created man in His own image, male and female He created them", or "“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.". Pretty straightforward, wouldn't you say? If I have found 99% to be quite understandable, and also to be true, why should I sweat a few verses that give me trouble? The Lord will most likely reveal those to me later, according to his timing.

As for not knowing anything about prophecy or the history associated with them, I bet you also knew nothing about statements in the Bible that seem to agree with modern science, such as Moses commands for had washing, bathing, quarantine, exposing to fire(sterilizing) etc etc. Or like God hanging the earth in the heavens on nothing, etc. But that didn't stop you from challenging me about those subjects. As for history, I was taught a good bit about the history of the Jews in college, did you not have similar courses? Do you not know, from whatever history you have absorbed from whatever sources, that Israel use to be a nation, but ceased to be so for 2000 years after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and later the Romans, and that they were scattered over the face of the earth where they were intensely hated by many of those nations? And that they suffered persecution, and pogroms and exiles in many of those nations, culminating in the Holocaust? And that to this day they are hated by millions of people on this earth? You don't know about those things? Well, OK, then it would be hard for you to discuss the accuracy, or not, of Bible prophecy. But I would think you would want to become educated in those matters, particularly history.

Since I can not get you to leave those verses about the stars in the expanse until I do something, I don't know what, I am just going to throw something in here where I at least know you will see it. 3000 years ago, King Solomon said "Ecclesiastes 1:7(NIV) All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.........11:3 If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth;". Now, I find those words easy to understand, but history shows you might not agree, I suppose. Here is the King James translation from 400 years ago: "7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.". This is simple: the water returns from the sea, to where it came from, the headwaters of the rivers. So he somehow knows that the water that goes into the sea is getting back to the headwaters of the rivers. Which is correct, it evaporates so that the ocean never fills up beyond the levels it has been assigned. Solomon appears to understand the hydrological cycle. I don't think they knew that in this part of the earth 3000 years ago.

Job is the oldest book in the Bible, even older than Moses(the only one that is. Book of Job also speaks on this subject in chapter "36:27
“For He draws up the drops of water, They distill rain from the mist, 28 Which the clouds pour down, They drip upon man abundantly."

So, the drops of water go up, into the clouds or becoming the clouds, from where they pour down. Correct hydrological cycle, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
Off Topic
The water cycle, also known as the hydrological cycle or the H2O cycle, describes the continuous movement of water on, above and below the surface of the Earth............ The sun, which drives the water cycle, heats water in oceans and seas. Water evaporates as water vapor into the air. Ice and snow can sublimate directly into water vapour. Evapotranspiration is water transpired from plants and evaporated from the soil. The water vapour molecule H
2O has less density compared to the major components of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, N2 and O2. Due to the significant difference in molecular mass, water vapor in gas form gains height in open air as a result of buoyancy. However, as altitude increases, air pressure decreases and the temperature drops (see Gas laws). The lowered temperature causes water vapour to condense into a tiny liquid water droplet which is heavier than the air, such that it falls unless supported by an updraft. A huge concentration of these droplets over a large space up in the atmosphere become visible as cloud. Fog is formed if the water vapour condenses near ground level, as a result of moist air and cool air collision or an abrupt reduction in air pressure. Air currents move water vapour around the globe, cloud particles collide, grow, and fall out of the upper atmospheric layers as precipitation. Some precipitation falls as snow or hail, sleet, and can accumulate as ice caps and glaciers, which can store frozen water for thousands of years. Most water falls back into the oceans or onto land as rain, where the water flows over the ground as surface runoff. A portion of runoff enters rivers in valleys in the landscape, with streamflow moving water towards the oceans.......................................................
History of hydrologic cycle theory
Floating land mass

In ancient times, it was thought that the land mass floated on a body of water, and that most of the water in rivers has its origin under the earth. Examples of this belief can be found in the works of Homer (circa 800 BCE).
Source of rain

In the ancient near east, Hebrew scholars observed that even though the rivers ran into the sea, the sea never became full (Ecclesiastes 1:7). Some scholars conclude that the water cycle was described completely during this time in this passage: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, KJV).[28] Scholars are not in agreement as to the date of Ecclesiastes, though most scholars point to a date during the time of Solomon, the son of David and Bathsheba, "three thousand years ago,[28] there is some agreement that the time period is 962-922 BCE.[29] Furthermore, it was also observed that when the clouds were full, they emptied rain on the earth (Ecclesiastes 11:3). In addition, during 793-740 BC[30] a Hebrew prophet, Amos, stated that water comes from the sea and is poured out on the earth (Amos 5:8, 9:6).
Precipitation and percolation

In the Adityahridayam (a devotional hymn to the Sun God) of Ramayana, a Hindu epic dated to the 4th century BC, it is mentioned in the 22nd verse that the Sun heats up water and sends it down as rain. By roughly 500 BCE, Greek scholars were speculating that much of the water in rivers can be attributed to rain. The origin of rain was also known by then. These scholars maintained the belief, however, that water rising up through the earth contributed a great deal to rivers. Examples of this thinking included Anaximander (570 BCE) (who also speculated about the evolution of land animals from fish[31]) and Xenophanes of Colophon (530 BCE).[32] Chinese scholars such as Chi Ni Tzu (320 BC) and Lu Shih Ch'un Ch'iu (239 BCE) had similar thoughts.[33] The idea that the water cycle is a closed cycle can be found in the works of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (460 BCE) and Diogenes of Apollonia (460 BCE). Both Plato (390 BCE) and Aristotle (350 BCE) speculated about percolation as part of the water cycle.
Precipitation alone

In the Biblical Book of Job, dated between 7th and 2nd centuries BCE,[29] there is a description of precipitation in the hydrologic cycle,[28] "For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof; Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly" (Job 36:27-28, KJV). Also found in the book of Ecclesiastes "All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again." (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Up to the time of the Renaissance, it was thought that precipitation alone was insufficient to feed rivers, for a complete water cycle, and that underground water pushing upwards from the oceans were the main contributors to river water. Bartholomew of England held this view (1240 CE), as did Leonardo da Vinci (1500 CE) and Athanasius Kircher (1644 CE).

The first published thinker to assert that rainfall alone was sufficient for the maintenance of rivers was Bernard Palissy (1580 CE), who is often credited as the "discoverer" of the modern theory of the water cycle. Palissy's theories were not tested scientifically until 1674, in a study commonly attributed to Pierre Perrault. Even then, these beliefs were not accepted in mainstream science until the early nineteenth century.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#18

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:38 pm

dirtwheels wrote:Why shouldn't a mentor discuss things with folks he was mentoring? Isn't that customary?

You seem to wish to change the subject, why?
GregD wrote: If the Bible were truly easy to understand it would not take a "mentor" to say so.

Please explain exactly what that means and also explain how that meaning is easy to understand from the text.

And then we can see if Bill agrees with your interpretation. If it is simple to understand there should be little room for disagreement.

Finally, compare and contrast THAT meaning what we know to be true about the structure of the Earth, solar system, and galaxy.
? These are the first two sentences of this thread:
dirtwheels wrote:There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what many call a simple book only followed by simpletons. So why is it so easy to misunderstand the bible, a mentor told me one that the bible is so easy to understand that our enemy has influence countless men to write books about to help us misunderstand it.
Is that not an assertion that "the bible is so easy to understand"? Is that not the topic of this thread?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#19

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:43 pm

dirtwheels wrote:You appear to have stumbled upon my actual words, as I never stated the bible will never be found faulty. I never addressed that topic. Why are you trying to change the subject anyway? That's twice in 2 post.
GregD wrote: Please respond to my post right above this one and then tell me again how the Bible will never be found faulty.

If following the Bible improves your quality of life, then by all means do that. Similarly enjoy also the art and the hobbies that you find improve your quality of life. But some of the statements you make about the Bible are clearly inaccurate. The Roman Catholic Church, arguably the most historically significant Christian institution does not agree with many of these statements. Are they also under the influence of your "enemy"? Is everyone that disagrees with your mentor's positions on the Bible also under the direction of your "enemy"?

It is clear that the Bible has got some things wrong, independent of whether it has got some things right.
These are your words:
dirtwheels wrote:The science behind God's instructions to his people may not be irrefutable proof that God exist, but I'd venture to posit that the science behind God's instructions will never be found faulty.
You "venture to posit that the science behind God's instructions well never be found faulty." My response is that indeed God's instructions, the Bible, does indeed present faulty science. How am I changing the subject? What is your subject?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#20

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:55 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: First, what understanding are we failing to come to? I do not understand what you are saying. Did we not come to an understanding about the stars being in the firmament, when I conceded to you several times that I could not make sense of that verse and it does not seem to make sense or work with the previous verse? What is it you want? Now true, I can't say that just because I can not make that verse jive with the earlier clear verses about the separation of the waters below from the waters above the expanse(NASB), which is an accurate description of our atmosphere, just because I can not explain the latter does not mean the former is invalid.

When you say "and as there is apparently no way to reconcile this with the observed reality of the Earth orbiting the Sun embedded in one of many galaxies of stars with no suggestion whatsoever of any "water above", it would seem that, in fact, the Bible is not accurate in all things that it states.", what on earth do you mean? Have you not read the NASA article I have supplied confirming the vast amount of water out in the universe, plus the comets and such? How is that not waters above separated from waters below? Unless you are going to claim there is no such thing as "above" when it comes to the earth's relationship to the earth. But the normal figure of speech from antiquity until modern times, even often for scientists, is that as we gaze into the heavens, anything between or beyond our heads or maybe eyes and the sky/heavens/stars is above us. So by that NORMAL way of speaking, there are most certainly waters above the waters below a layer that separates them. This is clear, easy to understand, and accurate. It is true that I am unable to make the verses a little later work with the 1st verses, but those verses looked at by themselves are accurate.
The Bible clearly states that the "sky" separates the waters above from the waters below. The Bible clearly states that the stars are in the "sky". So the "waters above" must be BEYOND the stars.
BillyBob66 wrote:Second, as far as the Bible being hard or easy to understand, though I can not speak for others, I have never, as far as I can remember, claimed the Bible is always easy to understand.
That point is in response to these statements, which are not yours:
dirtwheels wrote:There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what many call a simple book only followed by simpletons. So why is it so easy to misunderstand the bible, a mentor told me one that the bible is so easy to understand that our enemy has influence countless men to write books about to help us misunderstand it.

dirtwheels
Reactions:
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:35 pm
Location: SC
Hammock: SLD, Sheltowee, Amok
Tarp: UGQ, Spinn Edge
Suspension: HF Straps & Dynema
Insulation: Downy Goodness

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#21

Post by dirtwheels » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:17 am

Please post the scripture that supports your stance that the science behind GOd's instructions regarding hygiene are faulty. THAT's the topic.
GregD wrote:
dirtwheels wrote:You appear to have stumbled upon my actual words, as I never stated the bible will never be found faulty. I never addressed that topic. Why are you trying to change the subject anyway? That's twice in 2 post.

These are your words:
dirtwheels wrote:The science behind God's instructions to his people may not be irrefutable proof that God exist, but I'd venture to posit that the science behind God's instructions will never be found faulty.
You "venture to posit that the science behind God's instructions well never be found faulty." My response is that indeed God's instructions, the Bible, does indeed present faulty science. How am I changing the subject? What is your subject?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: God, the Bible and Those Who Wish Science Was Their Friend

#22

Post by GregD » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:40 am

dirtwheels wrote:Please post the scripture that supports your stance that the science behind GOd's instructions regarding hygiene are faulty. THAT's the topic.
GregD wrote:
dirtwheels wrote:You appear to have stumbled upon my actual words, as I never stated the bible will never be found faulty. I never addressed that topic. Why are you trying to change the subject anyway? That's twice in 2 post.

These are your words:


You "venture to posit that the science behind God's instructions well never be found faulty." My response is that indeed God's instructions, the Bible, does indeed present faulty science. How am I changing the subject? What is your subject?
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Sorry for going off-topic.

Post Reply

Return to “God”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest