Bible Vs Scientism
- Thread starter MichaelBoll
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What SCRIPTURAL reason do you offer for not taking it literally?
But the fact is that there is nothing you could possibly see through your telescope or in the fossil record that even comes close to saying the earth is older than 6000 years, Eli. That's the entire point of "Bible Vs Scientism".
Tell me how you could personally look through a telescope or at a fossil, and determine that either the heaven or the fossil is older than 6000 years. You can't personally do any such thing, right? I'll let you in on a secret... neither can any other man who has ever existed! 😉
The point is that it's most definitely not science itself that suggests the earth is older than 6000 years... it is the Cult of Scientism that suggests this nonsense.
I'm anxious to see your scriptural reason for not taking the creation account in Genesis literally. Cheers
But the fact is that there is nothing you could possibly see through your telescope or in the fossil record that even comes close to saying the earth is older than 6000 years, Eli. That's the entire point of "Bible Vs Scientism".
Tell me how you could personally look through a telescope or at a fossil, and determine that either the heaven or the fossil is older than 6000 years. You can't personally do any such thing, right? I'll let you in on a secret... neither can any other man who has ever existed! 😉
The point is that it's most definitely not science itself that suggests the earth is older than 6000 years... it is the Cult of Scientism that suggests this nonsense.
I'm anxious to see your scriptural reason for not taking the creation account in Genesis literally. Cheers
I don’t have any scriptural reason to say that Genesis is not literal. I have God given reason. This also touches upon how you interpret the Bible. A topic which Ive mentioned several times here.
‘I think the Bible is inspired by God and written by men, so the poetry in the Bible is used to describe a purpose NOT engineering.
‘So because of this I have no contradiction.
‘But if i say that the Bible is 100% word of God and fell from the sky I would have a BIG contradiction.
As far as the fossil records and archeological evidence is concerned I think you need to do a little more exploration to realize that temples that are 15,000 years old exist. Like this one https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/
this is just an example of what we can see, measure and use or God-given reasoning.
This also gives me absolutely no contradictions on my faith here because I see science as glorifying the work of God.
‘I think the Bible is inspired by God and written by men, so the poetry in the Bible is used to describe a purpose NOT engineering.
‘So because of this I have no contradiction.
‘But if i say that the Bible is 100% word of God and fell from the sky I would have a BIG contradiction.
As far as the fossil records and archeological evidence is concerned I think you need to do a little more exploration to realize that temples that are 15,000 years old exist. Like this one https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/
this is just an example of what we can see, measure and use or God-given reasoning.
This also gives me absolutely no contradictions on my faith here because I see science as glorifying the work of God.
-
1
- Show all
Once again, in proper English? It's not clear what you're saying here.
You didn't prove anything, except perhaps that you lack understanding of the topic.
There is no such word... and you still can't spell accelerating.
Water might be "the perfect paradigm" but you aren't going to learn a blessed thing if you don't have even a basic grasp of physics.
You didn't prove anything, except perhaps that you lack understanding of the topic.
There is no such word... and you still can't spell accelerating.
Water might be "the perfect paradigm" but you aren't going to learn a blessed thing if you don't have even a basic grasp of physics.
Can you explain what that means? I'm picturing God personally telling you that Genesis is not literal - and I'm sure that's not what you actually mean, right?
I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed the Bible fell from the sky. But I do know that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said that scripture (meaning the OT) cannot be broken. And I also know that I do take scripture literally, and still have no contradictions. What is the "BIG contradiction" that you would have if you were to take scripture literally?
I assert to you with complete conviction that there exists no such thing on earth as a 15,000 year old temple. Now... can you personally prove me wrong? Of course not. But here's what I want you to really understand: Neither can ANY man in the entire world prove my assertion inaccurate. I think it may be you that needs to do a little more exploration - and may I suggest that you begin with the scientists of great organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, etc.
Here's a great starter for you that goes through a bunch of different scientific data that strongly suggest a young earth, and exposes the flaws and biases involved with the Scientism claims of a very old earth. Please give it a quick look.
https://creationtoday.org/evidence-for-a-young-earth/
I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed the Bible fell from the sky. But I do know that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said that scripture (meaning the OT) cannot be broken. And I also know that I do take scripture literally, and still have no contradictions. What is the "BIG contradiction" that you would have if you were to take scripture literally?
I assert to you with complete conviction that there exists no such thing on earth as a 15,000 year old temple. Now... can you personally prove me wrong? Of course not. But here's what I want you to really understand: Neither can ANY man in the entire world prove my assertion inaccurate. I think it may be you that needs to do a little more exploration - and may I suggest that you begin with the scientists of great organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, etc.
Here's a great starter for you that goes through a bunch of different scientific data that strongly suggest a young earth, and exposes the flaws and biases involved with the Scientism claims of a very old earth. Please give it a quick look.
https://creationtoday.org/evidence-for-a-young-earth/
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. - Nikola Tesla
What do you think of that statement, Dino? I noticed that you too went right to mathematics to support your argument. I was looking more for your personal verification of this thing called "gravity", for instance. We both believe that when dropped, heavier things go down, and lighter things go up. But how one would get from there to a spinning ball that holds water to it via something called gravity is something altogether different.
Also, regarding the centrifugal force on the oceans, isn't it claimed that it creates a huge bulge (many miles tall) at the equator? That doesn't sound "miniscule" to me.
I'm a Biblical earther. I believe, as the Bible teaches, that we live on stationary plane with a hard-as-bronze dome over us - in which the sun, moon, and stars run their God-appointed circuits over us, like a giant sky-clock.
What do you think of that statement, Dino? I noticed that you too went right to mathematics to support your argument. I was looking more for your personal verification of this thing called "gravity", for instance. We both believe that when dropped, heavier things go down, and lighter things go up. But how one would get from there to a spinning ball that holds water to it via something called gravity is something altogether different.
Also, regarding the centrifugal force on the oceans, isn't it claimed that it creates a huge bulge (many miles tall) at the equator? That doesn't sound "miniscule" to me.
I'm a Biblical earther. I believe, as the Bible teaches, that we live on stationary plane with a hard-as-bronze dome over us - in which the sun, moon, and stars run their God-appointed circuits over us, like a giant sky-clock.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
If it were true that the earth is spinning thru space as well as the stars and 'planets' then there could never be the same yearly patterns in the sky as created/declared by the LORD.
There would only be chaos.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
"God is not the author of confusion but of peace."
There would only be chaos.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
"God is not the author of confusion but of peace."
-
1
- Show all
Fair enough, Eli. Most people are happy to openly profess the many scriptural understandings they have come to believe - but are unable/unwilling to stand and defend those beliefs against scrutiny. I am not one of those people.
I wish you well, and I take solace in the fact that you walk away knowing this one thing that you yourself acknowledged: "I don’t have any scriptural reason to say that Genesis is not literal." Let that really sink in.
So then at least we part ways knowing that you are basing at least some of your spiritual understandings, not on the written word of God, but on the secular claims of Scientism. And knowing is half the battle, as they say. Maybe you'll think about it and come back to talk some more. Cheers
I wish you well, and I take solace in the fact that you walk away knowing this one thing that you yourself acknowledged: "I don’t have any scriptural reason to say that Genesis is not literal." Let that really sink in.
So then at least we part ways knowing that you are basing at least some of your spiritual understandings, not on the written word of God, but on the secular claims of Scientism. And knowing is half the battle, as they say. Maybe you'll think about it and come back to talk some more. Cheers
That looks like a logical fallacy, David... The excluded middle, and also non sequitur 
Perhaps others, too. Anyway, I read some of this page, and another on Kepler's laws.
I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say
The phrase "fixed star" is technically incorrect, but nonetheless
it is used in an historical context, and in classical mechanics.
"Fixed stars" not fixed
Astronomers and natural philosophers before divided the lights in the sky into two groups. One group contained the fixed stars, which appear to rise and set but keep the same relative arrangement over time. The other group contained the naked eye planets, which they called wandering stars. (The Sun and Moon were sometimes called stars and planets as well.) The planets seem to move and change their position over short periods of time (weeks or months). They always seem to move within the band of stars called the zodiac by Westerners. The planets can also be distinguished from fixed stars because stars tend to twinkle, while planets appear to shine with a steady light. However, fixed stars do have parallax, which is a change in apparent position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth. It can be used to find the distance to nearby stars. This motion is only apparent; it is the Earth that moves. This effect was small enough not to be accurately measured until the 19th century, but from about 1670 and onward, astronomers such as Pickard, Hooke, Flamsteed, and others began detecting motion from the stars and attempting measurements. These movements amounted to significant, if almost imperceptibly small, fractions.
The fixed stars exhibit real motion as well, however. This motion may be viewed as having components that consist in part of motion of the galaxy to which the star belongs, in part of rotation of that galaxy, and in part of motion peculiar to the star itself within its galaxy. In the case of star systems or star clusters, the individual components move with respect to each other in a non-linear manner. The development of Newton's laws raised further questions among theorists about the mechanisms of the heavens: the universal force of gravity suggested that stars could not simply be fixed or at rest, as their gravitational pulls cause "mutual attraction" and therefore cause them to move in relation to each other.
This real motion of a star is divided into radial motion and proper motion, with "proper motion" being the component across the line of sight. In 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that the fixed stars actually have proper motion. Proper motion was not noticed by ancient cultures because it requires precise measurements over long periods of time to notice. In fact, the night sky today looks very much as it did thousands of years ago, so much so that some modern constellations were first named by the Babylonians.
A typical method to determine proper motion is to measure the position of a star relative to a limited, selected set of very distant objects that exhibit no mutual movement, and that, because of their distance, are assumed to have very small proper motion. Another approach is to compare photographs of a star at different times against a large background of more distant objects. The star with the largest known proper motion is Barnard's Star.
Perhaps others, too. Anyway, I read some of this page, and another on Kepler's laws.
I found it all very interesting. The math, however, escapes me. Above my pay grade, as they say
The phrase "fixed star" is technically incorrect, but nonetheless
it is used in an historical context, and in classical mechanics.
"Fixed stars" not fixed
Astronomers and natural philosophers before divided the lights in the sky into two groups. One group contained the fixed stars, which appear to rise and set but keep the same relative arrangement over time. The other group contained the naked eye planets, which they called wandering stars. (The Sun and Moon were sometimes called stars and planets as well.) The planets seem to move and change their position over short periods of time (weeks or months). They always seem to move within the band of stars called the zodiac by Westerners. The planets can also be distinguished from fixed stars because stars tend to twinkle, while planets appear to shine with a steady light. However, fixed stars do have parallax, which is a change in apparent position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth. It can be used to find the distance to nearby stars. This motion is only apparent; it is the Earth that moves. This effect was small enough not to be accurately measured until the 19th century, but from about 1670 and onward, astronomers such as Pickard, Hooke, Flamsteed, and others began detecting motion from the stars and attempting measurements. These movements amounted to significant, if almost imperceptibly small, fractions.
The fixed stars exhibit real motion as well, however. This motion may be viewed as having components that consist in part of motion of the galaxy to which the star belongs, in part of rotation of that galaxy, and in part of motion peculiar to the star itself within its galaxy. In the case of star systems or star clusters, the individual components move with respect to each other in a non-linear manner. The development of Newton's laws raised further questions among theorists about the mechanisms of the heavens: the universal force of gravity suggested that stars could not simply be fixed or at rest, as their gravitational pulls cause "mutual attraction" and therefore cause them to move in relation to each other.
This real motion of a star is divided into radial motion and proper motion, with "proper motion" being the component across the line of sight. In 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that the fixed stars actually have proper motion. Proper motion was not noticed by ancient cultures because it requires precise measurements over long periods of time to notice. In fact, the night sky today looks very much as it did thousands of years ago, so much so that some modern constellations were first named by the Babylonians.
A typical method to determine proper motion is to measure the position of a star relative to a limited, selected set of very distant objects that exhibit no mutual movement, and that, because of their distance, are assumed to have very small proper motion. Another approach is to compare photographs of a star at different times against a large background of more distant objects. The star with the largest known proper motion is Barnard's Star.
-
2
- Show all