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.
When you made your implication that there is something noteworthy in the etymology of "firmament", I understood you to be talking about the Hebrew word that is translated AS "firmament". And that Hebrew word refers to a solid object that has been beaten into shape with a tool, ie:
Job 37:18... Have you, with Him, beaten out heaven, strong as a cast metal mirror?
All I know from memory about the word "firmament" is that Jerome translated the Hebrew word into "firmamentum" (or something like that) in the Vulgate, and the KJV and other early English translations used that as the basis for their translation as "firmament".
But, just as it was impossible for me to create a strawman ("the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version") of an argument that Magenta never made in the first place, it is likewise impossible for me to "sidestep" an issue that you haven't even raised.
Perhaps you would like to actually make an argument concerning the etymology of the word "firmament" first? Lay out your argument, and then let's all see if it holds water.
In the meantime, since it's clear what the Hebrew word (and its root word) actually mean, and since we have verses like Job 37:18 above to support that meaning, and since we have other Biblical evidence such as this...
... then I think a deep dive into the English word "firmament" would be an irrelevant exercise in futility anyway. But I'm all ears. What knowledge about Jerome's "firmamentum" can you share with us?
(Queue the "I'm not going to do your homework for you" diversion. 😉)
Job 37:18... Have you, with Him, beaten out heaven, strong as a cast metal mirror?
All I know from memory about the word "firmament" is that Jerome translated the Hebrew word into "firmamentum" (or something like that) in the Vulgate, and the KJV and other early English translations used that as the basis for their translation as "firmament".
But, just as it was impossible for me to create a strawman ("the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version") of an argument that Magenta never made in the first place, it is likewise impossible for me to "sidestep" an issue that you haven't even raised.
Perhaps you would like to actually make an argument concerning the etymology of the word "firmament" first? Lay out your argument, and then let's all see if it holds water.
In the meantime, since it's clear what the Hebrew word (and its root word) actually mean, and since we have verses like Job 37:18 above to support that meaning, and since we have other Biblical evidence such as this...
... then I think a deep dive into the English word "firmament" would be an irrelevant exercise in futility anyway. But I'm all ears. What knowledge about Jerome's "firmamentum" can you share with us?
(Queue the "I'm not going to do your homework for you" diversion. 😉)
The quotes are to show you that the Hebrew root word raqa refers to hammering something into a solid shape/object. The Hebrew word raqia refers to the solid object that has been hammered into shape. So what we know from the Bible...
1. God created the raqia (solid object) to separate the waters above from the waters below.
2. God named that solid object "heaven".
3. God later placed lights in that solid object, namely, the sun, moon, and stars.
4. Those lights will eventually fall from the solid object to the earth like figs falling from a tree. (Mark 13:25, Rev 6:13)
5. God opened floodgates within this solid object to let the waters above it fall to the earth and flood the earth.
6. This solid object is still supporting the waters above it - even long after the flood. (Psalm 148:4)
7. This solid object is as "strong as a cast metal mirror". (Job 38:17)
8. God made the sun stand still in the sky - not the earth to stop spinning. (Joshua 10:12-13)
There is no "solar system". Nor is the sun the "center" of anything. It is merely one of the many lights God placed in the firmament of heaven, and it runs its daily circuit over the earth, from one end of heaven to the other. (Psalm 19:4-6) The idea of a "solar system", that we've all been indoctrinated into believing since we were children, goes against every one of the Biblical claims above.
The Biblical description of our world and the heliocentric model contradict each other. They can't both be true. So which one is?
1. God created the raqia (solid object) to separate the waters above from the waters below.
2. God named that solid object "heaven".
3. God later placed lights in that solid object, namely, the sun, moon, and stars.
4. Those lights will eventually fall from the solid object to the earth like figs falling from a tree. (Mark 13:25, Rev 6:13)
5. God opened floodgates within this solid object to let the waters above it fall to the earth and flood the earth.
6. This solid object is still supporting the waters above it - even long after the flood. (Psalm 148:4)
7. This solid object is as "strong as a cast metal mirror". (Job 38:17)
8. God made the sun stand still in the sky - not the earth to stop spinning. (Joshua 10:12-13)
There is no "solar system". Nor is the sun the "center" of anything. It is merely one of the many lights God placed in the firmament of heaven, and it runs its daily circuit over the earth, from one end of heaven to the other. (Psalm 19:4-6) The idea of a "solar system", that we've all been indoctrinated into believing since we were children, goes against every one of the Biblical claims above.
The Biblical description of our world and the heliocentric model contradict each other. They can't both be true. So which one is?
The thing is I respond to many threads besides this one and it is hard to reply to a quote to a post that was posted days ago as there is no longer a flow in the conversation to follow. I believe the earth is round and you believe it is flat. OK, let's leave it at that. Actually, flat-earth threads don't hold my interests for very long.
Now we're getting nearer to clearer! Yes, I accept on faith that the Bible is the truth. For example, I cannot PROVE that the God of Abraham created heaven and earth, or created Adam from dust and Eve from Adam. I believe these things on a rational conclusion that the abundance of observable evidence suggests that we and our world are a creation of someone (Rom 1:20) - and on faith that the someone is the God of the Bible.
Scientism is likewise a faith-based belief that "science" somehow PROVES the Big Bang, a heliocentric solar system within a huge vacuum of space filled with billions of galaxies - which are billions of years old - and that living things can emerge via abiogenesis and then evolve into more and more complex beings by random chance.
So in a nutshell, I believe A on faith because I believe (also on faith) that the Bible is God's inspired written word and is the true authority of what's what.
Members of Scientism believe B on faith, because they believe (also on faith) that the interpretations of scientific data by certain men are the true authority of what's what.
Faith-based Belief A and faith-based Belief B clearly and undeniably contradict each other in many ways. This thread was intended to highlight these many contradictions, and to discuss which Belief (if either) is more likely to be the truth of the matter.
Scientism is likewise a faith-based belief that "science" somehow PROVES the Big Bang, a heliocentric solar system within a huge vacuum of space filled with billions of galaxies - which are billions of years old - and that living things can emerge via abiogenesis and then evolve into more and more complex beings by random chance.
So in a nutshell, I believe A on faith because I believe (also on faith) that the Bible is God's inspired written word and is the true authority of what's what.
Members of Scientism believe B on faith, because they believe (also on faith) that the interpretations of scientific data by certain men are the true authority of what's what.
Faith-based Belief A and faith-based Belief B clearly and undeniably contradict each other in many ways. This thread was intended to highlight these many contradictions, and to discuss which Belief (if either) is more likely to be the truth of the matter.
-
1
- Show all
It has turned into a flat earth thread.
The listings you provided prove nothing either way.
There is sufficient proof that the earth is round just by observing nature. To continue this dialog please provide actual photographs of the various edges of the flat earth and what is beyond there or otherwise we are done here.
The listings you provided prove nothing either way.
There is sufficient proof that the earth is round just by observing nature. To continue this dialog please provide actual photographs of the various edges of the flat earth and what is beyond there or otherwise we are done here.
The empirical information is consistent with many models. Case in point...
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds... What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” - George Ellis
Ellis co-authored a book with none other than Stephen Hawking, and is, according to Wiki, "one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis
This statement was made in Scientific American in 1985 or 1995 (I can't remember which right now). At any rate, it was made long after we "landed on the moon", and long after we had hundreds (if not thousands) of "space satellites" all over the place. And we STILL can't say that we are in a heliocentric system based on observations (ie: "empirical information"). Biased philosophy - not science itself - is what makes that call, Jocund.
Are you getting the picture yet? Science is the "empirical evidence" part. Scientism is a faith-based belief in the "biased philosophy" part.
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds... What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” - George Ellis
Ellis co-authored a book with none other than Stephen Hawking, and is, according to Wiki, "one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis
This statement was made in Scientific American in 1985 or 1995 (I can't remember which right now). At any rate, it was made long after we "landed on the moon", and long after we had hundreds (if not thousands) of "space satellites" all over the place. And we STILL can't say that we are in a heliocentric system based on observations (ie: "empirical information"). Biased philosophy - not science itself - is what makes that call, Jocund.
Are you getting the picture yet? Science is the "empirical evidence" part. Scientism is a faith-based belief in the "biased philosophy" part.
-
1
- Show all
Stand and defend your statement. Pick any one of those listings and show me how it works in your solar system model.
"Otherwise we're done here"? 😄 We never even got started. You just spouted some stuff, and I showed you how the Bible contradicts that stuff. You never made a counter-argument against anything I showed you. Here's your chance...
Genesis 8:2... The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of heaven were closed, and the rain from heaven was restrained.
Please point to where these "floodgates of heaven" are in your model, and where the "rain from heaven" came from...
"Otherwise we're done here"? 😄 We never even got started. You just spouted some stuff, and I showed you how the Bible contradicts that stuff. You never made a counter-argument against anything I showed you. Here's your chance...
Genesis 8:2... The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of heaven were closed, and the rain from heaven was restrained.
Please point to where these "floodgates of heaven" are in your model, and where the "rain from heaven" came from...
-
1
- Show all
Of course, it's also possible that the "waters" could be some kind of magical pixie dust that we aren't told about anywhere else in the Bible, right? 🙄
Your number 1 is null because it's not the "waters" that are said to be formless. Your numbers 2 and 3 are similar, scripturally-supported, and logical. Your numbers 4 and 5 are illogical and unsupported by any scriptural teaching. (However, the separation of land and water that you mentioned in 5 will come up if you stick around.)
As for your number 6...
Agreed... hence the question I ended my post with. I have highlighted it in my quote box above. I clearly stated my interpretation of the "waters" in Gen 1:2, and used my interpretation of 2 Peter 3:5 to support it.
Let's limit our possible interpretations to things we actually find compelling, and can make a strong logical and scriptural case for, okay? For example, I wouldn't seriously bring up my magical pixie dust possibility, since I couldn't actually make a case for it.
Of the many "possibilities" that you listed, which one of them answers my question in the quote box above? Tell me what you actually DO understand the "waters" in Gen 1:2 to be, and we'll go from there. Thanks.
Your number 1 is null because it's not the "waters" that are said to be formless. Your numbers 2 and 3 are similar, scripturally-supported, and logical. Your numbers 4 and 5 are illogical and unsupported by any scriptural teaching. (However, the separation of land and water that you mentioned in 5 will come up if you stick around.)
As for your number 6...
Agreed... hence the question I ended my post with. I have highlighted it in my quote box above. I clearly stated my interpretation of the "waters" in Gen 1:2, and used my interpretation of 2 Peter 3:5 to support it.
Let's limit our possible interpretations to things we actually find compelling, and can make a strong logical and scriptural case for, okay? For example, I wouldn't seriously bring up my magical pixie dust possibility, since I couldn't actually make a case for it.
Of the many "possibilities" that you listed, which one of them answers my question in the quote box above? Tell me what you actually DO understand the "waters" in Gen 1:2 to be, and we'll go from there. Thanks.
I believe what is written in the Bible. I believe since God included the phrases, " and the evening and the morning" that it was litterly six-twenty-four hour days to create all. I believe in evolution to the extent that volves, dogs, coyotes and such came from a single source (kind), just as other kinds did, yet man, nd the origonal projenitors were fully formed when created. As for science, I believe in science and that it can teach us far more than we presently know; however, science as we know it is corrupt, and a product of a faulty evolution it tries to force on us as facts. Real sciece is akin to truth and all truth is of God, and science aligns itself to what God seemed fit to include in His Word. We do not have real sciece........Faucci is proof!
-
1
- Show all
Well said, Rich. Allow me to make a couple of clarifications...
1. Wolves today still have the genetic info to make every single kind of canine in the world. From wolf to poodle, for example, requires a LOSS of genetic info. You can still breed a poodle from a wolf over time, but you can never breed a wolf from a poodle, because a lot of the genetic info has been bred out. We cannot breed more genetic info back into the offspring of the poodle. And the LOSS of genetic info is by no means "evolution" in Darwin's sense of "common descent evolution".
You are correct that God created "kinds", and that over time, much genetic info has been lost or intentionally bred out, creating a bunch of "sub-kinds".
2. You mentioned "man, and the original progenitors". What do you mean by "the original progenitors".
3. You are correct that science aligns with God's written word. And what you state as, "science as we know it is corrupt" is what I call Scientism. Science is just the empirical data. The corruption isn't in that data itself, but in the biased interpretations of that data by flawed men - most of whom abhor the idea of a creator. The blind-faith belief in those INTERPRETATIONS is the religion called Scientism.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. 👍🙂🙏
1. Wolves today still have the genetic info to make every single kind of canine in the world. From wolf to poodle, for example, requires a LOSS of genetic info. You can still breed a poodle from a wolf over time, but you can never breed a wolf from a poodle, because a lot of the genetic info has been bred out. We cannot breed more genetic info back into the offspring of the poodle. And the LOSS of genetic info is by no means "evolution" in Darwin's sense of "common descent evolution".
You are correct that God created "kinds", and that over time, much genetic info has been lost or intentionally bred out, creating a bunch of "sub-kinds".
2. You mentioned "man, and the original progenitors". What do you mean by "the original progenitors".
3. You are correct that science aligns with God's written word. And what you state as, "science as we know it is corrupt" is what I call Scientism. Science is just the empirical data. The corruption isn't in that data itself, but in the biased interpretations of that data by flawed men - most of whom abhor the idea of a creator. The blind-faith belief in those INTERPRETATIONS is the religion called Scientism.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. 👍🙂🙏
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right? As explained in my previous post to you, simply listing a million things that "could be" possibilities gets us nowhere. If it is your understanding that God DID use common decent evolution over billions of years, then you will have a chance to make your case - including your understanding of "dinosaur bones", "erosion lines", "micro/macro evolution", what actually constitutes "empirical evidence", and anything else your heart desires.
Of course we'll do this ONE point at a time, so as not to become bogged down with huge novels in which we talk past each other. And right now, our one point is the "waters" in Gen 1:2.
I'm still very much enjoying our discussion, and am anxious to hear your understanding of those "waters". Cheers.
Of course we'll do this ONE point at a time, so as not to become bogged down with huge novels in which we talk past each other. And right now, our one point is the "waters" in Gen 1:2.
I'm still very much enjoying our discussion, and am anxious to hear your understanding of those "waters". Cheers.
I'd be interested in knowing where in the bible it says that the first 5 days were actually a day long? Because the Bible also says a day is like a thousand years...
But, can I blow our collective minds for a second?
The Jews don't believe a day starts until Sunset. For the book of Genesis to say "There was evening, and there was morning- the first day" If there is a Morning after an Evening, and this is The First Day, then technically God Created the waters and the Sky on Day 1, and Light on Day 0.
But, can I blow our collective minds for a second?
The Jews don't believe a day starts until Sunset. For the book of Genesis to say "There was evening, and there was morning- the first day" If there is a Morning after an Evening, and this is The First Day, then technically God Created the waters and the Sky on Day 1, and Light on Day 0.
I am not asking for photos of God but rather photos of the edge of the flat earth.
The fact is, there isn't any because the earth is not flat.
People claim that the earth is flat, but no one has ever been to the edge. There is absolutely no evidence at all to substantiate a claim that the earth is flat.
There have been countless pictures taken of the earth from space. OK, some flat earth people say that they are fake. I will settle then for you to provide even some fake photographs of the edge of the flat earth.
How is it that no one has ever been to the edge? Yeah, I know, the government won't allow this. I have heard all of this nonsense before. One guy just simply told me that "it is hard to get there". How lame is that? Another said that there is no air there. Well, there is lots of air in a modern aircraft.
Show me some physical evidence as let's end this fruitless discussion. I go to flat earth threads to be entertained, when they start getting aggravating, I leave.
That point has been reached.
The fact is, there isn't any because the earth is not flat.
People claim that the earth is flat, but no one has ever been to the edge. There is absolutely no evidence at all to substantiate a claim that the earth is flat.
There have been countless pictures taken of the earth from space. OK, some flat earth people say that they are fake. I will settle then for you to provide even some fake photographs of the edge of the flat earth.
How is it that no one has ever been to the edge? Yeah, I know, the government won't allow this. I have heard all of this nonsense before. One guy just simply told me that "it is hard to get there". How lame is that? Another said that there is no air there. Well, there is lots of air in a modern aircraft.
Show me some physical evidence as let's end this fruitless discussion. I go to flat earth threads to be entertained, when they start getting aggravating, I leave.
That point has been reached.