Science and the bible

[Blik]

Should we go by science or the bible? Here are some thoughts about this.

We know the bible is always correct, for it is inspired by the creator of us and our world, and we know that science is sometimes incorrect because we have seen them change their mind at times. However, scripture is inspired by the Lord, but it is men who put those thoughts into words that he understood at the time he wrote them down. It could be that it is not correct because his understanding was incorrect.

Also, there are times that the Lord’s ways were explained by using a current saying, like we say don’t burn your bridges. We don't mean that as literal burning a bridge. An illustration of this is to tell of God wanting us to be just by saying “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. The Lord was not telling us to take out eyes, the Lord was telling us to be just.

Another misunderstanding of scripture was centuries ago when people thought the Lord told us the earth was square. This was based on the scripture telling of the “four corners of the earth”. There was a cry of outrage when science proved the earth was round.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Should we go by science or the bible?

How did science come into existence? Is it not through the discovery of natural laws? And who put those natural laws into the universe? Was it not God Himself. There is no conflict between GENUINE science and the Bible.

 

[Scribe]

Should we go by science or the bible? Here are some thoughts about this.

We know the bible is always correct, for it is inspired by the creator of us and our world, and we know that science is sometimes incorrect because we have seen them change their mind at times. However, scripture is inspired by the Lord, but it is men who put those thoughts into words that he understood at the time he wrote them down. It could be that it is not correct because his understanding was incorrect.

Also, there are times that the Lord’s ways were explained by using a current saying, like we say don’t burn your bridges. We don't mean that as literal burning a bridge. An illustration of this is to tell of God wanting us to be just by saying “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. The Lord was not telling us to take out eyes, the Lord was telling us to be just.

Another misunderstanding of scripture was centuries ago when people thought the Lord told us the earth was square. This was based on the scripture telling of the “four corners of the earth”. There was a cry of outrage when science proved the earth was round.

It meant four directions. North, South, East and West. Like the four winds. It did not mean square. That was just bad hermeneutics.
We still say the four points of the compass. The four corners (far ends) of the earth in each direction. It never meant square.

 

[GaryA]

Another misunderstanding of scripture was centuries ago when people thought the Lord told us the earth was square. This was based on the scripture telling of the “four corners of the earth”. There was a cry of outrage when science proved the earth was round.

Is it really actually a misunderstanding of scripture?

Has science really actually proven the earth to be a spinning ball flying through space?

I believe what the Bible really actually says - and, if it says the earth has four corners - then, I believe the earth has four corners.

 

[wattie]

Yea.. like when people say.. oh the bible calls the earth a circle.. not a sphere!

Weeeeell.. pretty obvious a sphere is a circle.. just a 3d one 😃

 

[GaryA]

Yea.. like when people say.. oh the bible calls the earth a circle.. not a sphere!

Weeeeell.. pretty obvious a sphere is a circle.. just a 3d one 😃

There really is a thing about that. It has to do with the fact that there are two separate distinct words in the Hebrew for 'circle' and 'ball' - used in two separate places in scripture - but - if the word 'ball' was definitely an available Hebrew word in the language - why was it not used in the place where 'circle' was used?

Answer?

Because the intent in the verse is actually 'circle' and not 'ball'.

Look into it...

 

[breno785au]

There really is a thing about that. It has to do with the fact that there are two separate distinct words in the Hebrew for 'circle' and 'ball' - used in two separate places in scripture - but - if the word 'ball' was definitely an available Hebrew word in the language - why was it not used in the place where 'circle' was used?

Answer?

Because the intent in the verse is actually 'circle' and not 'ball'.

Look into it...

But circles don't have corners

 

[GaryA]

Yea.. like when people say.. oh the bible calls the earth a circle.. not a sphere!

Weeeeell.. pretty obvious a sphere is a circle.. just a 3d one 😃

Also - the Bible does not actually call the earth a circle; rather, it refers to "the circle of the earth" as being something God "sits" on...

 

[GaryA]

But circles don't have corners

Imagine a circle inside a square...

The circle is a circle. The square is a square.

 

[breno785au]

Imagine a circle inside a square...

The circle is a circle. The square is a square.

If the earth had corners we'd be living in a cube, right?

 

[GaryA]

If the earth had corners we'd be living in a cube, right?

on the top surface of...

not sure exactly how "deep" it goes

 

[GaryA]

Also - the Bible does not actually call the earth a circle; rather, it refers to "the circle of the earth" as being something God "sits" on...

Imagine a circle inside a square...

The square would represent the actual "edges" of the top surface of the earth. The circle would represent the "ice wall" - [presumedly] in the center of the square - with some unknown distance between the circle and the sides of the square.

 

[GaryA]

There is no conflict between GENUINE science and the Bible.

I agree with this statement.

 

[GaryA]

The square would represent the actual "edges" of the top surface of the earth. The circle would represent the "ice wall" - [presumedly] in the center of the square - with some unknown distance between the circle and the sides of the square.

Inside the circle is the "livable" area of the top surface of the earth - that which is within the "reach" of the warmth of the sun.

The "ice wall" (the 'circle') contains the oceans. The oceans do not "fall over the edge" - everything is frozen at the edges.

Beyond the "ice wall" (outside of the 'circle') is nothing-but solid ice and rock. (according to historical accounts)

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Should we go by science or the bible? Here are some thoughts about this.

We know the bible is always correct, for it is inspired by the creator of us and our world, and we know that science is sometimes incorrect because we have seen them change their mind at times. However, scripture is inspired by the Lord, but it is men who put those thoughts into words that he understood at the time he wrote them down. It could be that it is not correct because his understanding was incorrect.

Also, there are times that the Lord’s ways were explained by using a current saying, like we say don’t burn your bridges. We don't mean that as literal burning a bridge. An illustration of this is to tell of God wanting us to be just by saying “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. The Lord was not telling us to take out eyes, the Lord was telling us to be just.

Another misunderstanding of scripture was centuries ago when people thought the Lord told us the earth was square. This was based on the scripture telling of the “four corners of the earth”. There was a cry of outrage when science proved the earth was round.

When was this cry of outrage? Oh never. It was never a scandal.
It was always understood that the corners of the earth is an idiom, which simply means the far reaches of the 4 directions. Places stretching out beyond reach.
Don't forget that after Noah, his children and grandchildren populated the world, so they travelled to the far reaches, and made settlements.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

In the 5th century BC, a man named Eratosthenes, (a greek mathematician) figured the circumference of the earth to nearly the same measure that we know it to be today.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
In the movie CONTACT based upon a book authored by Carl Sagan, Jodi
Foster's character is asked if she believes in God. Her answer, in so many
words, is that she's a scientist who by the very nature of her profession
must not accept things as fact without sufficient empirical evidence.

Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Surely no one would contest their beliefs because actually Sagan and Foster
are, and were, 100% correct. But the evidence that she, and he, sought is
right under their noses: the very object of their investigations.

The cosmos itself-- its complexities, and its forms of life, matter, and energy
--is proof enough that everything around us, and up in the sky, could only
exist as the product of intelligent design. Relegating the beginning of the
cosmos to an immense explosion whose origin was an infinitesimal dot of
matter, is an intolerable stretch of the imagination; and besides: whence
came the dot, whence came its power to explode, and what triggered it?

I just hate it when the people in science, that I admire the most, brush away
the testimony of nature as if it's irrelevant and has no bearing upon the
question.

I watch a lot of science on YouTube, and nothing I've seen yet has sufficed
to prove beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that no intelligent designer
exists. On the contrary, the more science I watch on YouTube the more I am
convinced there is someone out there above and beyond the cosmos-- an
incredible genius whose intelligence is so far above our own as to be
impossible to fully appreciate.

And let me add that designing the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter,
and energy --is one thing. Constructing all of its unique pieces and parts, and
then assembling them so that everything clicks, requires the possession of
enough wherewithal to actually do it.

Take a quark for example. Once you've transferred your concept to a blue
print defining its shape, size, dimensions, mass, and electrical properties;
where would you find the materials with which to build one of those
complicated little guys; and then how would you get your handiwork
powered-up to perform the purpose for which you designed it? I'm not
talking about a potato here, just a quark; one of the fundamental particles
constituting every form of matter in the cosmos; and actually, without
quarks there would be no potatoes.
_

 

[CS1]

Should we go by science or the bible? Here are some thoughts about this.

We know the bible is always correct, for it is inspired by the creator of us and our world, and we know that science is sometimes incorrect because we have seen them change their mind at times. However, scripture is inspired by the Lord, but it is men who put those thoughts into words that he understood at the time he wrote them down. It could be that it is not correct because his understanding was incorrect.

Also, there are times that the Lord’s ways were explained by using a current saying, like we say don’t burn your bridges. We don't mean that as literal burning a bridge. An illustration of this is to tell of God wanting us to be just by saying “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. The Lord was not telling us to take out eyes, the Lord was telling us to be just.

Another misunderstanding of scripture was centuries ago when people thought the Lord told us the earth was square. This was based on the scripture telling of the “four corners of the earth”. There was a cry of outrage when science proved the earth was round.

Science is only as good as the truth is revealed. Jesus is the Only Truth. God's word is truth. man's understanding is darkened and cannot comprehend the things of God without God's help. Roman chapter one explains and John chapter 14 to 15.

God has placed HIS word above His name and HE is able to keep HIS word completely. It is the man who has the ability to get it wrong Yet God has still corrected man's error by the Leading of the Holy Spirit down through the ages. We have from the word of God more than enough for righteous living and appropriate worship IF we Build on the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, HIS creation, HIS word, and His Spirit.
Science is not an absolute truth it is a method of examination which if done properly can lead to understanding BUT truth is a law unto its self. Science is not the truth. that is the error of one's lack of knowing what truth is and what science is.

Truth is a higher form than facts. Science is not a higher form of truth.

 

[oyster67]

Should we go by science or the bible? Here are some thoughts about this.

Some speak of the Holy Word of God as if it were some ancient textbook written and inspired by some ancient philosopher who is long dead. We need to get down on our knees and repent of our vulgar insinuations about the Bible being out of date and irrelevant and inferior to our "superior and transcendent modern intellect". God has a place for men with attitudes like that.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

That means it is alive, folks, just like it's author. God forgive us our foolish babblings on this sad day of creation!.

 

[oyster67]

If God says it, I believe it, and that settles it. God and His Word have gotten me safely through thus far, and they shall see me through to the end and then onward into eternity. The just shall live by faith and without faith it is impossible to please Him.

Romans
3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

He certainly has it now.