Have you ever heard, "The Bible is NOT a science book!!!!1!"?
- Thread starter TheHolyBookEnds
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I believe @Benjamin Calvary is making the same point.Check it out here:
Reasons to Believe
Raised in a secular home and passionate about astronomy from early childhood, Hugh Ross was stirred by the theological implications of cosmological discoveries. Sincethe universe had a beginning, it must have a Beginner. On that basis he decided to investigate the world’s “holy books” to test them for scientific (as well as historical) accuracy and consistency. Only the Bible passed the test.
Don't know any of these persons....
Testable? is:
The earth and mankind was made to be the "cruc-ible" which tested, before all the universe, the character of God (Rom. 3:4; Psa. 51:4), for two positions now existed among all the beings in Heaven, and there was not a third unbiased position. God created mankind, the third unbiased position, to demonstrate the character and glory of God. Yet, satan could not let well enough alone, knowing that his case was losing, tampered with the test, tampered with the evidence. Yet, this too, was to work against the wiles of the devil:
Rom. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Jesus declares (through his servant John, by the Holy Ghost) that "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16), and so came to demonstrate that perfect holy character of His Father:
Jhn. 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jhn. 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Jhn. 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jhn. 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Jhn. 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The government and character of God were "tested" in Christ Jesus.
For He was tested in the wilderness (Mat. 4:1-11; Mar. 1:12-13; Luk. 4:1-13), and found blameless as the spotless "Lamb of God" (Jhn. 1:29,36), while the character of satan was being revealed, as a liar, deciver, who would misquote the words of God for his own end, for his own glory.
The entire life of Jesus, was one of 'testing', and proving, being the precious silver and gold, in the fullness of the fiery furnace:
Heb. 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Isa. 13:12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
The most enduring tests, were Gethsemane and Calvary. The weight of sin crushing (as pestle) the earth (the Man, Christ Jesus) in the crucible (mortar), heated in the pure fiery wrath of God, poured out upon Him, and "tested" in all points:
Heb. 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
No sin could be found in Him, though tried unto the utmost. He was perfect. He indeed was love, as His Father.
Luk. 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Jhn. 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Psa. 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
God is Just and Merciful, tested, at the Cross. The heart of God was there tested before all, that none may ever doubt again, and thus sin cannot arise a second time. God was selfless, in giving up of His Son for those who were His enemies, and the Son in giving up His life, and the Holy Ghost in seeking not His own.
The other position, was that of satan, and through the same events, he too was to be "crushed" (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20), by God's Pestle, the "Rod out of the stem of Jesse" (Isa. 11:1), for he was proved at the Cross (at the Crucible of the universe) to be a murderer, a liar, a sinner (Jhn. 8:44), and his time and power were immediately limited (Rom. 5:6; Rev. 12:10).
In the beginning, was the 'serpent', but having only one head (Gen. 3:1), and in the time of Jesus, he had manifested 4 characters, 4 kingdoms (Daniel 2, 7, 11), but there was more to come, in the final heads, and so fully manifest his wicked government and chracter, as a counterfeit light of 7 branches, 7 heads (Rev. 17).
Yet, satan has another argument, against the case of God, and it is found in attacking the character of the body of Christ, for he says, how can the head be perfect, yet the body still sins? How can "the seed" be perfect, if it bear imperfect fruit in His own people? How can Christ Jesus be sinless, and yet his own people be found sinners? The answer is in the Gospel itself.
The gospel, was to be tested, yet further, even in us. For God will demonstrate before all the universe, that victory over sin, and overcoming in all things, is reality in Christ Jesus, who provided all strength, almighty power unto His people, and all the universe may know the power of God's love to save from guttermost to the uttermost, for He will produce such a people as keep His commandments as Jesus had (and so God, will show what Divinity, taking the hand of humanity, will do):
Heb. 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Rev. 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
For God will finish the work:
Rom. 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Rom. 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Rev. 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
For the final fiery testing of the saints is about to come (Revelation 14:6-12), and will come upon all the world who profess the name of Jesus (Rev. 3:10, 17:12).
As Christ Jesus was tested, so must we be tested. What Christ was given, so we are given.
As God was tested, so sin is tested.
Hugh Ross is promoting theistic evolution along with the Day-Age Theory. Whether or not he holds heretical beliefs, he is not accepting the plain Bible creation account as valid, and as confirmed in the Ten Commandments.
"Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans..." (Wikipedia).
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
You are absolutely right when you say that the earth has to be billions of years old if evolution is to be accepted.
Here is how it goes. When I started studying evolution, I was told that the earth was 80 million years old. Later on, another evolutionist claimed it was 200 million years old. This was followed by someone claiming it was 800 million years old. Not to be outdone, another evolutionist claimed an earth that was 1.3 billion years old. Gradually the stakes were increased and another claimed it was 4.3 billion years old. The final guestimate I read was 13.5 billion years by our dear departed Christopher Hitchens.
I guess you pays your money and makes your choice.
I watched a TV programme and the atheist presenter said that the evidence was there that we evolved from a sandworm in some sea. He held up a sandworm on his finger to prove his point.
David Attenborough, probably the worlds best know evolutionist, said that the origins of mankind are a blob of amoeba that slunk out of the pond and turned into a fish that turned into a creature that had legs that turned into a creature that could fly and so on and so on and then one day we emerged as humans. A case of from goo to you via the zoo.
Now I like to think that I am reasonably intelligent having three university degrees and one theological degree and have been in senior management of multi-million dollar companies and taught 16-18 y.o. politics, economics, legal studies, business management, and I.T. so you will have to convince me that all the mumbo-jumbo put out by atheists and evolutionists is the truth.
Anyone with half a brain in their head can see that the constantly changing so-called facts are total baloney and totally implausible.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
nice imo, i am finding this reflected in other reliable sources too.
Faith as we define it today is not what faith meant to the ancients i guess. Their faith was based in the Scientific Method in all likelihood, although this is hard to contemplate as it runs counter to the Cult of Sol, or Christianity Today. Prolly much more like the "faith" we have to get on a jet plane without understanding aerodynamics or something, but i guess this pov won't be popular with believers seeking miracles
Last edited:
shnarkle
Well-Known Member
- Nov 10, 2013
- 1,689
- 569
- 113
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
By definition, science requires observation and experiment. God presents the children of Israel with a choice. He suggests they carry out an experiment to either keep his commandments and observe the blessings associated with them, or ignore them and observe the curses observed with them. It is a "learn by doing" methodology, but as Paul pointed out, one must mix faith into the process in order to carry out the experiment in the first place. In other words, it one doesn't believe God in the first place, they aren't going to carry out the experiments.
History has repeatedly shown the efficacy of these experiments, and yet people continue to ignore them, probably because they've been seduced by the doctrines of demons.
Is there fossil evidence for evolution? Let's ask some YE creationists, who actually have degrees in science...
Young-cosmos creationist, Aardsma (Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto) believes that his “virtual history” hypothesis is less problematic than the usual creationist excuse of “creation with apparent age.” Aardsma even admits at one point below that “I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history.”
Scrivenings: Evolution Is Not a Theory in Crisis according to prominent creationists
Todd Wood BS Biology PhD biochemistry
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God’s creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective.
Todd Wood on Evolution
YE creationists Kurt Wise, PhD palentology
It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Young-cosmos creationist, Aardsma (Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto) believes that his “virtual history” hypothesis is less problematic than the usual creationist excuse of “creation with apparent age.” Aardsma even admits at one point below that “I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history.”
Scrivenings: Evolution Is Not a Theory in Crisis according to prominent creationists
Todd Wood BS Biology PhD biochemistry
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God’s creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective.
Todd Wood on Evolution
YE creationists Kurt Wise, PhD palentology
It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
shnarkle
Well-Known Member
- Nov 10, 2013
- 1,689
- 569
- 113
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
The scientific method is a "learn by doing", and that is exactly how the Old Testament was set up. The Mosaic law is learned by seeing it in action. All the cult of Israel knew was that there were blessings associated with obedience, and curses associated with disobedience. Only by carrying out God's commandments does one fully understand the wisdom of God's law. Fat chance of finding any professing scientists who are willing to carry out that experiment.
No, science is not "learn by doing." That's Buddhism's "come and see" idea.
Science is a specific process first used by the Ionian Greeks like Democritis, refined by the Islamic scholar, and taken up to its present state by European scholars like Bacon.
It's a affront to God's word to even compare it to science. Science is an inductive process devised by men to try to figure out this universe. It is far too weak a method to understand God's word.
Science is a specific process first used by the Ionian Greeks like Democritis, refined by the Islamic scholar, and taken up to its present state by European scholars like Bacon.
It's a affront to God's word to even compare it to science. Science is an inductive process devised by men to try to figure out this universe. It is far too weak a method to understand God's word.
101G
Well-Known Member
the bible is a "true" science book, as well as a "true" history book. 1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"
here, G1108 γνῶσις gnosis (gnō'-sis) n which is a noun, is
1. knowing (the act).
2. (by implication) knowledge.
3. (emphatically) absolute knowledge (i.e. an exhaustive knowledge without error; not merely subject to or based on personal observation or perception; actual rational truth, not merely that which is based on or bound only by sight and experience; such knowledge comes from God).
4. (the entity) Knowledge herself.
[from G1097]
KJV: knowledge, science
and since this is a created world, and has a beginning, and the bible records this beginning, then it's a history book.
neither is fully understood by man.
PICJAG.
here, G1108 γνῶσις gnosis (gnō'-sis) n which is a noun, is
1. knowing (the act).
2. (by implication) knowledge.
3. (emphatically) absolute knowledge (i.e. an exhaustive knowledge without error; not merely subject to or based on personal observation or perception; actual rational truth, not merely that which is based on or bound only by sight and experience; such knowledge comes from God).
4. (the entity) Knowledge herself.
[from G1097]
KJV: knowledge, science
and since this is a created world, and has a beginning, and the bible records this beginning, then it's a history book.
neither is fully understood by man.
PICJAG.
Not even close. For one thing, science didn't exist as a thing until post Roman times. The "science, so-called" in scripture isn't science at all as we think of it today. Even most creationists realize this.
[1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"
here, G1108 γνῶσις gnosis (gnō'-sis) n which is a noun, is
1. knowing (the act).
2. (by implication) knowledge.
3. (emphatically) absolute knowledge (i.e. an exhaustive knowledge without error; not merely subject to or based on personal observation or perception; actual rational truth, not merely that which is based on or bound only by sight and experience; such knowledge comes from God).
4. (the entity) Knowledge herself.
[from G1097]
KJV: knowledge, science
and since this is a created world, and has a beginning, and the bible records this beginning, then it's a history book.
neither is fully understood by man.
PICJAG.[/QUOTE]
No. For one thing, science as we have it today, didn't even exist as a thing until post-Roman times.
And the "science, so-called" in scripture refers to that which we would call philosophy or mysticism today:
The important thing here is the meaning of original Greek word translated ‘science’, which is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com
Luther said he wouldn't waste a word arguing with anyone who didn't consider the Bible as the Word of God. Shows he had a strong, commendable view of revealed truth.
Good thing that other Christians didn't feel that way. Christianity would not be the widespread faith that it is today, if we had only evangelized receptive people.
101G
Well-Known Member
GINOLJC, to all.
we must disagree with your assessment of Science/Knowledge of this created world. man was using science from the creation, building cities, Iron work, Music, ect... so on, the romans and the Greeks are johnny comes lately. even Daniel and the wise men was using science, which is given by God.
Daniel 1:3 "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;"
Daniel 1:4 "Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans."
and as for this God given Science, he, God manifested science from the creation. it was man who just slaped a label on it. scripture, Genesis 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
dividing day and night, the The day/night curve is called the terminator. hence geometry, but that was done in the beginning when he, God created the heavens and the earth.
signs, eclipse, and elliptical orbits and its equation, just the moon itself, new, full, and blood ones. it goes on and on.
seasons, the earth axis tilt of precession, rotation. with these effect of the sun on the earth we get, a. tidal effects. b. the scientific term called precession, is this spinning, or rotation of the earth on its axis's, which causes the seasons. notice the bible said "for seasons". and by its Orbits, the earth, the moon, and the sun, we have more signs. and these signs are set by pedigree and Apogee of the earth from the sun and the moon.
so right in the measure of days, or may I say solar days, we have confirmed scientific terminology of 1. orbit, and in these orbits we have 2. trajectory, which declare signs and wonders. HOW? In the placement of Earth orbit from the sun this is what scientist call pedigree and Apogee. without these set distances, eclipses would not be possible, as with the moon also. but with said distance we have different phases of the moon and of the sun. yes all of this science is right here in the bible in this very one verse. these trajectory of the moon and the sun in their pedigree and Apogee produce what we see as eclipses of both the sun and the moon. again the bible is confirmed by science.
for days. so to get a solar day, a. first the spinning of the earth itself. for without this spinning, or rotation one could not get a 24hr. solar day. and out perfect gravity. Also we have the position of the stars, with the movement of the earth and the sun, we have in science what we calls “astronomy” its all there right in the creation account.
understand, science by men, be they Greek, or Roman just put labels on what God have already provided. and there is much Science just in the creation account alone that will keep men busy for many life times.
but do we even have to mention, Volatilization, as stated by God in Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good". so yes we must reject your assessment of the creation of God by men. science in the bible is all through it.
PICJAG.
You've confused science and technology. Two different things. Science is a process, used to understand the physical universe. The Greeks began the process, but the Romans had little use for it, and it didn't appear in the sense we think of it until the Muslims handed it over to the European thinkers of the Renaissance.
101G
Well-Known Member
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,744
- 5,599
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Ugh!
This entire matter is the result of men not perceiving the things of God as being "the same yesterday, today, and forever."
Which truth, if actually believed and taken literally, makes time the illusion that science finds agreeable, but likewise unacceptable, to their own dismay.
Believe it...and all this nonsense goes away.
This entire matter is the result of men not perceiving the things of God as being "the same yesterday, today, and forever."
Which truth, if actually believed and taken literally, makes time the illusion that science finds agreeable, but likewise unacceptable, to their own dismay.
Believe it...and all this nonsense goes away.
Yehren writes:
You've confused science and technology. Two different things. Science is a process, used to understand the physical universe. The Greeks began the process, but the Romans had little use for it, and it didn't appear in the sense we think of it until the Muslims handed it over to the European thinkers of the Renaissance.
"Good answer" in this case, means "an answer 101G likes, or at least has a reasonable reply for."
You, too.
You've confused science and technology. Two different things. Science is a process, used to understand the physical universe. The Greeks began the process, but the Romans had little use for it, and it didn't appear in the sense we think of it until the Muslims handed it over to the European thinkers of the Renaissance.
"Good answer" in this case, means "an answer 101G likes, or at least has a reasonable reply for."
You, too.
Similar threads
