Is the Bible supported by Science?

DOES A TYRANNOSAURUS REX NEED A POODLE FOR ITS DEFENSE?For centuries Christians have interpreted and defended the Bible with science. The question is, does the text in the original language and in its historical meaning - does it fit the scientific system? Could the authors have ever imagined that later generations would use our assumptions, our methodologies, even our mathematical laws to defend what they wrote?If we used hermeneutics to interpret what the bible says about matter, we could see how the Bible defeats science. Two thousand years ago Peter predicted the first principle, the most elementary assumption of the last days. This little assumption is the historical basis of Western scientific reasoning.There is a simple answer to our struggles trying to make the Bible scientific. Examine the first principle, the elementary assumption, that the Bible repeatedly contradicts. The God of the Bible, the God of justice, can even triumph over science without using any deception at all. The answer to the puzzle involves examining and testing the first principle of science, its historical elementary dogma.

I'm having trouble figuring out your meaning, or even what your position is. Perhaps you could define hermeneutics and fill in some of the other blanks, such as what first principle Peter predicted, what was the elementary assumption of the last days, what assumption is the historical basis of western scientific reasoning, and what puzzle it is you're referring to at the end. Don't explain it to me, just rewrite the post so that your position and reasoning are clear.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hermeneutics are the rules for interpreting a text. We should interpret it simply, literally (not allegorically), using what the words meant when they were written. Fundamentalist Christians use this method to interpret spiritual truths, but in general we interpret biblical-earth history with science. (We have two methods for interpreting the Bible).In the context of speaking about the stars and the physical earth, Peter tells us what is the first thing we need to know. Using hermeneutical principles, my exegesis of II Peter 3:4b is: panta houts diamenei apo archs ktises.Panta: the idea of oneness , a totality, the whole. [anarthrous construction is intended to point out the quality of something.]houts: in this mannerdiamenei: to remain permanently in the same state or condition, to remain the same in being or relation.apo: the separation of a part from the whole; the going forth or proceeding of one object from another object.archs: in Peter's day children still studied the basic assumptions of the philosophers. In the school house meaning (context is physical things) it means the first principle or first assumption, the first in time and importance; the original material from which everything has its being; the fundamental laws which control the universe.ktises: an institution, an ordinance, the founding of a city or colony [bgcolor=grey]English paraphrase quoting the mockers of the last days: Since the ancestors slept [died], the quality of everything has remained the same in being or relation since one object came from another - the first principle, basic law or ordinance. [/color]They do not believe that matter itself changes in its being or as a relationship.Is this exegesis valid? It is a prophesy of the end times. If we are in the end times, and the Bible is God’s prophetic book, we should notice that this is the first principle, the basic assumption used for an entire way of thinking. No one questions this today, and yet everyone uses the idea that matter is unchanging, therefore it must be our first principle. Aristotle invented the idea that matter does not change. Fifteen hundred years later, Christians used Aristotlean metaphysics as the foundation for western science in the 13th century. This idea is the historical conceptual basis of western physics. We could not even define things like mass and western ideas of time, much less invent mathematical laws of science, without using this assumption.In Greek, the Bible states that gold is self deteriorating right now. (I Peter 1:7) It even explains how everything in creation decays using the same word [phthora] that Plato used for fundamental change in matter itself (Romans 8:19 - 22).Why should Christians question the assumption that even kindergartners do not question today? (1) It is a simple exegesis of what the Bible says. (2) Without this assumption, we would not need to image that the universe is full of undetectable things like a dark matter, a big bang, dark energy, black holes, cosmological expansion etc. (3) Without this assumption as our dogma, we might notice that simple evidence in the distant galaxies and earth’s geology supports exactly what the Old Testament text says, although it does not fit scientific reasoning.Why is it so difficult to think about a first principle? Science is taught as a functional system without ever examining its historical dogma. Questioning something so elementary is difficult because it calls into question our whole structured way of thinking.Peter said the most important, the first thing to know, is this first principle which just happens to be the historical conceptual basis of western scientific reasoning. Can God really do what the Bible says? Can he really defeat the wisdom of this age with their own reasoning? (I Corinthians 3:18 - 22) It seems He already has, but we have been trying to use the world’s wisdom to support His word. Think about it.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-12-2005 01:53 PM

Hi Ptolemy,Thanks for the great effort. That's much better, but there are still two issues:

• I'm not sure what point you want to discuss. Your title, "Is the Bible supported by Science," implies that your looking for objective support from the natural world for the Bible, but the post itself never seems to pose this question. The main point of the post appears to be a first principle, but this doesn't appear to have anything to do with the title.
  ​
• About your assertion that matter is unchanging, let me know if I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but I can't release a new thread that appears based upon something so wrong. We already know that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. We also know that matter *does* change from one element to another through radioactive decay, through nuclear fission, and through nuclear fusion. Were you actually trying to say something else?

Please let me know your responses to these issues.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I would like to discuss objective simple evidence that supports literal biblical creationism. However, evidence about earth-history is strongly influenced by the most basic assumptions. My claim is that the Bible has the simple answers, but one must approach this with biblical principles, rather than the scientific assumptions that history shows we got from the Greeks.For example. It is unlikely that matter could be made of semi independent attributes - mass, energy, time - as we assume. The quantum evidence shows that matter has non local and dual natures. The Bible implies that matter is a RELATIONSHIP with light. Genesis 1:1 - 3 tells us that God finished the heavens and the earth on the first day [Hebrew completed action]. Yet what He made had no form or shape until HE created light. Quantum evidences simply show that matter (an atom) is part of a highly complex relationship. Atomic entities do not act in simple ways, even when we try to break them down into simpler particles. Nuclear fission even shows that this relationship is with light - split an atom and prodigious amounts of light escape. An atom is full of virtual light [darkness] whose paths are mysterious. God himself speaks of the house of light, its mysterious paths and its border in Job 38:19 - 21.Neither radioactive decay nor the Second Law fit what the Apostle Paul says about this universal decay. He twice uses words for soldiers obeying their generals in an orderly way to describe how everything in creation decays. He twice uses Greek together-words to illustrate this fundamental change [Greek phthora.] (Romans 8:19 - 22). The light from every atom in the distant universe is shifted in a way that implies an orderly change since often the dimmest (farthest in the past) light is shifted the most. Furthermore, the Hubble deeps show compact naked galaxies, often in strings like links on a chain. The simplest way to interpret what does not look, move or have the same shape as local galaxies is that matter does indeed shift as a relationship. (By the way, if matter shifted in such a way, experiments could not detect it locally, because most of our instruments and even our units of measurement are designed using the assumption that matter does change in an orderly way - as a relationship). Isaiah says the earth stretches out [Hebrew continuous action]. Yet for many years I did not believe that - because a first principle [stoicheon - elementary assumption] of philosophy enslaved me - just like Paul warned in Colossians 2:8. There is simple evidence that substantiates that the primordial earth was indeed much smaller and that it expanded in the very way the Bible states. My contention is that it is impossible to show consistent simple evidences that support a literal Biblical earth-history without first dealing with the most important issue of first principles. It is indeed the first thing we need to know, as Peter stated.

This still seems very vague and poorly defined. Your last revision gives me a better idea of what you want to discuss, but we need to give it some focus because you've included matter, energy, radioactive decay, thermodynamics and Biblical references. And you neglected to describe what it was Peter stated. Remember, this isn't you and me having a discussion. This is you and me working together toward a dynamite introductory post.Also, your acknowledgement of change seems to contradict Peter's first principle as you stated it in Message 3: Since the ancestors slept [died], the quality of everything has remained the same in being or relation since one object came from another - the first principle, basic law or ordinance.I can tell that this makes sense to you. What you have to do is describe it in a way that makes sense to others.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A first principle is fundamental. It is not easy to analyze such a basic assumption because it is the basis of scientific definitions, laws and theories. I am suggesting that there is a simple answer to the many difficulties that Christians struggle with. These include subjects such as the apparent age of the earth versus the limited number of generations listed in the Bible; the vast distances / age of the galaxies versus the biblical forming of the stars a few thousand years ago; galactic and solar system history e.g. why the ancients (and the Bible) mentioned things about the stars and the planets that do not fit our assumptions; geology before and after the flood etc. If we use the simple principles from the Bible as fundamental, instead of the Greek ones, we could see that there is a non mathematical answer that is supported by simple evidence that makes biblical earth-history triumphant.Of course it will seem foolish to those who are accustomed to using Greek first principles. Yet the Bible commands us in the imperative, that if we seek to be wise in the things of THIS AGE [touto aion] we should rather be fools [moros] because He is taking the wise with their own wisdom.In Peter's prophesy he is not saying that matter does not change, he is quoting the mockers of the last days. He himself said the opposite, that gold is right now self corrupting. (I Peter 1:7 Greek verb tense).What I want to show your readers is that there is a simple answer to a wide range of creation / evolution discussions - but it is fundamental. Topic heading could be Is the First principle of science false? I can assure you that I can use the Bible along with simple evidence and that the results will not bring discredit on the Bible. But I will seek to show how wise God is - rather than glorify humanistic reasoning. I hope to show that biblical principles fit what we observe in the universe and what the ancients said about how things were a few thousand years ago.

I suggest that you state very clearly what this first principle is. Then give your reasons for suggesting it is wrong. Unless you are able to articulate what you are on about there is no use in opening a discussion.

I have given a simple exegesis of the scripture that predicts the first principle of the last days. I have shown that this exegesis is probably valid because Peter’s prediction has come true. Even kindergartners use this basic assumption today. What is it? It is the idea that all physical things do not change in being or relation. Things that change as a relation - change together. Paul twice uses together words to illustrate this universal corruption [phthora] in Romans 8:19 - 22. In Greek, the word phthora was used for great change. Plato even used this word for genesis - phthora - how matter is formed and subsequently is changed and corrupts.You have proved my point that we are in the last days and that this is the first principle. You can’t imagine thinking without using this assumption as the standard of truth in the physical realm. Paul even warned us that the elementary assumptions [stoicheon] of philosophy take us like military prisoners. (Colossians 2:8)The Bible is consistent on the subject of physical change. For example, Isaiah twice states that the earth expands - stretches out. He even says that everything from or on the earth also stretches out. He uses a Hebrew tense that means continuous action. Why do Christians not believe this? It is not because there is a lack of simple evidence that the primordial earth was much smaller. (The continents do not fit back together except on a smaller globe and the Bible makes it clear that the stretching of the earth is on the water). You see we judge the Bible with the assumptions that history shows we got from a pagan philosopher. He says he cannot give us wisdom if we are double minded.Aristotle’s Assumption is so basic that no one today seems to question it. For example, scientists image a universe that is more than 90% undetectable - dark matter, dark energy etc. The evidence for these things is mathematical, not visible, and based on this very assumption. If we took what the Bible says about astronomy and matter as fundamentally true, we would not need a single undetectable thing. You see scientists must invent all kinds of undetectable stuff to protect the very assumption that Peter predicts is the first principle of the last days.Why does the list have thousands of posts that interminably go on and on. Why can’t Christians win? Paul predicted when we will win. He says the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. Then he tells us we can destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the KNOWLEDGE [gnosis] of God. He says that we can do this when our obedience is complete. Why is it so hard to obey His word and reject the basic assumptions that history shows we got from the pagan philosophers?I am suggesting a topic that shows how the Bible triumphs over scientific reasoning and you seemingly want me to adjust it to fit that reasoning. Sorry I can’t do that. My dogma is that the Bible is God’s triumphant word and I refuse to tailor it to fit the western culture.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-12-2005 03:24 PM

Hi Ptolemy,I'll ask one of the admins who focuses more on religious philosophy to look this over, but so far there are three people who have read your posts and who can't figure out what you're getting at, and since one of them is evangelical with little scientific background (see Message 82), the problem is not scientific reasoning. The primary criteria is people being able to figure out what you're talking about.Have you had any success with this at other discussion boards?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

As a Christian I don't have a clue what you're talking about.Let me try a simple question.Are you saying that there is a First Principle that things are unchanging?

---

Hi, Ptolemy. I commend you for your good articulation and spelling...yet I have trouble understanding you because of the broadness and wordiness of this topic. I will highlight what I see as important debatable topics. My answer to the above question is no. I.D. uses a prior conclusion: God==and then attempts to construct a methodology. Science starts with methadology. Thus...no agreement. OK..but if you want to do it this way than you need to use strict scripture and not attempt to use worldly wisdom to prove a spiritual point.1)Rewrite an opening post.
2) Limit it to two paragraphs.
3) Pick one argument to debate.
4) I think you should go into Bible Accuracy/Inerrency.
You are not going to cut it in the science forums. God cannot be reduced to a simple proof.
Many other I.D. creationists have found a problem getting anyone to take their logic seriously.

I am saying that the modern first principle is that matter does not change in its being - as a relationship. For example we think that atoms are perpetual motion machines. I didn’t even know this assumption existed until I read about it in the Bible and then looked in history to confirm that it historically was the foundation of modern rationality. It is difficult to pick a single argument because this assumption affects many areas of science. Even logic and mathematics would be useless for understanding earth-history if this simple, literal interpretation of the Scripture is correct.The Apostle Paul illustrates how the whole creation changes. He uses two Greek words sustenazo and sunodino that are compound-together words. (Romans 8:19 - 22) Things that change together change as a relationship.Perhaps you are thinking, that atoms can’t change because we have constants. But wait, things that change as a relationship have constants - not because there is no change - but because our equations are constructed in terms of the whole relationship. For example, in a chemical equilibrium, the constants are actually evidence of enormous continuous change at the smallest levels - as billions or reactions in one direction are balanced by billions in the other. Our constants are not evidence that things do not change, but rather that they change as a relationship.You ask me to
1)Rewrite an opening post.
2) Limit it to two paragraphs.
3) Pick one argument to debate.I am trying to debate the first principle which is the historical basis of the Western system - using a literal exegesis of the Bible as the standard of truth.I will try to use your suggestions to come up with a simpler opening paragraph - but this is not a minor issue that is easy to focus in one small area - since it is fundamental to the whole system of Western thinking.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-12-2005 06:43 PM

You seem to be saying that the basic assumption of modern science is:
"There are constant values of the ratio's between certain measured things."Is that getting anywhere near what you mean?I suggest that you have three paragraphs:
1) A clear, comprehensible statement of what this first principle is.
2) Your evidence that it is, in fact, the basis for modern science.
3) Your reasons and evidence for why you think it is wrong.Untill you can do this you won't be able to carry on the discussion.So far, my personal opinion (for what little that is worth) is that this is inane gibberish that isn't worth the time it has taken so far. Fortunately for you there are others who might decide you actually hyave something to discuss.When you get clear what that something is there may be someone who will open it up for discussion.What the "being" of matter is I have no clue. What exactly, "as a relationship" means I only have a crazy guess.Perhaps you would help by giving specific examples of the use of this assumption.

So far, no one understands what you're trying to say. It sounds like nonsense, or gibberish as Nosy put it. If you can't simplify your introductory post to the point where people can understand it then it won't get promoted. I don't believe there's any topic so complex it can't be simplified for the uninitiated. So either you simplify it so people understand it, or it won't get promoted. It's as simple as that.Earlier I asked you if you had had any success with this topic at other discussion boards. Well, have you? Could I have a link to one of those discussions?If you haven't participated at discussion boards before, then it might be a good idea if you just tried participating for a while before proposing your own thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director