Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2018 7:16 PM
226 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, Meddle (4 members, 222 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Nator2
Post Volume:
Total: 830,257 Year: 5,080/29,783 Month: 1,012/1,467 Week: 209/462 Day: 38/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 1 of 208 (396065)
04-18-2007 7:47 PM


I have heard many people say that Science and the Bible are enemies and do not fit together at all. In reality the people that make that statement are wrong:

There are many places in the Bible which have been scientifically been proven to be accurate. For example, read Matthew 24:29. That scene can also be found in Mark and Luke. If you know anything about science, then you'd know why it is scientifical. Look at how once the Sun gets darkened, the moon also loses brightness as a result.

My point? Keep in mind that 2,000 years ago, people thought that the Sun was 1 meter in diameter. How can the people be able to tell such scientific facts and have them be proven right later after much debate? [The book of Matthew was written at about 50 AD].

Edited by ArchArchitect, : AdminSchraf said that the wording was confusing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-18-2007 7:54 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Doddy, posted 04-21-2007 10:42 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 10:52 PM ArchArchitect has responded
 Message 14 by ReverendDG, posted 04-22-2007 6:41 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 04-22-2007 1:11 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2007 1:25 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 18 by jar, posted 04-22-2007 1:58 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 22 by iceage, posted 04-23-2007 12:46 AM ArchArchitect has responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2007 6:58 AM ArchArchitect has responded
 Message 26 by purpledawn, posted 04-23-2007 7:37 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2007 8:34 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 102 by doctrbill, posted 12-27-2007 3:27 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 200 by Sky-Writing, posted 02-11-2010 12:15 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 207 by achristian1985, posted 02-27-2010 3:17 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 208 (396068)
04-18-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:47 PM


So, what is the point you are wanting to debate?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:47 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 3 of 208 (396073)
04-18-2007 8:02 PM


People keep saying that the Bible and Science are enemies. In reality they are not.
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-19-2007 7:36 AM ArchArchitect has responded

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 208 (396214)
04-19-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 8:02 PM


I am not inclined to promote this topic as it is written as it is unclear and confusing.

I suggest starting with this:

People keep saying that the Bible and Science are enemies. In reality they are not.

And then clearly list a few points that you believe supports your premise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 8:02 PM ArchArchitect has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:05 PM AdminSchraf has responded

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 5 of 208 (396727)
04-21-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminSchraf
04-19-2007 7:36 AM


So how do I do that? Do I have to edit this one, or start it from the beginning? If I have to edit it, how do I do that? I don't see any options to edit it..
~Thanks~
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-19-2007 7:36 AM AdminSchraf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-21-2007 10:01 PM ArchArchitect has responded

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 208 (396748)
04-21-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ArchArchitect
04-21-2007 9:05 PM


In the lower right corner of the OP message, there are three buttons. One of them says "edit". Click that and do your thing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 9:05 PM ArchArchitect has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-21-2007 10:09 PM AdminSchraf has not yet responded

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 7 of 208 (396750)
04-21-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminSchraf
04-21-2007 10:01 PM


ok I did it. Is it clearer now?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminSchraf, posted 04-21-2007 10:01 PM AdminSchraf has not yet responded

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 208 (396758)
04-21-2007 10:30 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 9 of 208 (396760)
04-21-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:47 PM


Beside the point
It's not the parts that match up that are the problem, it's the parts that don't.

For example, the Catholics and the Protestants both believed some things and agreed on them, but were always at war because of the parts they didn't agree on.

Likewise with science and religion; they may both agree that the light of the moon is caused by the light of the sun, but that doesn't mean they are compatible.

Edited by Doddy, : speeling


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:47 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

    
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 10 of 208 (396764)
04-21-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:47 PM


The verse in question
KJV: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"

RSV: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken".

Point 1: There's no indication that the darkening of the Sun is the cause of the darkening of the moon.

Point 2: In both translations, the light is specifically attributed to the moon itself ("her light", "its light").

Point 3: In the very next phrase of the verse, a scientific impossibility is asserted - that the stars will "fall from heaven".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:47 PM ArchArchitect has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-22-2007 1:52 AM Zhimbo has responded

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 11 of 208 (396789)
04-22-2007 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Zhimbo
04-21-2007 10:52 PM


Re: The verse in question
In both translations, the light is specifically attributed to the moon itself

The people who were seeing the visions did not know how to explain it. The science of that time said that the moon gave its own light. He saw in his vision that the Sun got dark, and AFTER that, the moon not longer was bright. According to the science of that time, the moon stopped giving its light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 10:52 PM Zhimbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2007 6:16 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 13 by ReverendDG, posted 04-22-2007 6:33 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Zhimbo, posted 04-22-2007 9:54 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Equinox, posted 04-25-2007 12:40 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13755
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 208 (396805)
04-22-2007 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ArchArchitect
04-22-2007 1:52 AM


Re: The verse in question
So let me sum up your argument, If part of one verse in the Bible can be shown to be consistent with modern science there can be no conflict between religion and science.

Would you like to explain how the conclusion follows from the evidence ?

And a further question. Given that in this case knowledge of science is required for the "proper" understanding of the verse, would you extend that principle to deal with the apparent conflicts between religion and science that do exist ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-22-2007 1:52 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1850 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 13 of 208 (396806)
04-22-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ArchArchitect
04-22-2007 1:52 AM


Re: The verse in question
The people who were seeing the visions did not know how to explain it. The science of that time said that the moon gave its own light. He saw in his vision that the Sun got dark, and AFTER that, the moon not longer was bright. According to the science of that time, the moon stopped giving its light.

Yes and the bible is wrong. the fact that they didn't understand that the moon doesn't produce light doesn't excuse the fact that the bible is wrong about it

The people who were seeing the visions did not know how to explain it.

you just contradicted yourself, you said they didn't know how to explain it, but according to their science the moon produced light, they thought it gave off light.
thus for their time they did have an explaination but it was wrong
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-22-2007 1:52 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1850 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 14 of 208 (396807)
04-22-2007 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:47 PM


My point? Keep in mind that 2,000 years ago, people thought that the Sun was 1 meter in diameter. How can the people be able to tell such scientific facts and have them be proven right later after much debate? [The book of Matthew was written at about 50 AD].

the reason for the conflict is because the bible is wrong about the physical world,, but people try to fit the facts so they work with the bible.
a fact is a fact, trying to twist the wording of the bible so history and physics works with it is trying to fabricate a lie, none of the bible can be shown to match science in all but the simplest things

by the way matthew has been found to been written at least as early as 70 ad to as late as 110 ad, sorry

Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:47 PM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

    
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 15 of 208 (396819)
04-22-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ArchArchitect
04-22-2007 1:52 AM


Re: The verse in question
quote:
" He saw in his vision that the Sun got dark, and AFTER that, the moon not longer was bright"

There is no "after" in the verse, only "and"'s. By your reading, we should also infer that the moon losing its light is causing the stars to fall from the sky, but you don't seem to be arguing for that.

I'm all for this verse being a poetic expression of Christian eschatology using the understanding of the natural world in the 1st century. And if this is understood as poetic expression, just because it doesn't fit with current understanding doesn't mean one must choose between religion and science.

But there's no indication in that verse that this is an example of science and the Bible "meeting", as per your thread title, nor that the author understood modern astronomical concepts at all, nor any indication of the three events listed being causally related to each other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-22-2007 1:52 AM ArchArchitect has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by sl33w, posted 06-27-2008 5:57 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018