Investigation of Biblical science errors

I have tried to get answers to this before but they have been conveniently sidestepped so I decided to post a new topic and see if I can for once contain a topic that will be replied to and not ignored due to its diffculty.I have some points here that will be available to debate should anyone decide to. The moon does not produce its own light it merely reflects the sunlight.We must also realize that in order for the light of the sun to increase sevenfold other properties of the sun must also.If you would like an understanding of this check out this humorous website that uses this verse to prove that heaven is hotter than hell.http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm Here we have the obviously impossible example of the sun moving back along its apparent path in the sky in order to move the shadow on the sun dial of Ahaz back ten degrees.The obvious lack of any record of this event anywhere else in the world is one thing but the disruption that would be required in the laws of physics is staggering.We will begin with these.------------------------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

ever hear of personification?

Heck, Sidelined, it just needs to get more reflective! Just 14 magnitudes...that's only, hmmm, 400,000 times more reflective....tricky, huh?Hi, Logan! What does "personification" have to do with sundials?

LoganGator Please enlighten me as to the connection with my post.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

just wanna know what books and verse you are quoting?

ezerYou will find them at Isaiah 30:26 and Isaiah 38:8.I am hopeful that perhaps this will bump the discussion back onto the scene.

Might as well demand some scientific sense out of the Illiad or the Odyssey.

LamAfter my first reading of each of those epics, I received no
scientific inspiration from the Illiad or the Odyssey. I know what you are trying to say, but after having read the Bible also, I see a great many differences between Homer's works, and what some call God's word. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, as it is often said, but it does reveal scientific truths.Let me give a few examples: Until the 1960, most astronomers did not believe there was a beginning. They believed in what I believe they called the steady-state theory, which basically described the universe as unchanging and eternal. Of coarse, in the 1950's Penzias and Wilson discovered what was believed to be the echo of the Big Bang, and scientists were finally convinced that there was a beginning choosing to believe in the Big Bang theory. Interestingly what took science until the 1960's to finally conclude, was stated matter-of-factly in the first verse of the Bible.The Bible also speaks of black holes in space, the complexities of weather patterns, and many other very fascinating issues that modern science is only begining to unravel.Does this mean abandon science, thinking that the Bible provides all answers? Certainly not, for while the Bible may reveal certain truths, its primary motive is the message of becoming united with God again.Having said that, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Bible and science do not contradict each other, only our interpretations of each do.Respectfully,
The Apostle

quote:

---

Let me give a few examples: Until the 1960, most astronomers did not believe there was a beginning. They believed in what I believe they called the steady-state theory, which basically described the universe as unchanging and eternal. Of coarse, in the 1950's Penzias and Wilson discovered what was believed to be the echo of the Big Bang, and scientists were finally convinced that there was a beginning choosing to believe in the Big Bang theory. Interestingly what took science until the 1960's to finally conclude, was stated matter-of-factly in the first verse of the Bible.

---

You've been misinformed about the history of astronomy and astrophysics.Scientists started believing that the Universe was ever changing back to Kepler's time. It was when Kepler and many other astronomers at the time witnessed the first recorded super nova (appearance of a new star) in the heavens. Of course, people like you at the time tried to suppress this information the best they could.The Steady-state theory was proposed in the late 40's, which was after the big bang theory was proposed. No, most scientists did not accept the steady-state theory over the big bang. Most were impartial for a time.The steady state theory did not say that the universe was ever unchanging and eternal. Because by the 30's, astronomers already figured out that the Universe was expanding. Steady state proposed that matter is continually created while the Universe contiually expands to infinity. Big difference with your claim of eternal and unchanging. In fact, Fri Zwicky's observation in the 30's showed that the Universe weighed a lot less than what it took to hold the galaxies together. But that's another story... with dark matter and all.Here is a picture of Zwicky in 1933. The Steady-state theory had a lot of problems, and the majority of scientists abandoned it after the first decade or so. Only the 1960's that the theory was completely thrown out the window when they discovered the first quasars, which totally contradicted the theory. You can do a search on this if you want because I'm too lazy to go into it now.Regarding the mere coincident that the bible mentioned the Universe having a beginning, what about the Greek creation myth? It also mentioned a beginning doesn't it? Egyptian creation myth also mentioned a beginning to everything.

quote:

---

The Bible also speaks of black holes in space, the complexities of weather patterns, and many other very fascinating issues that modern science is only begining to unravel.

---

Please provide some quotes from the bible please. I will respond to them accordingly. And please please please do not post links or long strings of quotes. I don't have time to read 20 lines of poetry.

The "complexities of weather patterns??" How long do you have to live in a temperate zone on Earth to decide that weather patterns are complex? I don't know for certain about the Levant, but out in this piece of desert it's hot for July and August and complex all the rest of the year, every year. Like Lam said, spare us the poetry about "spreading out of the heavens" and show us anything that's scientific in there.
You can start with the diagnosis and cure of houses infected with leprosy.[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-18-2004]

quote:

---

The Bible also speaks of black holes in space, the complexities of weather patterns, and many other very fascinating issues that modern science is only begining to unravel.

---

I agree with Lam. Please give us the quotations that show that the Bible speaks of these modern discoveries. And please don't reference any ambiguous poetic verses that can only be interpreted as scientific discoveries after the discoveries are made. Make sure the verses are quite unambiguous to what they are referring. Many of us will check the contexts.

LamUnfortunately, I was not misinformed. I myself was mistaken due to my inability to remember the detail, but my source was right. (I just didnt use it). Going back to a few sources on the steady-state theory, I see several errors in the history of what I wrote. The steady state was indeed proposed after the date that I gave.In as far as the nature of the steady state, I believe my description of it was true. It is certainly backed up by my sources. Defenders referred to the 'perfect cosmological principle' which suggested that the earth must be essentially uniform in both time and place. While scientific opinion was not stacked in favor of this view, as I earlier suggested, not all were harsh critics like Sir Herbert Dingle. I would say, that until the discovery of background radiation, for some time, there may have been a split in opinion between the two views: Steady-State and Big Bang.Nevertheless, my original posting is riddled with uncharacteristic errors, and I will have to be more careful next time.Regarding interesting Biblical statements, we shall deal with them individually if it proves worthwhile. Lets begin with the wind.Read Ecclesiastes 1:6. It is interesting that Solomon was familiar with the planetary winds that had them going from south to north and then back south again. Not a huge deal, we may conclude. But I find it interesting.I will deal with other presented concerns at a later date. I have been having trouble contributing here, and the only reason I had time today was because I was forced to stay home because of a beautiful May blizzard.Apostle

You mentioned which might well be interesting if it were correct. Too bad that the global winds are east and west and not north to south.That's the problem with trying to fit these so called predictions and knowledge into the real world.They simply do not fit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Damn, you beat me to it

---

The Laminator

​

[cliff on]Well as the cognisti know, in the beginning, the Earth rotated North to South. That's right, North to South. All the great winds blew from the South and then turned around and headed back.It was only after the startup after the Earth stood still that the rotation changed. One of the Angels, Mickey I think it was, got things screwed up and spun the sucker wrong.That's where we get the term Precession for the changing of the seasons because Mickey didn't have any.[/cliff off]

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion