First, let me say that I agree that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible, but not because there is any good science in the Bible, but because the purpose of the Bible is not to teach us science but to teach us about relationships; God's relationship with Man, Man's relationship with God, Man's relationship with his fellow Man and Man's relationship with the world we live in.
There are parts of the Bible that like Just So Stories try to explain some of the reality of the world we live in, but unfortunately their explanations are almost uniformly wrong. That does not mean they are not plausible, often they are plausible, they are just wrong.
One example I often quote here is the "Water Above, the Waters Below, and the Dome of the Sky that separates them."
If you look at it from the perspective of someone living 4000 or 5000 years ago, their solution was plausible. It rained, so there must be a body of water in the sky. To keep the water up there, some barrier was needed, some solid lid that kept the water in place. So the sky must be some solid dome that holds back the water.
But it didn't rain all the time or even in all areas at once, so there had to be some means of opening doors or windows in that dome to let some water fall through, then closing them to stop the water flow.
The same can be said of the Water Below. They knew that if you dug a hole, sometimes it would fill with water. There had to be some body of water below the ground too, and like the Waters Above, only when you opened a hole (dug a well) would the water escape.
The description you quote is not accurate scientifically. It may record an observation, just as the Waters Above, Dome of the Sky and Waters Below recorded an observation, it might even have been plausible, but the explanation is wrong.
The people, like way to many Christian Pastors, that try to peddle the Bible as Scientifically accurate do a disservice to Science, to Theology and particularly to Christianity. By making unfounded claims, ones that if their student actually does any studying will be shown to be patently false, they set up a situation that often leads to the individual losing their faith.
You also need to get a few things straight. The assertion that 2000 years ago people thought the sun was 1 meter in diameter is simply a lie. There is no other way to describe it.
By 2000 years ago people had a pretty good idea of many things, that the earth was a sphere, what its diameter was, and from that, they could even get pretty good ideas of the relative diameters of both the Moon and Sun. Almost two hundred and fifty years before Jesus was born, the diameter of the Earth had not only been measured but several additional experiments had been carried out to refine those measurements.
Once the diameter of the Earth was known, it was pretty obvious that both the sun and the moon were considerably larger than 1 meter (or any small object. It was clear that the Earth was slightly larger than the Moon and that the sun was bigger than the Moon and so must be further away).
I will leave it to you to figure out how those two things must be true.
But Science and the Bible are not at odds. They serve two different purposes. Science is, for the theist, the study of "How GOD did it." Every day we learn more and more about How this Universe works. We can learn none of that from the Bible.
The Bible though is still a great resource to teach us about those relationships.
Re: The verse in question is supposed to be the words of Jesus
AA, this verse is something that Jesus himself is saying. By saying that Jesus doesnâ€™t know how to explain it, or that Jesus is just saying what he sees without understanding it, you are saying that Jesus isnâ€™t the omniscient God. If you want to convince people that Jesus was just some bloke in the wilderness, you are welcome to do so, but to first claim that the Bible predicts science and then to call Jesus ignorant when you are challenged really doesnâ€™t support your claim.
It would take us too far off topic to fully address that here, but for Jesus message to make any sense, he had to be ignorant. I would love to see you start a thread on that though.
True. The original term likely meant either "little speck of light stuck on the inside of the firmament" or possibly "pinhole in the firmament."
Since it is pretty obvious that many folk of the period thought that the firmament was an actual, physical dome, that is probably correct.
And you need not think for a moment that anyone in 90AD knew about asteroids.
That part though is likely wrong. They knew about meteorites, and collected and used them as a source for iron. They even knew that they came from the sky.
They did not though know the origin, the history or the mechanics of meteorites and all of their speculations about them, were wrong. Beyond the simple observation that sometimes rocks fell from the sky and that some of those rocks were metal of a very high quality, they were clueless.
The point is that nothing in the passages is scientific. It can be taken for a sign just as thunder was a sign of Zeus' displeasure.
Don't make the mistake of thinking the Bible is consistent.
I don't remember the thread but without a link to the conversation I will simply accept what you posted.
You need to remember that the Bible is not consistent. This is particularly true in regard to the physical world. That is to be expected when you stop to realize that you are looking at stories written over many hundreds of years if not thousands of years.
One basic concept that appears in some of the older stories is of a firmament.
The firmament was literally thought to be a dome, a solid object, that separated the waters above from the earth. It had to be solid or all the water would fall down. It also had to have parts that could be opened or closed to explain rain.
Stars, the Sun and the Moon could either be inside of the dome, or the dome could be transparent so that their light shined through.
That would not prevent some other author from writing a tale were the heavens were fiery and the stars were pin holes in the firmament that let the light through.
Do not make the mistake of assuming consistency is required of the stories in the Bible.
You have to earn your way into allah's kngdom by killing infidels (like myself and the Jews).
Actually, I have read the Qur'an and you are full of shit. I've also read the Tao Te Ching, the works of Mencius, of Confucius, the Norse Sagas, The Eightfold Path and many other such sources.
And although the topic is "Where Science And The Bible Meet", I expect there will be far more Muslims, Atheists and Satanists in heaven than your brand of Christians. If you actually read the Bible I think you will find that your brand of Christians are but the goats Jesus speaks of in Matthew 25 and he will tell you "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Now on the off chence you actually have something on topic, it is "Where Science And The Bible Meet".
Sure, that was full of shit too. Not only that everything in Revelations was about stuff that happened 1800 or so years ago, so if it prophesied satellite tv and internet shopping it is just yet another example of a failed prophecy. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
If everything in the book of revelation happened 1800 years ago, then why are there still things like, mountains and islands? Where is the Kingdom of God that you suppose descended from heaven and is said to rest in Jerusalem? Where's the marrage feast of the lamb? The thousand year reign? The new hevens and the new earth? And why is the sun still here? Like I said....if you read it, it didn't sink in.