Could The Bible and Science Both be Correct?

[chad_tukes]

No sense at all.

LOL. FYI, the book of Enoch is NOT INCLUDED IN THE BIBLE. This book is part of the so-called Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books. (Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


Apocrypha comes from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, which means those having been hidden away. The general term is usually applied to the books that were considered by the Church as useful, but not divinely inspired.
Non canonical books are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the work is seriously questioned.
(Apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

This book is NON-CANONICAL in most Christian churches. Only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church regards it to be canonical.
(Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

divinely inspired? we are not talking divinity here. we're talking science. you are deliberately denying a book in which ancient knowledge was included. how is the book of Enoch different from all the rest? the Book of Enoch was excluded primarily because of its cosmological contents, but you can't deny that it was written long before man knew that the earth was in fact, round.

[kebotDiNaMute]

time and time again. this is a lousy excuse...no word for round jibbajaba. they had a hebrew word for "ball" which would be more closely suited to earth as an OBLATE SPHEROID rather than using CIRCLE. ano PISO?lolz

/sigh.

circle, ball, piso, sphere are all round. Sometimes we give analogy to something that does not apply to something. Point is they are all round. It never said FLAT? did it? hmmm... u have to understand, they got limited words at the time to understand what... by the way if talk about the word MATH in the old times they wont understand...

it so happen that to day we have a more precise way of describing things compared 2000 years ago.

nice try munzstar!

[kebotDiNaMute]

divinely inspired? we are not talking divinity here. we're talking science. you are deliberately denying a book in which ancient knowledge was included. how is the book of Enoch different from all the rest? the Book of Enoch was excluded primarily because of its cosmological contents, but you can't deny that it was written long before man knew that the earth was in fact, round.

Chad, can you tell us why we should include those books? what do you know about those... just to start with...

lets go chad.. i want to learn that one also...

[bluedes]

shhh! blue, in a cookbook, you cannot avoid to mention numbers... because you have to quantify something... do you get me? if you quantify something you use the foundation of math... if you tell us that bible is pure religious book then you are WRONG.


It mentioned the number of stars... Yet we just confirmed its number.... this goes with astrology.
therefore does it mean the bible is wrong when it encompasses a different descipline? hmmm... evolution attempted the same way... yet it has always been proven wrong... theories comes up to support it.. that is why it remains a theory.

Going back, If the cookbook mentioned about 4 tablespoon, dont ask it how many kilos... I hope this helps your case.

oh my gulay..

you actually believe that the Bible is something else other than a religious book? ambot nimo kebz.. ikaw lng..

since when did the Bible become another thing except being a religious book? It's a book of scripture.. do you see scientific principles in that book? do you see statistical data and experimental results? do you even see any hint of mathematical proof in the Bible?

ikaw lng kebz.. *sigh*

[kebotDiNaMute]

oh my gulay..

you actually believe that the Bible is something else other than a religious book? ambot nimo kebz.. ikaw lng..

since when did the Bible become another thing except being a religious book? It's a book of scripture.. do you see scientific principles in that book? do you see statistical data and experimental results? do you even see any hint of mathematical proof in the Bible?

ikaw lng kebz.. *sigh*

blue what your are implying is those implications are not supported by science... and thats what im trying to tell yes it is...

im not saying you can use it to prove mathematical data... what i am trying to tell you is that those mentioned above are confirmed true and correct as far as science is concerned.

but you said only RELIGIOUS BOOK.

sorry blue... you have to consider evidence in all aspect to prove it right or wrong. If the dimension of noah's ark is wrong, then it creates bias... afterall its already biased within you. Refusing to believe?

In an arithmetic book, you can not find quadratic expression, nor statistical data... don't ask those that are outside the limit of its content...

[jocons]

you are all correct!!!

[blue_ice]

divinely inspired? we are not talking divinity here. we're talking science. you are deliberately denying a book in which ancient knowledge was included. how is the book of Enoch different from all the rest? the Book of Enoch was excluded primarily because of its cosmological contents, but you can't deny that it was written long before man knew that the earth was in fact, round.

Lol. Pataka ra ka bai. Pagtuon daw ug history.

We're talking about BIBLE and SCIENCE. The book of Enoch is not included in the bible. So don't include scriptural evidences that are not part of the bible.

Pytaghoras (b. 570 BCE) was among the first persons to KNOW that the earth is round long before the "book of Enoch" was written. He reasoned that Earth and the other planets must be spheres, since the most harmonious geometric solid form is a sphere.
(Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

TAKE NOTE: According to Western scholars the book of Enoch's older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BCE and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BCE;
(Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And... the reason why the Book of Enoch is not included in the bible is because this book is apocryphical and Non canonical because of its uncertain authenticity NOT because of its cosmological contents.
(Apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Just a friendly advice, provide facts, not myths.
Provide links, not opinions.

[blue_ice]

oh my gulay..

you actually believe that the Bible is something else other than a religious book? ambot nimo kebz.. ikaw lng..

since when did the Bible become another thing except being a religious book? It's a book of scripture.. do you see scientific principles in that book? do you see statistical data and experimental results? do you even see any hint of mathematical proof in the Bible?

ikaw lng kebz.. *sigh*

Again, the BIBLE is not a SCIENCE book but it includes scientific principles.

The word "SCIENCE" is even found in the bible:
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.

Scientific Proof of the Bible


Scientific Fact or Principle Bible reference Date of discovery by man
Both man and woman possess the seed of life Genesis 3:15 17th Century
There is a place void of stars in the North Job 26:7 19th Century
Earth is held in place by invisible forces Job 26:7 1650
Taxonomic classification of matter Genesis 1 1735
Day and night occur simultaneously on Earth Luke 17:34 15th Century
Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man Leviticus 11 16th Century
Early diagnosis of leprosy Leviticus 13 17th Century
Quarantine for disease control Leviticus 13 17th Century
Blood of animals carries diseases Leviticus 17 17th Century
Blood is necessary for life Leviticus 17:11 19th Century
Oceans have natural paths in them Psalms 8:8 1854
Earth was in nebular form initially Genesis 1:2 1911
Most seaworthy ship design ratio is 30:5:3 Genesis 6 1860
Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) Job 38:19 1932
Radio astronomy (stars give off signals) Job 38:7 1945
Oceans contain fresh water springs Job 38:16 1920
Snow has material value Job 38:22 1905, 1966
Infinite number of stars exist Genesis 15:5 1940
Dust is important to survival Isaiah 40:12 1935
Hubert Spencer's scientific principles Genesis 1 1820
Air has weight Job 28:25 16th Century
Light can be split up into component colors Job 38:24 1650
Matter is made up of invisible particles Romans 1:20 20th Century
Plants use sunlight to manufacture food Job 8:16 1920
Arcturus and other stars move through space Job 38:32 19th Century
Water cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7 17th Century
Life originated in the sea Genesis 1 19th Century
Lightning and thunder are related Job 38:25 19th Century
Man was the last animal created Genesis 1 15th Century

(SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE)

[blue_ice]

blue what your are implying is those implications are not supported by science... and thats what im trying to tell yes it is...

im not saying you can use it to prove mathematical data... what i am trying to tell you is that those mentioned above are confirmed true and correct as far as science is concerned.

but you said only RELIGIOUS BOOK.

sorry blue... you have to consider evidence in all aspect to prove it right or wrong. If the dimension of noah's ark is wrong, then it creates bias... afterall its already biased within you. Refusing to believe?

In an arithmetic book, you can not find quadratic expression, nor statistical data... don't ask those that are outside the limit of its content...

I agree with you kebotDiNaMute!

[blue_ice]

time and time again. this is a lousy excuse...no word for round jibbajaba. they had a hebrew word for "ball" which would be more closely suited to earth as an OBLATE SPHEROID rather than using CIRCLE. ano PISO?lolz

LOL.
The famous book which is used by Hebrew scholars, A concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures (1876) by B. Davidson defines "Chuwg" as CIRCLE or SPHERE.
(http://ia311311.us.archive.org/3/ite...fheb00davi.pdf)

FYI.

#1
The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.

#2
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.


PRESENT FACTS, NOT OPINIONS