Could The Bible and Science Both be Correct?

[Ger]

---

@bluedes
tan-awa ra, naka ubo nasad ning tawhana... youre treading on shallow waters brother... you have to choose to be on the boat or drown... hehehe

[CIRS]

Could The Bible and Science Both be Correct?

yep bro... no contradiction .... ang mag tao ra gyuy mag contradict kai lain-lain tag views



best known example


Science - says thousands or millions years of gaps about the creation.

Bible - says only 7 days..


to take note that 1 day of God is equal to a thousand of years , so 7 days is not Literal...



Both be correct....

[jamesmusslewhite]

yep bro... no contradiction .... ang mag tao ra gyuy mag contradict kai lain-lain tag views



best known example


Science - says thousands or millions years of gaps about the creation.

Bible - says only 7 days..


to take note that 1 day of God is equal to a thousand of years , so 7 days is not Literal...



Both be correct....

Science says 15 Billion from the Big bang, and the ancient wording of the oldest Hebrew text accepts a timeline of 7 stages pre-flood, and then a timeline after the flood event. The problem is the modern translations of the same text. Of course you have to have a strong understanding of Physics, Einstein's theory of Relativity, and the new revisions to Newton's law of Gravity as it pertains to universal bodies.

Even the newest concept of Dark Energy is there, and that has only been accepted in the last 6 years, after all it only makes up 70% of our universe is totally invisible and hold the fabric of your universe together; and it was written and described 1,500 years ago. Amazing 31 sentences in the Bible's Genesis Creation of the universe story.

[bluedes]

You are totally insane... You just keep on talking without presenting any facts to substantiate your point! hahaha....

Want me to name some scientists??

Let's start with,
Johannes Kepler

Do you know him?

Johannes Kepler (IPA: [ˈkʰɛplɐ]) (December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630) was a German mathematician, astronomer and astrologer, and key figure in the 17th century scientific revolution.
... Kepler lived in an era when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, but there was a strong division between astronomy (a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of natural philosophy). Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason
(Johannes Kepler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

"Geometry is one and eternal shining in the mind of God. That share in it accorded to men is one of the reasons that Man is the image of God." (related to Genesis 1:27 of the Holy Bible)
— Johannes Kepler
Conversation with the Sidereal Messenger [an open letter to Galileo Galilei], Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo (1610), in Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke (1937- ), Vol. 4, 308, ll. 9-10.

Geometry, which before the origin of things was coeternal with the divine mind and is God himself (for what could there be in God which would not be God himself?), supplied God with patterns for the creation of the world, and passed over to Man along with the image of God; and was not in fact taken in through the eyes. (related to Genesis 1:27 of the Holy bible)
— Johannes Kepler
Harmonice Mundi, The Harmony of the World (1619), book IV, ch. 1. Trans. E. J. Aiton, A. M. Duncan and J. V. Field (1997), 304.

roooofffllllll jud..

*sigh*

go on with your lives people..
i guess i poked a hornet's nest..

anyway, you honestly think that kepler used the Bible to back up his three laws of planetary motion? its different when you get inspiration from the Bible, which is a religious book.. but its totally different when you claim that it contains "scientific" principles..

instead of reading wikipedia, go grab a copy of Kepler's biography..

you guys don't even know what the scientific movement is, or the philosophy of science..

-----------------------------

Another outstanding scientist, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) wrote a Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. It was an essay on the relation between the revelations of the Bible and the new discoveries then being made in science.
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo: Letter to Grand Duchess)

And by the way, who is Galileo Galilei?
Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy,"[6] the "father of modern physics,"[7] the "father of science,"[7] and "the Father of Modern Science."[8] Stephen Hawking says, "Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science."[9]
(Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
-------------------------------------------

MESSAGE FOR bluedes:

YOUR POINTS ARE BASELESS WITHOUT FACTS.

HEHEHEHE.... STUDY HARDER AND REVIEW YOUR LESSONS UI...

EVEN THE FATHER OF SCIENCE, GALILEO GALILEI SAID

"... For since every truth is in agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and experiences of human knowledge."
Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615

likewise, basa ug actual biography ni Galileo.. *sigh*

I never said the Bible is contradictory to scientific principles.. but the Bible DOES NOT contain "scientific" principles.. it contains symbolic text that can be interpreted in many ways..

a scientific principle is not born out of the Bible.. it is born out of the rigorous investigations of scientists in the scientific movement..

the Bible is at most, an inspiration to some scientists, like what you have mentioned.. but that is due in part of culture.. if the scientific movement originated from Middle East, the Koran will equally be a source of inspiration to some scientists as well, and they will also try to reconcile the Koran with what they observe in Nature, lest they want to get burned at stake..

*sigh* go on with your lives people, if it makes you happy..

you had it the other way around brother, and dont think of the bible as some mere scriptures put together by men... science and the bible did not coincide by accident... it was later that scientist found out that it was so... think about it basin maka-ubo napud ka anang tinuohan nimo.

ur imagining your own enemy..

i never said the Bible contradict with Science..

but for you guys to claim that the Bible contains scientific principle is purely hogwash..
you're just trying to glorify the Bible for what its not..

More than 400 years after Biblical writtings.

You may not consider them scientific principles, but they are there still the same.


That is a statement of classic denial. If it looks like a rabbit, feels like a rabbit, smells like a rabbit, and acts like a rabbit; than ignoring it does not change the fact that it probably is a rabbit.

oh, its not denial.. with the rabbit statement, you are proposing an immutable essence behind, I agree with that no more no less..

but scientists did not arrive at scientific principles by using the Bible.. you think scientific principles will be grounded on solid empirical data today because the Bible allegedly contained such scientific principles? (obviously not, having read your response below)

if it weren't for the people behind with their work and dedication, we would not have a modern scientific world today..

again, you're trying to glorify the Bible for what its not.. that is where the denial lies..

go back in time before the 15th century, and tell me if you are still able to claim that the bible contains scientific principles.. are you aware how scientific principles are formed or founded even?

Yes, I sat in a couple of classes. Funny I never remember ignore everything as a basis for formulating a Hypnotist.

did Copernicus or kepler show how the planets revolve around the sun by consulting scientific principles in the Bible? did galileo show his mechanics by consulting scientific principles in the Bible? Did Darwin consult the Bible by showing his principle of Natural selection? Did the scientists formulate their scientific principles by consulting the Bible of such? this is hilarious..
Nope, to help discover what was already in the text, first the science has to be created and the discoveries discovered before they could be understand what was written in the text. Biblical text ranges from 3,300 and 1,900 years ago depending on the text and source, and Copernicus made his discovery in 1512. How many more discovery could the man have made if narrow-minded bigoted fools did not try to tell him what people should only see in the bible during his time? Those narrow-minded bigoted fools who just could not see the science staring them from within those text. They only wanted to censor and control what knowledge could and should be see in the text during those times called the Dark Ages.
Boy it is sure nice that we do not have such narrow-minded bigoted fools trying to do that these days. That would be a sign that the pure ignorance of the Dark Ages still exist in the age of modern science. Would you not agree?

I agree with you on that.. but I'm still not considering the Bible containing scientific principles.. the Truth of Nature is contained in the Bible, I have no qualms with that.. it may appear to contain scientific principles, but its not scientific principle. No scientist on earth would accept that..

Well if it looks like a rabbit? So you are saying we should choose to try to ignore everything as you would like to do?

the problem (as well as its advantages) with a religious book is it can be interpreted in many ways, which is the cause of many conflicts (but also the source of many inspirations..)

to even begin with the claim that it contains scientific principles is bordering on chaos beyond imaginable ways.. man's ego/desire is dangerous if left unchecked.. after such claim, people will begin to look into the Bible for scientific principles and claim they are true..

please do not forget the essence of a scientific principle.. it can be falsified in earlier stages or modified in later stages.. Can the Bible be falsified or modified in earlier or later stages? it is a religious book.. and it should know its place in religion..


@jamesmusselwhite

nice discussion with you bro..

@bluedes
tan-awa ra, naka ubo nasad ning tawhana... youre treading on shallow waters brother... you have to choose to be on the boat or drown... hehehe

please don't drown your own self..

[jamesmusslewhite]

bluedes;

Your statement is correct, the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events. The Bible is, after all, not a textbook of science, but rather of religion. Which is meant to tell us the fact of creation, not the method of creation; it tells us who is Creator, not when or how He created. not an understanding of the earth's history.

There are passages in the Bible that coincide with scientific principles that weren't widely accepted until hundreds of years after the Bible had been written.

In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and that it is suspended in space. (Isaiah 40:22, NIV); (Job 26:7, NIV).

In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. (Job 26:8, NIV); (Job 36:27-28, NIV); (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed the total was 1,005. Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars. Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed. (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV); (Genesis 15:5, NIV).

Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans. But the Bible always knew. (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV); (Genesis 7:11, NIV).

In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person's body that can contribute to one's health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3,000 years ago when the Bible's book of Proverbs was recorded. (Proverbs 16:24, NIV); (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).

Today we know that the stars in the skies are very different from one another, that they are made up of differing concentrations of different elements, and that they vary in their sizes, their ages and in their proximity to the earth. But the ancient people had no way to prove this. Even so, Paul, who received many insights from Jesus, wrote a passage about 2000 years ago in the Bible's book of 1 Corinthians that said that the stars in the heavens did indeed differ from one another. (1 Corinthians 15:41).


In the Medical Sciences they have found the Bible's text a source to save countless lives. These applications were tried due to the inspiration of the text and inspired scientific breakthroughs. They have even discovered prayer helps people better recover from operations and medical procedures.

States Dr. D. T. Atkinson, "in the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of laws relative to hygiene and sanitation as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20).

In Norway rigid national quarantine was introduced in 1856 because of the widespread severity of leprosy. "Ninety years later the health authorities were able to report that Norway had only five per cent of the number of lepers that were there before segregation. Similarly favorable reports come to us from Finland and Sweden, where enforced segregation of lepers had also been instituted," writes D. T. Atkinson (Magic, Myth and Medicine, p. 64).

"It is most singular that a description of leprosy, as found in the thirteenth chapter of Leviticus, could have been written so long before our time. it is to be noticed that such an accurate description of this dread malady as it appears in the Biblical narrative is not to be found in the literature of any nation for the next seventeen hundred years" (ibid., p. 25-26).

"The laws of health laid down in Leviticus are the basis of modern sanitary science. Moses ordered that cases of leprosy should be segregated, that dwellings from which infected Jews had gone should be inspected before again being occupied, and that persons recovering from contagious disease were not to be allowed to go abroad until examined. The modern quarantine harks back to these sanitary regulations of the Old Testament. " (Magic, Myth and Medicine. p. 50).

Yes the Bible is not a scientific text but it has inspired science in several fields and on many levels, and many men of scientist find it's text an inspiration. So you can hang on to the semantics of your statement as the basis of your argument, but you denial statement pertaining to "no scientist" was too far reaching and not supported by the facts. 40% of Scientist are Christians and many of us became Christians because of the findings of science. I am a retired Biologist and Botanist and worked several years in both fields. I now am a consultant with the Philippine Agricultural Agency in the Surigao City area, and am presently involved in projects on Dinagot Island introducing organic farming techniques and square foot/ Micro-Greenhouse production, and in salt water/ fresh water fishery production. I am also a Born Again Christian.

Science and the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bluedes]

bluedes;

Your statement is correct, the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events. The Bible is, after all, not a textbook of science, but rather of religion. Which is meant to tell us the fact of creation, not the method of creation; it tells us who is Creator, not when or how He created. not an understanding of the earth's history.

There are passages in the Bible that coincide with scientific principles that weren't widely accepted until hundreds of years after the Bible had been written.


In the Medical Sciences they have found the Bible's text a source to save countless lives. These applications were tried due to the inspiration of the text and inspired scientific breakthroughs. They have even discovered prayer helps people better recover from operations and medical procedures.

Yes the Bible is not a scientific text but it has inspired science in several fields and on many levels, and many men of scientist find it's text an inspiration. So you can hang on to the semantics of your statement as the basis of your argument, but you denial statement pertaining to "no scientist" was too far reaching and not supported by the facts. 40% of Scientist are Christians and many of us became Christians because of the findings of science. I am a retired Biologist and Botanist and worked several years in both fields. I now am a consultant with the Philippine Agricultural Agency in the Surigao City area, and am presently involved in projects on Dinagot Island introducing organic farming techniques and square foot/ Micro-Greenhouse production, and in salt water/ fresh water fishery production. I am also a Born Again Christian.

Science and the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and therefore, you are just repeating what I have said.. the Bible does not contain scientific principles.. it can be a source of inspiration..

you are being hypocritical if you use the Bible as Science claiming it contains scientific principles and is being acknowledged by scientists as an authority of scientific principles..

and I still hang on to the semantics of my statement..

[jamesmusslewhite]

and therefore, you are just repeating what I have said.. the Bible does not contain scientific principles.. it can be a source of inspiration..

you are being hypocritical if you use the Bible as Science claiming it contains scientific principles and is being acknowledged by scientists as an authority of scientific principles..

and I still hang on to the semantics of my statement..

Hypocritical in what way, there are so many ways that the bible's text was used in the Medical fields that saved countless lives. They used the text first, then the discovery that the text was proven correct. This is well documented so I know you are not in the medical fields, or you would have studied it. I doubt you are even in a field of science. You seem to only have a rudimentary understanding of the sciences, and even less experience with the biblical text. But that is OK, it happen a lot on this forum. Cut and paste artist who cling on semantics to hid their true limitations.

Semantics is a tool you are trying using to justify your denial. That is a Hypocritical act and is intellectually dishonest. Scientific principles are named theories of sciences that many of the sciences did not even come in to being until 1,500 years after the text were written. The Bible has many scriptures that very accurately describe the effects of the newer cutting edge Scientific theories of this decade. If you had looked at the 5 part video in the opening post of this thread, then you would know that. Thank you for commenting and arguing even though you did not take the time to view them.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (1 of 5)
YouTube - Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (1 of 5)

Please feel free to watch them, you just might learn something new.

[AmorsoloX]

Hypocritical in what way, there are so many ways that the bible's text was used in the Medical fields that saved countless lives. They used the text first, then the discovery that the text was proven correct.

kanindot ani mga ancient texts nag teach sila og common sense... just like sanitation.. the bible taught about its importance.. then look at what happened in europe during the plague, they disregarded sanitation and water supply..

it even told leaders like joshua to kill evrysingle enemy soldier or citizen who wish to do them evil.. look what happened when he disobeyed.. more likely he didnt see the practicality..

common sense.. because of its rarity, its a goddamn superpower

kining mga religious texts are a treasure trove of practical knowledge.. experience is a great teacher.. and its more profitable to learn from the experience of others..

ang nka problema lang ani nila kay during the time, the people where not yet familiar with many scientific explainations.. so lets not blame them if they say lightning is divine intervention..

[bluedes]

Hypocritical in what way, there are so many ways that the bible's text was used in the Medical fields that saved countless lives. They used the text first, then the discovery that the text was proven correct. This is well documented so I know you are not in the medical fields, or you would have studied it. I doubt you are even in a field of science. You seem to only have a rudimentary understanding of the sciences, and even less experience with the biblical text. But that is OK, it happen a lot on this forum. Cut and paste artist who cling on semantics to hid their true limitations.

Have you ever seen references on scientific paper that use the Bible as basis for their scientific formulations? Some will cite the Bible, but only as related text (source of inspiration or idea) but never a source of scientific principles.

Again, I will ask, did Kepler consult the Bible for his formulation of the planetary laws? No, he did not. He got an idea or inspiration from the Bible, but he mainly derived his scientific principles from careful observations and calculations that he did on his own.

did Galileo do such same thing consulting the Bible? heck no..

If the Bible contained such scientific principles, then those bigots you mentioned before would have understood them already and not resort to torture threats or Inquisition.. but because of scientific principles born out of rigorous study and formulations, people today cannot anymore resort to those Inquisitive behavior (which by the way they also derive from the Bible)..

If you cannot see that, then you are also blinded by your attachment and glorification of the Bible.

and FYI, I am from the sciences.. although I'm not pursuing a medicine major, I am taking pre-med courses and go with the same classes with pre-med majors. and I'm not taking introductory pre-med majors.. I'm taking the core courses of pre-med majors.. (which kinda sucks coz its really heavy load for my puny brain..)

Semantics is a tool you are trying using to justify your denial. That is a Hypocritical act and is intellectually dishonest. Scientific principles are named theories of sciences that many of the sciences did not even come in to being until 1,500 years after the text were written. The Bible has many scriptures that very accurately describe the effects of the newer cutting edge Scientific theories of this decade. If you had looked at the 5 part video in the opening post of this thread, then you would know that. Thank you for commenting and arguing even though you did not take the time to view them.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (1 of 5)
YouTube - Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theory (1 of 5)

Please feel free to watch them, you just might learn something new.

precisely that I use semantics to justify my claim.. I'm not in any form of denial.. Am I trying to glorify something that is not? What reason do you have to glorify the Bible by saying it contains scientific principles? I'm also not trying to put the Bible down, if you have noticed.. I'm just clarifying where the Bible is.. and again, it DOES NOT contain scientific principles..

the Bible contains very accurate descriptions that describe the effects of the newer cutting edge Scientific theories of our time? that is based on speculation.. because of your own interpretation utilizing OTHER SOURCES of information, you are able to interpret the Bible in that way.. you may say it is accurate, but to others it is not.. which is why the Bible is prone to many interpretations..

you can go on preaching such, but it is not backed up with any empirical data.. which is why the Bible DOES NOT contain any scientific principles..

I wonder what kind of consultation you give to the Philippine Agricultural Agency in Surigao City.. do you tell them, "just read it in the Bible and you'll get the scientific principles from there"??

see how ridiculous that claim is.. no offense intended..

[Malic]

what i have understood from their statemnt is mao ni...the bible is not a scientific book therefore it cannot be use as reference for scientific experiments and lessons. BUT it contain certain events that can be proven scientifically.


now bluedes pls don't twist their argument to suit yours.

let me side with the christians this time.