-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Can you believe this story?
Joseph of Cupertino, O.F.M. Conv. (Italian: Giuseppe da Copertino) (June 17, 1603 – September 18, 1663) was an ItalianConventual Franciscan friar who is honored as a Christian mystic and saint. He was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation and intense ecstatic visions that left him gaping.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP]:iii
[/SUP]Joseph of Cupertino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph of Cupertino, O.F.M. Conv. (Italian: Giuseppe da Copertino) (June 17, 1603 – September 18, 1663) was an ItalianConventual Franciscan friar who is honored as a Christian mystic and saint. He was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation and intense ecstatic visions that left him gaping.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP]:iii
[/SUP]Joseph of Cupertino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alas, the scientific community doesn't lean on Biblical truth. As SoulWeaver's post alludes to, scientific knowledge is at one point or another proven inaccurate by further research (or, if you prefer, scientifically false fallacies are proven inaccurate by science 
).
).
Not all them are gross unbelievers.
First what is the Bible about?
It is the revelation of Jesus Christ, from Genesis to Revelation.
Because Jesus is real, we can trust the Bible totally.
Back in the 1800's, most Biblical sites were unknown. In fact, this was a great jumping off point by German Higher Criticism, which basically interpreted the Bible as a metaphor, rather than the true Word of God. Gradually, archeologists began to find the places, right where the Bible said they were. There are only a few sites that have not been uncovered, but the Holy Land, Asia Minor and Greek all have many tells, or covered cities, which have not been explored. So I am sure that one day, the entire geography of the Bible will be confirmed.
As for the scientific side, people in the OT and NT had a completely different view of science than we do today. So does that make it inaccurate scientifically? Not really. But it does mean sometimes the estimates of things are slightly different than we would interpret them using the modern scientific method. But that is our judgment on the past, not the truth of the accuracy of the Bible.
Finally, evolution versus creation has been discussed here on many threads. Not one supposed scientist has given me any reason to believe evolution is the better paradigm. Creation is the only answer to the questions of the mechanism of speciation. God did create the world, and a short creation time, not so far in the past (not millions or billions of years) is definitely what my undergrad science degree made me realize is the correct answer, not long earth creation or evolution.
Finally, ask the Bible whether the Bible is inspired. I think this includes the science.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [SUP]17 [/SUP]that the man of God may be complete,equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17
It is the revelation of Jesus Christ, from Genesis to Revelation.
Because Jesus is real, we can trust the Bible totally.
Back in the 1800's, most Biblical sites were unknown. In fact, this was a great jumping off point by German Higher Criticism, which basically interpreted the Bible as a metaphor, rather than the true Word of God. Gradually, archeologists began to find the places, right where the Bible said they were. There are only a few sites that have not been uncovered, but the Holy Land, Asia Minor and Greek all have many tells, or covered cities, which have not been explored. So I am sure that one day, the entire geography of the Bible will be confirmed.
As for the scientific side, people in the OT and NT had a completely different view of science than we do today. So does that make it inaccurate scientifically? Not really. But it does mean sometimes the estimates of things are slightly different than we would interpret them using the modern scientific method. But that is our judgment on the past, not the truth of the accuracy of the Bible.
Finally, evolution versus creation has been discussed here on many threads. Not one supposed scientist has given me any reason to believe evolution is the better paradigm. Creation is the only answer to the questions of the mechanism of speciation. God did create the world, and a short creation time, not so far in the past (not millions or billions of years) is definitely what my undergrad science degree made me realize is the correct answer, not long earth creation or evolution.
Finally, ask the Bible whether the Bible is inspired. I think this includes the science.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [SUP]17 [/SUP]that the man of God may be complete,equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17
These are blanket statements and not what the thread is about; it has nothing to do with Atheistic opinion, really. Objective answers (and preferably verifiable ones), regardless of the worldview, would be best.
Good point! The story of a talking snake might be construed as allegorical rather than "scientifically inaccurate" in any way, shape, or form, but it's true that there are things outside of miracles that would still be argued or seen as dubious from a scientific perspective. Again, good point.
Good point! The story of a talking snake might be construed as allegorical rather than "scientifically inaccurate" in any way, shape, or form, but it's true that there are things outside of miracles that would still be argued or seen as dubious from a scientific perspective. Again, good point.
In that case siberian, you forgot to give credit to the "talking bush" that Abraham heard and the times Moses saw a cloud above... Was it "allegorical" or atheistical?
Allow me to give credit to Jesus words (they can see it allegorically) on John:
Joh 12:28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
Joh 12:29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
Joh 12:30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. "
Was it allegorical? An angel or a thunder?
I believed it was God´s voice heard.
Last edited:
S
I don't believe I implied that any and all men and women of science are "gross unbelievers." I hope you don't think I did.
Am I on trial?
My point was that others would argue these things as allegorical instead of being up to scientific debate. I, wasn't asserting that ANY of them are allegorical. All I said is that others might argue the point between what's scientifically disputable and what's a tall tale with a moral behind it. The latter could be rejected as irrelevant in a scientific discussion.
What?
In that case siberian, you forgot to give credit to the "talking bush" that Abraham heard and the times Moses saw a cloud above... Was it "allegorical" or atheistical?
Allow me to give credit to Jesus words (they can see it allegorically) on John:
Joh 12:28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
Joh 12:29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
Joh 12:30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. "
Was it allegorical? An angel or a thunder?
I believed it was God´s voice heard.
In that case siberian, you forgot to give credit to the "talking bush" that Abraham heard and the times Moses saw a cloud above... Was it "allegorical" or atheistical?
Allow me to give credit to Jesus words (they can see it allegorically) on John:
Joh 12:28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
Joh 12:29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
Joh 12:30 Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. "
Was it allegorical? An angel or a thunder?
I believed it was God´s voice heard.
My point was that others would argue these things as allegorical instead of being up to scientific debate. I, wasn't asserting that ANY of them are allegorical. All I said is that others might argue the point between what's scientifically disputable and what's a tall tale with a moral behind it. The latter could be rejected as irrelevant in a scientific discussion.
Whenever atheists run out of things to say, they just start making up crazy analogies to be insulting.
We aren't talking about a spiderman comic.
We are talking about the SINGLE MOST WELL ATTESTED AND WELL CORROBORATED BOOK FROM ALL OF ANTIQUITY.
It's a book which is still revered by several billion people...
among whom are countless scholars from every imaginable field of study.
Comparing this book to spiderman is beyond ignorant.
We aren't talking about a spiderman comic.
We are talking about the SINGLE MOST WELL ATTESTED AND WELL CORROBORATED BOOK FROM ALL OF ANTIQUITY.
It's a book which is still revered by several billion people...
among whom are countless scholars from every imaginable field of study.
Comparing this book to spiderman is beyond ignorant.
T
If you start with a biblical creation perspective and use that to interpret in the field of Science, then yes, there's nothing scientifically inaccurate about the Bible. The Bible at its core isn't a Science textbook but that's not to say it doesn't have anything to do with Science, there's plenty there, if only you look. If you start with the naturalistic/materialistic/evolutionary perspective and use that as your philosophy for Science, then no, there's little that's scientifically accurate about the Bible (except for the observable Science). But as you can see it's stupid to use a worldview that seeks to discredit the existence of anything supernatural/divine, let alone a personal Creator God who designed everything and to whom we're accountable to interpret God's very Word. The observable elements of Science stay the same though. The worldview through which everything is viewed is what changes. Finally, while evolution is a world-wide religion and a highly powerful philosophy, it's also a load of bollocks.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Yes the Bible does have scientific errors, because......
1. The bible is not a science book, its goal is not to teach modern science.
2. Though inspired by God, the bible was written by ancient people, who held views of the universe (ancient cosmology) that made sense to them at the time. Being inspired by God does not mean somehow a person will know all truths of that are learned in the future (such as modern astronomy, etc). Just how nowdays, people inspired by God to do his work/will, does not mean said person has all knowledge of the future/discoveries.
One of the scientific errors, is that the writers of the Bible did not know about the modern view of the Earth, Sun, and the rest of the solar system, and for good reason.
The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology
A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
But its ok if the Bible contains errors in science. It does not invalidate our faith, nor does it change the main mission/focus of the Bible. It just helps to show that though inspired by God, the Bible is also a product of Man and is affected by the time/knowledge of a certain time period.
1. The bible is not a science book, its goal is not to teach modern science.
2. Though inspired by God, the bible was written by ancient people, who held views of the universe (ancient cosmology) that made sense to them at the time. Being inspired by God does not mean somehow a person will know all truths of that are learned in the future (such as modern astronomy, etc). Just how nowdays, people inspired by God to do his work/will, does not mean said person has all knowledge of the future/discoveries.
One of the scientific errors, is that the writers of the Bible did not know about the modern view of the Earth, Sun, and the rest of the solar system, and for good reason.
The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology
A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
But its ok if the Bible contains errors in science. It does not invalidate our faith, nor does it change the main mission/focus of the Bible. It just helps to show that though inspired by God, the Bible is also a product of Man and is affected by the time/knowledge of a certain time period.
I'm not comparing the two.
I'm just saying someone who wrote something with knowledge of a particlar place at the time... And then finding out that place exists at a later point in the future isnt really exciting.
All it proves is that the person who wrote the story, whatever the scenario, was aware of that particular place. Nothing else.
Plus, there are over 900 million Hindus in the world too.. And nearly 1.6 billion Muslims... among whom are countless scholars from every imaginable field of study...Does that any weight to the validity of their claims?
I'm just saying someone who wrote something with knowledge of a particlar place at the time... And then finding out that place exists at a later point in the future isnt really exciting.
All it proves is that the person who wrote the story, whatever the scenario, was aware of that particular place. Nothing else.
Plus, there are over 900 million Hindus in the world too.. And nearly 1.6 billion Muslims... among whom are countless scholars from every imaginable field of study...Does that any weight to the validity of their claims?
E
As others have said, since the Bible isn't a "scientific" book science could say that the Bible is inaccurate. But it is quite interesting that the more "scientific" our world gets the more proof there is about the Bibles accuracy.
Listening to a talk the other day I was quite amazed at how many scientists "out to prove the Bible false" have actually become Christian because the Bible proved itself true. Especially on the lines of creation.
So is the Bible scientifically inaccurate? It keeps proving itself accurate so um...nope
Amazing how the living Word of God speaks isn't it
Listening to a talk the other day I was quite amazed at how many scientists "out to prove the Bible false" have actually become Christian because the Bible proved itself true. Especially on the lines of creation.
So is the Bible scientifically inaccurate? It keeps proving itself accurate so um...nope
Amazing how the living Word of God speaks isn't it
There was a time when GEOCENTRISM was believed so by reading portions of the Bible, like these:
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Psa 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:
Psa 102:19 that he looked down from his holy height; from heaven the LORD looked at the earth,
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Psa 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:
Psa 102:19 that he looked down from his holy height; from heaven the LORD looked at the earth,
K
When did science determine that the Earth was round?
Isaiah 40
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
They heavens described above are incorrect. The atmosphere was considered heaven.
Isaiah 40
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
They heavens described above are incorrect. The atmosphere was considered heaven.
Modern man defines science as limited to things we can observe. That's why they discipline themselves to ignore things they can't see or measure. It's like a building contractor considering the building of your dream home by your verbal instructions. The customer can "see" it. The scientific builder will require blueprints.
Yet, much of science must resort to speculation and artist's conceptions of things scientists can't actually observe. That is a magnificent case of a paradox. Einstein didn't observe most of what he theorized. He calculated those, then described his calculations for those of us that can't interpret his calculations.
Scientists need to make a living too, so I'll go along with most of them until they begin arguing with the Bible.
Yet, much of science must resort to speculation and artist's conceptions of things scientists can't actually observe. That is a magnificent case of a paradox. Einstein didn't observe most of what he theorized. He calculated those, then described his calculations for those of us that can't interpret his calculations.
Scientists need to make a living too, so I'll go along with most of them until they begin arguing with the Bible.