-
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.
It is also a scientifically false description. Which is not to say that the Bible is full of lies as much as it is to say that the Bible was written from the physical and cosmological perspective of it's authors. As an aside, can you nail down what you mean by "phenominological"?
You can place the flood any time you want within the last 20,000 to 2 million years, there remains no evidence for it. . .as long as we're still talking about a flood that covered the entire earth and killed all but eight human beings. Just like our other examples here, the story of the flood is not written as a scientific description of an event.
I don't have a problem with the Bible, though I do take issue with believers who essentially advocate for a deceptive God based on their interpretation of scripture.
Lurker
A
I find documented almost 2500 prophecies in the pages of the Bible with about 2000 already fulfilled: to the letter—no errors. The remaining reach into the future.
The probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages about one in ten. The odds for all these prophecies being fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it).
But that's another subject.
I reject the assertion the Bible is unscientific when taken in context in a systematic theological manner. Please do bring your strongest two or three evidences and make your argument in a concise manner (don't just list a thousand false assertions and declare them as true assuming a fallicious strategy because that will be rejected out of hand).
The probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages about one in ten. The odds for all these prophecies being fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it).
But that's another subject.
I reject the assertion the Bible is unscientific when taken in context in a systematic theological manner. Please do bring your strongest two or three evidences and make your argument in a concise manner (don't just list a thousand false assertions and declare them as true assuming a fallicious strategy because that will be rejected out of hand).
Actually that is another thing- confirmed prophecies that get very specific. Not like Nostradamus' 'prophecies'- the bible ones for Jesus.. lay out the place of birth, the type of woman he would be born to.. how he would die.. etc etc..
Now again.. if the bible is right about these .. why would it then be inaccurate in other areas?
As for the cities.. being continuously habitated thru history.. that doesn't mean the references in the bible are wrong about them! If they say they exist.. then they are right about that!
And also- the circle/sphere thing again..
If someone had not seen the 3d version of the earth.. and said it was circle.. and that it was flat.. they would not be wrong in actually what they observe thru their own eyes. It would look like a circle.. and would look flat because of the perspective they have.
So the reference wouldn't be wrong..
It's like when the gospels talk about who was there at the tomb to see if Jesus was there.. one account gives more people than the other.. but that doesn't mean the other account is false.. only that the other account was giving information on certain people.. not necessary excluding others.
Like-- if I went to a party and said Jim was there.. so was Aaron and Henry. At the party there were many others-- I wouldn't be wrong in saying Jim was there and Aaron and Henry.. I just wouldn't be giving the full description of everyone there.
anyway
the core point is - if the bible is right on so many small details.. then the benefit of the doubt goes to the bible on more vague points or unconfirmed points.
We believe Caesar was a real person etc etc.. well the evidence for Jesus Christ is stronger than that for Caesar!
Now again.. if the bible is right about these .. why would it then be inaccurate in other areas?
As for the cities.. being continuously habitated thru history.. that doesn't mean the references in the bible are wrong about them! If they say they exist.. then they are right about that!
And also- the circle/sphere thing again..
If someone had not seen the 3d version of the earth.. and said it was circle.. and that it was flat.. they would not be wrong in actually what they observe thru their own eyes. It would look like a circle.. and would look flat because of the perspective they have.
So the reference wouldn't be wrong..
It's like when the gospels talk about who was there at the tomb to see if Jesus was there.. one account gives more people than the other.. but that doesn't mean the other account is false.. only that the other account was giving information on certain people.. not necessary excluding others.
Like-- if I went to a party and said Jim was there.. so was Aaron and Henry. At the party there were many others-- I wouldn't be wrong in saying Jim was there and Aaron and Henry.. I just wouldn't be giving the full description of everyone there.
anyway
the core point is - if the bible is right on so many small details.. then the benefit of the doubt goes to the bible on more vague points or unconfirmed points.
We believe Caesar was a real person etc etc.. well the evidence for Jesus Christ is stronger than that for Caesar!
That depends on it's usage, typically "sunrise" refers to the instant that the leading edge of the sun rises above the horizon. This concept uses the co-opted term "sunrise" from when people actually thought that the sun was rising or moving relative to the earth. Today we know that this is false, and the term is used (generally) with that understanding in place as to it's modern usage. As a description of the sun's motion in and of itself no, it is not an accurate term. . .but then no one really uses it that way anymore. This is more of a case of the evolution of a term's meaning rather than a comparable example to biblical references of obviously flawed cosmology since we know that the cultures of that time and geographic area all actually did think the earth was flat, and that the sun moved relative to earth.
Unfortunately we also have very clear evidence that it did not, in fact, happen. So not only is there no evidence for it, there's also copious amounts of evidence against it. Pick you scientific field; biology? geology? physics? all of them do not support things like a global flood or a young earth.
There is plenty in scripture that I accept by faith, but one thing I would not accept is a deceptive God since scripture is pretty clear that God is a god of truth. Therefore, I don't think God made a deceitful creation or accomplished events in the past (such as a global flood 4,350 years ago) using deceitful miracles.
Lurker
Yes it would. Looking at a sphere and mistaking it for a circle does not make that sphere a circle. If I look at Fred and mistake him for George he does not magically become George simply because I made an honest mistake. Irregardless of what I think I see, Fred is not George.
A circle is not a sphere.
Lurker
A circle is not a sphere.
Lurker
C
So, what do you accept by faith? Do you reject all miracles? Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?
The "deceitful" miracles is a real issue, because the definition of a miracle is something that runs counter to the normal patterns of science. So, would you consider all miracles "deceitful"? If my daughter is bit by a rattler and is miraculously healed, would you consider God being decietful?
I return again to the question, what do you accept by faith?
Yes, it does make the bible "false" if we take it to be a scientific description of the natural world seeing as the description of things such as the shape of the earth and the relative motion of the earth and the sun are technically wrong. It does not make the bible "false" if we recognize that these stories and descriptions are didactic, not scientific, in nature. They have nothing to do with the how and everything to do with the why.
You can't seriously be referring to the author Arthur C. Clarke and his science fiction novel "A Fall of Moondust". . .please tell me you're joking. The moon dust argument is so bad even YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis have disproven it: Moon-dust argument no longer useful.
Additionally, the sun's radiation has nothing at all to do with the production of lunar "dust". The term you're looking for here is "asteroid impact".
What on earth about the moon's distance is odd?
Curiously, actual rocks taken from the moon seem to disagree with you. What is so unusual about a crust made up mostly by silicon, oxygen, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminium?
That would be chemistry, and again, what is so surprising about this?
A "true amphibian"? You mean like this guy?
Viruses are so simple they bend the definition of "life". . .how is this evidence for a young earth or a global flood?
Even miracles leave evidence behind; when Christ healed a blind man there was an actual person who could see that had once been blind on the other side of that miracle, when Christ rose from the dead there was an empty tomb. Christ did not rise from the dead and then create a dead clone of himself which he left in the tomb for the disciples to find.
As an aside, it's a little annoying having to constantly cut and paste your posts into my replies. You may want to brush up on your quote tags here.
Lurker
No, but then that's not really analogous to what we're talking about is it? If the Bible is an accurate scientific descriptor of the universe then it's descriptions are either correct or incorrect. When we compare those descriptions to reality and see that they are wrong the only conclusion we can come to is that the Bible is not an accurate scientific descriptor of the universe. . .which isn't exactly the end of the world seeing as that's not why it was written.
Lurker
Lurker
C
Yes, it does make the bible "false" if we take it to be a scientific description of the natural world seeing as the description of things such as the shape of the earth and the relative motion of the earth and the sun are technically wrong. It does not make the bible "false" if we recognize that these stories and descriptions are didactic, not scientific, in nature. They have nothing to do with the how and everything to do with the why.
[/color]
They have to do with whether we are espousing deism or theism and whether we can pick and choose what is factual about scripture and what is not.
You can't seriously be referring to the author Arthur C. Clarke and his science fiction novel "A Fall of Moondust". . .please tell me you're joking. The moon dust argument is so bad even YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis have disproven it: Moon-dust argument no longer useful.
You can see by my age, that I was actually watching this event. Science is true until it is disproven. The moon dust issue was a serious issue in the planning of our space program. And hard EMT does break molecular bonding. An interesting recent issue is the discovery of water on the moon even though the moon has very little protection from microwaves.
Additionally, the sun's radiation has nothing at all to do with the production of lunar "dust". The term you're looking for here is "asteroid impact".
What on earth about the moon's distance is odd?
Too close to be captured.
Curiously, actual rocks taken from the moon seem to disagree with you. What is so unusual about a crust made up mostly by silicon, oxygen, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminium?[/color]
It also in high in rare earths, such as Vanadium.
That would be chemistry, and again, what is so surprising about this?
Because these chemicals formed by chance in the environment are divided pretty equally between left twisted and right twisted molecules.
A "true amphibian"? You mean like this guy?
Well, this guy breathes water when it is young and air when it is mature.
Viruses are so simple they bend the definition of "life". . .how is this evidence for a young earth or a global flood?
The simplist form should be the easiest to trace the evolutionary history, especially since viruses did not predate complex life.
Even miracles leave evidence behind; when Christ healed a blind man there was an actual person who could see that had once been blind on the other side of that miracle, when Christ rose from the dead there was an empty tomb. Christ did not rise from the dead and then create a dead clone of himself which he left in the tomb for the disciples to find.
So, is eye-witness the standard that you set for believing?
As an aside, it's a little annoying having to constantly cut and paste your posts into my replies. You may want to brush up on your quote tags here.
Don't know if it is my computer or my crummy service, but I haven't been able to get it to work the way it is suppose to. On the computer I am a combination of very good and completely in the dark, lol.
Lurker
[/color]
They have to do with whether we are espousing deism or theism and whether we can pick and choose what is factual about scripture and what is not.
You can't seriously be referring to the author Arthur C. Clarke and his science fiction novel "A Fall of Moondust". . .please tell me you're joking. The moon dust argument is so bad even YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis have disproven it: Moon-dust argument no longer useful.
You can see by my age, that I was actually watching this event. Science is true until it is disproven. The moon dust issue was a serious issue in the planning of our space program. And hard EMT does break molecular bonding. An interesting recent issue is the discovery of water on the moon even though the moon has very little protection from microwaves.
Additionally, the sun's radiation has nothing at all to do with the production of lunar "dust". The term you're looking for here is "asteroid impact".
What on earth about the moon's distance is odd?
Too close to be captured.
Curiously, actual rocks taken from the moon seem to disagree with you. What is so unusual about a crust made up mostly by silicon, oxygen, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminium?[/color]
It also in high in rare earths, such as Vanadium.
That would be chemistry, and again, what is so surprising about this?
Because these chemicals formed by chance in the environment are divided pretty equally between left twisted and right twisted molecules.
A "true amphibian"? You mean like this guy?
Well, this guy breathes water when it is young and air when it is mature.
Viruses are so simple they bend the definition of "life". . .how is this evidence for a young earth or a global flood?
The simplist form should be the easiest to trace the evolutionary history, especially since viruses did not predate complex life.
Even miracles leave evidence behind; when Christ healed a blind man there was an actual person who could see that had once been blind on the other side of that miracle, when Christ rose from the dead there was an empty tomb. Christ did not rise from the dead and then create a dead clone of himself which he left in the tomb for the disciples to find.
So, is eye-witness the standard that you set for believing?
As an aside, it's a little annoying having to constantly cut and paste your posts into my replies. You may want to brush up on your quote tags here.
Don't know if it is my computer or my crummy service, but I haven't been able to get it to work the way it is suppose to. On the computer I am a combination of very good and completely in the dark, lol.
Lurker
Thank you for this interesting conversation.
C
strongs concordance
H4093
מדּע מדּע
maddâ‛ madda‛
mad-daw', mad-dah'
From H3045; intelligence or consciousness: - knowledge, science, thought.
G1108
γνῶσις
gnōsis
gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science.
we are told in the NT to have the knowledge and mind of Christ Jesus
H4093
מדּע מדּע
maddâ‛ madda‛
mad-daw', mad-dah'
From H3045; intelligence or consciousness: - knowledge, science, thought.
G1108
γνῶσις
gnōsis
gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science.
we are told in the NT to have the knowledge and mind of Christ Jesus
A
Conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith have arisen through the centuries, to be sure. However, the level of conflict has often been exaggerated, and Christianity's positive influence on scientific progress is seldom acknowledged these days.
Yet Christians around the world are involved in the scientific enterprise in big ways and scientifically testable creation models based on Christian scripture exist today. Take RTB's, for example, which was constructed by literally thousands of scientists around the world. They make specific predictions just like any other valid scientifically testable model for the complex multilayered reality we observe and to date their predictions have been spot on.
The ancient Hebrew word for sunrise is boqer which also translates as "morning," "coming of light," "beginning of day," "break of day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage. The word choices for an ancient Hebrew author are fewer... not as an extensive vocabulary as we have in our modern standard english vocabulary. -Source: Brown, et al., pp. 133-4; Harris, et al., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, VOL 1, p. 125.
I would like to see your scriptural evidence for the Bible specifically stating that the sun revolves around the earth for I cannot find it. What I can find is humans thinking that. The Bible clearly puts the earth and human beings at the "center" of God's attentions and this concept has adequate scriptural support. But I can't find God or a scriptural author asserting that the sun actually revolves around the earth.
Apologetics Press - Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity?
Yet Christians around the world are involved in the scientific enterprise in big ways and scientifically testable creation models based on Christian scripture exist today. Take RTB's, for example, which was constructed by literally thousands of scientists around the world. They make specific predictions just like any other valid scientifically testable model for the complex multilayered reality we observe and to date their predictions have been spot on.
The ancient Hebrew word for sunrise is boqer which also translates as "morning," "coming of light," "beginning of day," "break of day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage. The word choices for an ancient Hebrew author are fewer... not as an extensive vocabulary as we have in our modern standard english vocabulary. -Source: Brown, et al., pp. 133-4; Harris, et al., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, VOL 1, p. 125.
I would like to see your scriptural evidence for the Bible specifically stating that the sun revolves around the earth for I cannot find it. What I can find is humans thinking that. The Bible clearly puts the earth and human beings at the "center" of God's attentions and this concept has adequate scriptural support. But I can't find God or a scriptural author asserting that the sun actually revolves around the earth.
Apologetics Press - Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity?
G
Itinerant Lurker is a troll
quote him a fact that supports the Bible and he will simply deny the fact or the relevance
the lunar module was specifically designed to deal with many metres of dust
btw if the moon and the earth had been associated for millions of years they would have either parted company or collided with each other by now
simple newtonian physics
the hebrew involved means arch or circle or sphere
it would be the equivalent of us saying in english
God creates the curve of the earth and hangs it in space
quote him a fact that supports the Bible and he will simply deny the fact or the relevance
the lunar module was specifically designed to deal with many metres of dust
btw if the moon and the earth had been associated for millions of years they would have either parted company or collided with each other by now
simple newtonian physics
the hebrew involved means arch or circle or sphere
it would be the equivalent of us saying in english
God creates the curve of the earth and hangs it in space