Bible vs Science.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richie_2uk
  • Start date Start date
  • 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.
R

Richie_2uk

Guest
How to examine the Bible.

One person said “I’ll believe the Bible if it can be proven scientifically”

Ok then let’s look at it your way then, and see the outcome.

Scientific Theory: requires events to be:
· Observable
· Measurable
· Repeatable

Historical events do not fall into these categories, and so cannot be analysed scientifically. Therefore the accuracy of historical accounts must be assessed based on the available evidence.

The evidence-based methods: tests historical accounts. On the amount of:
· Corroboration
· Internal consistency

The only way to disprove something that is written as history is through the evidence-based method – if it doesn’t have corroboration (is not backed up by other sources) or has internal inconsistency, it can be shown as false. The bible has a lot of corroboration and is always internally consistent.

The Bible was written:
· In 3 Languages: Greek – Hebrew – Aramaic.
· In 3 Continents: Asia – Africa – Europe.
· Was written over 1400 years ago.
· Written by 40 different authors.

The person never kept his bargain, he still believed in science over fact.
 
Richie_2uk said:
How to examine the Bible.

One person said “I’ll believe the Bible if it can be proven scientifically”

Ok then let’s look at it your way then, and see the outcome.

Scientific Theory: requires events to be:
· Observable
· Measurable
· Repeatable

Historical events do not fall into these categories, and so cannot be analysed scientifically. Therefore the accuracy of historical accounts must be assessed based on the available evidence.

The evidence-based methods: tests historical accounts. On the amount of:
· Corroboration
· Internal consistency

The only way to disprove something that is written as history is through the evidence-based method – if it doesn’t have corroboration (is not backed up by other sources) or has internal inconsistency, it can be shown as false. The bible has a lot of corroboration and is always internally consistent.

The Bible was written:
· In 3 Languages: Greek – Hebrew – Aramaic.
· In 3 Continents: Asia – Africa – Europe.
· Was written over 1400 years ago.
· Written by 40 different authors.

The person never kept his bargain, he still believed in science over fact.
Click to expand...

If science is · Observable · Measurable · Repeatable - it is fact.

But 'science' is more than scientific method.

Historical science is evidence of history. you say,

The only way to disprove something that is written as history is through the evidence-based method – if it doesn’t have corroboration (is not backed up by other sources) or has internal inconsistency, it can be shown as false
Click to expand...
.

This is nonsense. An ancient document may be accurate without having corroboration and internal consistency. It is simply not wholly right.

As to the bible you have to PROVE to the person that it has a lot of corroboration and is always internally consistent. That is a far harder task (even though I agree with you).
 
You will never be able to convince people that God is real while they walk in darkness. People who put science over God walk in darkness. Therefore people who put science first will never accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
 
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Some people want a sign in order to believe, proof.
 
Where did you get the Bible was written 'over 1400 years ago' bit from? It's closer to 2000 years ago for the complete New Testament writings and over 2400 years for the complete Old Testament. Otherwise, the rest of your post is pretty good.
 
I just keep praying and praying people will believe in God
Praying is all I can do :)
 
MikeHenderson said:
You will never be able to convince people that God is real while they walk in darkness. People who put science over God walk in darkness. Therefore people who put science first will never accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Click to expand...

You might want to read Hugh Ross' testimony (I don't agree with all his ideas, but he is a Christian). People who accept all of the assumptions on which much science is based may have trouble accepting Jesus. Genuine science is not in conflict with truth. What is popularly called science, in most cases, isn't. The problem is that the assumptions and unscientific beliefs which undergird many theories have been overlooked so often that they have been forgotten.

For example, Charles Lyell fabricated the idea of the geologic column in the early 1800's. It has no basis in experimental science or in field study. Yet it has become so ingrained in our cultural understanding of geology that it is accepted as fact, and evidence not in accord with it is often rejected out of hand. Those who challenge it are asked to "prove" their theories.

This brings up a closely-related problem: the nature of 'proof'. It only exists in logic and mathematics. In every other field, the best you can have it compelling or convincing evidence, and what is compelling to one person may not be to another. Those who accept the geologic column are, in a sense, unable to see conflicting evidence because they are already convinced.
 
Richie_2uk said:
How to examine the Bible.

One person said “I’ll believe the Bible if it can be proven scientifically”

Ok then let’s look at it your way then, and see the outcome.

Scientific Theory: requires events to be:
· Observable
· Measurable
· Repeatable

Historical events do not fall into these categories, and so cannot be analysed scientifically. Therefore the accuracy of historical accounts must be assessed based on the available evidence.

The evidence-based methods: tests historical accounts. On the amount of:
· Corroboration
· Internal consistency

The only way to disprove something that is written as history is through the evidence-based method – if it doesn’t have corroboration (is not backed up by other sources) or has internal inconsistency, it can be shown as false. The bible has a lot of corroboration and is always internally consistent.

The Bible was written:
· In 3 Languages: Greek – Hebrew – Aramaic.
· In 3 Continents: Asia – Africa – Europe.
· Was written over 1400 years ago.
· Written by 40 different authors.

The person never kept his bargain, he still believed in science over fact.
Click to expand...
The Magi (The wise men) were scientist of those times which they had studied nature. But it says that God doesn't has anything against science and which the word science means knowledge. In the book of Timothy, it only says to stay away from those ideas that opposes the word that is falsely called knowledge (science); and which that is not considered as science at all. And so he just were saying to not stay away from science, but to stay away from the ones that opposes the scriptures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back