Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Science Agree With the Bible?

Joshua_Verum
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The Bible"s answer
Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

The mountains rise and fall, and today"s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis."Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up "the heavens," was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth"s surface during the first "day," or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third "day" of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5, 12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth."Genesis 1:16.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: "The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again." However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words "sunrise" and "sunset," yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase "the ends of the earth" to mean "the most distant part of the earth"; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression "the four corners of the earth" is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor."Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (`0;), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of "the Sea of cast metal" given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that "it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it." These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

https://www.jw.org...
(Matthew 24:14:) And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

The Kingdom message is reaching all corners of the globe. In 2010 alone, Jehovah"s Witnesses spent over 1.6 billion hours proclaiming this good news in 236 lands. Over the past decade, they have produced and distributed more than 20 billion items of literature.

https://www.jw.org...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 8:42:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:
The Bible"s answer
Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

The mountains rise and fall, and today"s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis."Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up "the heavens," was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth"s surface during the first "day," or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third "day" of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5, 12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth."Genesis 1:16.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: "The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again." However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words "sunrise" and "sunset," yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase "the ends of the earth" to mean "the most distant part of the earth"; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression "the four corners of the earth" is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor."Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (`0;), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of "the Sea of cast metal" given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that "it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it." These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

https://www.jw.org...

So almost everything in the bible has to be altered to fit in with scientific reality.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:05:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:


Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

If you make Adam and Eve into a metaphorical story, then you do the same to Jesus since his genealogy shows him to be descended from them.

Also, Jacobs genetics are clearly contrary to modern genetics. (Genesis 30: 37-43) Placing contrasting colored sticks within view of copulating animals does not make offspring differently colored. The Bible contains scientific absurdities.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:44:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Science does not set out to agree with the bible any more than it sets out to agree with any other myth.
It seems the believers in myths do what they can to interpret their myths to agree with science so they can convince themselves their faith is based on something scientific.
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 10:02:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:
The Bible"s answer
Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

The mountains rise and fall, and today"s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis."Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up "the heavens," was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth"s surface during the first "day," or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third "day" of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5, 12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth."Genesis 1:16.


Incorrect, the "greater light" and "lesser light" were created on day 4, not with the "heavens" (Genesis 1:14-19) while plants were created on day 3 (Genesis 1:9-13) This incorrect from our understanding of solar formation and evolution. If we are using the epoch approach as you suggest then this is a real problem for the scientific truth of the bible. It would probably be better to argue that the creation account is entirely metaphorical (though that raises other issues for the bible).

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: "The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again." However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words "sunrise" and "sunset," yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.


That's a very, very weak justification. Why didn't make it clear that this was the motion of the sun viewed from a fixed point on the earth? Why didn't god use this as an opportunity to make clear the earth revolves around the sun? Why do any of these apparent errors have to be clarified?

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase "the ends of the earth" to mean "the most distant part of the earth"; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression "the four corners of the earth" is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor."Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.


Again, a weak justification. Why didn't god make it clear the earth is a slightly pear shaped oblate spheroid? That would be impressive knowledge for that age and make it clear the bible is correct, rather than running around coming up with convoluted explanations for what are clearly errors.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (`0;), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of "the Sea of cast metal" given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that "it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it." These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.


A perfect god would have made it clear there was rounding involved, instead of letting an obvious error hang out there. This would have been another time for god to explain something (in this case the value of pi) rather leave it for a more advanced civilization having to run around making up explanations.

https://www.jw.org...

None of these explanations make particular sense to me, and Occam's Razor implies that there are errors in the bible. The explanation about the sun and vegetation is an outright lie, so I'm not sure if you didn't read the passages for yourself, or if you're willing to lie to people you hope are biblically illiterate enough to not catch it.

Also, could I request you at least write future threads yourself rather than posting copypasta? Because it in the future I could just post copypasta in response and things would just get ridiculous :)
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 10:08:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

Compare the statement "The universe had a beginning" with the statement " God created the universe in the indefinite past"
The first statement implies the universe had a definite beginning point in time.
The second statement implies any beginning of the universe is indefinite. "The indefinite past" can also be "the eternal past" or "the infinite past" which has no beginning point in time due to being eternal.

So tell me, do you perceive "the beginning" as a definite point in time as perceived from planet Earth or an indefinite starting point of time in eternity where time is irrelevant?

The beginning is God Itself according to Rev 1:8, Rev 21:6, Rev 22:13
I wrote "itself" as opposed to "himself" because God is not a man according to Num 23:19, and the words "him" and "himself" implies a man in English.

IF God IS the beginning, "In the beginning" means " In God" not "In a finite point in time"
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 10:39:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 10:02:16 PM, Malsent wrote:

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis. - Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up "the heavens," was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth"s surface during the first "day," or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third "day" of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5, 12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth."Genesis 1:16.


Incorrect, the "greater light" and "lesser light" were created on day 4, not with the "heavens" (Genesis 1:14-19) while plants were created on day 3 (Genesis 1:9-13) This incorrect from our understanding of solar formation and evolution. If we are using the epoch approach as you suggest then this is a real problem for the scientific truth of the bible. It would probably be better to argue that the creation account is entirely metaphorical (though that raises other issues for the bible).
Incorrect, Genesis 1:14 reads:
"Then God said: 'Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.'"

It was at this time that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Not that they were created.

Genesis 1:16 reads:
"And God made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars."

The Hebrew verb asa is translated as "made." It appears in an appropriate form for a past action. There are no verb tenses in Hebrew to parallel verb tenses in English. Rather, three Hebrew verb forms are used to denote action already completed, action not yet completed, and commands. Verse sixteen makes no specification as to when in the past the sun, moon, and stars were made. However, the wording of verses seventeen and eighteen does provide a hint:
"Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness."

The echo of wording from day one (see verses 3-5) is significant. It suggests both when and why God created the heavenly lights. The mention of shamayim wa'eres (heavens and earth) in Genesis 1:1 places the existence of the sun and stars prior to the first creation day. Thus, the sun was already in place to fulfill its role on the first creation day.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: "The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again." However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words "sunrise" and "sunset," yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.


That's a very, very weak justification. Why didn't make it clear that this was the motion of the sun viewed from a fixed point on the earth? Why didn't god use this as an opportunity to make clear the earth revolves around the sun? Why do any of these apparent errors have to be clarified?
OP answers this question. The Bible is not a science textbook. Even Genesis is described from the position of a figure on earth, which is apparent from the way it is written.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase "the ends of the earth" to mean "the most distant part of the earth"; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression "the four corners of the earth" is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor."Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.


Again, a weak justification. Why didn't god make it clear the earth is a slightly pear shaped oblate spheroid? That would be impressive knowledge for that age and make it clear the bible is correct, rather than running around coming up with convoluted explanations for what are clearly errors.
Once again, it is not a science textbook. There is no need for it to be mentioned or thoroughly described.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (`0;), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of "the Sea of cast metal" given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that "it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it." These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.


A perfect god would have made it clear there was rounding involved, instead of letting an obvious error hang out there. This would have been another time for god to explain something (in this case the value of pi) rather leave it for a more advanced civilization having to run around making up explanations.
So you are bothered by the fact that "I rounded" is not added? There are many minor details that could have been added into the Bible, but that would upset the balance of the book.

https://www.jw.org...

None of these explanations make particular sense to me, and Occam's Razor implies that there are errors in the bible. The explanation about the sun and vegetation is an outright lie, so I'm not sure if you didn't read the passages for yourself, or if you're willing to lie to people you hope are biblically illiterate enough to not catch it.
Nope, you were just ignorant of the topic, which I have hopefully rectified.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 11:00:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Negative, the wording in the description of the first day makes it clear that the sun was placed (created prior or not) in place on the fourth day, not the first. "Heavens" in the sense of the Semitic tradition refers to what you would call "Heaven," not the expanse of space, which is another apparent error in the bible. This is why day four has the creation of the sun, moon, and stars! If they already existed, then god created them twice, which is even more ridiculous! Also, you are ignoring the obvious error that the moon ("lesser light") is NOT a source of light, it merely reflects light from the sun. These passages were clearly and obviously written by primitive man without the benefit of knowledge that we have gained. Again, if you have to make a convoluted argument to explain an obvious error, Occam's Razor shows that it's in error, not that the convoluted explanation is any explanation. Regardless, the ordering of the days does not conflate with our knowledge of events (the sun is a regular, even small, star, not the "great light" of the expanse of space, the moon is not a light source, the ordering of events out of sync with evolution, etc.).

The bible may not be a science textbook, which is fine, but it is then clear it is also not scientifically accurate, which is what the OP is addressing. It does not HAVE to thoroughly discuss the subject matter, but god clearly missed many opportunities to impart knowledge to mankind, and instead left passages ambiguous, vague, and at times clearly incorrect. This does not match up with the idea of a perfect, all-knowing god. Instead, the passages clearly read as the edited, revised, handpicked writings of primitive Semitic tribes drawing from the myths of Ugarit, Babylon, Egypt, and Samaria in a game of "my god is bigger than yours."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 11:32:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 11:00:05 PM, Malsent wrote:

Negative, the wording in the description of the first day makes it clear that the sun was placed (created prior or not) in place on the fourth day, not the first. "Heavens" in the sense of the Semitic tradition refers to what you would call "Heaven," not the expanse of space, which is another apparent error in the bible. This is why day four has the creation of the sun, moon, and stars! If they already existed, then god created them twice, which is even more ridiculous! Also, you are ignoring the obvious error that the moon ("lesser light") is NOT a source of light, it merely reflects light from the sun. These passages were clearly and obviously written by primitive man without the benefit of knowledge that we have gained. Again, if you have to make a convoluted argument to explain an obvious error, Occam's Razor shows that it's in error, not that the convoluted explanation is any explanation. Regardless, the ordering of the days does not conflate with our knowledge of events (the sun is a regular, even small, star, not the "great light" of the expanse of space, the moon is not a light source, the ordering of events out of sync with evolution, etc.).
Negative, you are being willfully ignorant if you are drawing the conclusion that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day. That is not what the Bible says, so you might as well be talking into a mirror. Genesis 1:14 uses the word shamayim for heaven. Let's not play a guessing game and actually refer to a Greek concordance:
visible heavens, sky, where stars, etc., are... Genesis 1:14 (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

In Genesis 1:1 it is defined as:
universe (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

So you need to provide some sources for your information (more than likely misinformation). In regards to your critique of the use of "lesser light," where in the Bible does it mention that the "lesser light" is producing a new source of light? Why do you assume that it cannot be reflecting light?

The bible may not be a science textbook, which is fine, but it is then clear it is also not scientifically accurate, which is what the OP is addressing. It does not HAVE to thoroughly discuss the subject matter, but god clearly missed many opportunities to impart knowledge to mankind, and instead left passages ambiguous, vague, and at times clearly incorrect. This does not match up with the idea of a perfect, all-knowing god. Instead, the passages clearly read as the edited, revised, handpicked writings of primitive Semitic tribes drawing from the myths of Ugarit, Babylon, Egypt, and Samaria in a game of "my god is bigger than yours."
You have yet to prove the OP wrong, so I look forward to any further "proofs" you have.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 12:06:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 11:32:39 PM, tstor wrote:
At 12/31/2015 11:00:05 PM, Malsent wrote:

Negative, the wording in the description of the first day makes it clear that the sun was placed (created prior or not) in place on the fourth day, not the first. "Heavens" in the sense of the Semitic tradition refers to what you would call "Heaven," not the expanse of space, which is another apparent error in the bible. This is why day four has the creation of the sun, moon, and stars! If they already existed, then god created them twice, which is even more ridiculous! Also, you are ignoring the obvious error that the moon ("lesser light") is NOT a source of light, it merely reflects light from the sun. These passages were clearly and obviously written by primitive man without the benefit of knowledge that we have gained. Again, if you have to make a convoluted argument to explain an obvious error, Occam's Razor shows that it's in error, not that the convoluted explanation is any explanation. Regardless, the ordering of the days does not conflate with our knowledge of events (the sun is a regular, even small, star, not the "great light" of the expanse of space, the moon is not a light source, the ordering of events out of sync with evolution, etc.).
Negative, you are being willfully ignorant if you are drawing the conclusion that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day. That is not what the Bible says, so you might as well be talking into a mirror. Genesis 1:14 uses the word shamayim for heaven. Let's not play a guessing game and actually refer to a Greek concordance:
visible heavens, sky, where stars, etc., are... Genesis 1:14 (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

In Genesis 1:1 it is defined as:
universe (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

So you need to provide some sources for your information (more than likely misinformation). In regards to your critique of the use of "lesser light," where in the Bible does it mention that the "lesser light" is producing a new source of light? Why do you assume that it cannot be reflecting light?

The bible may not be a science textbook, which is fine, but it is then clear it is also not scientifically accurate, which is what the OP is addressing. It does not HAVE to thoroughly discuss the subject matter, but god clearly missed many opportunities to impart knowledge to mankind, and instead left passages ambiguous, vague, and at times clearly incorrect. This does not match up with the idea of a perfect, all-knowing god. Instead, the passages clearly read as the edited, revised, handpicked writings of primitive Semitic tribes drawing from the myths of Ugarit, Babylon, Egypt, and Samaria in a game of "my god is bigger than yours."
You have yet to prove the OP wrong, so I look forward to any further "proofs" you have.

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:14 both use has-samayim (also transliterated as has-shamayim), true. However, in 1:14 has-samayim is immediately followed by birqia, which is the word the author used for space. has-samayim is "of the Heaven" while birqia is "in the expanse." It is clear that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of Heaven, while 1:14 is referring to the creation of the sun and stars. Note that the bible makes a distinction between the sun (haggadol hammawr) versus the stars (hakkowkabim). Yet, the sun IS a star, and not a particularly special one (except to us, but again this indicates the bible has a rather primitive author). Note also that the phrase hakkowkabim implies "He made the stars" meaning the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is on the fourth day, not the first.

Basically, the author of this passage of Genesis saw the sun as divine light, so he has god placing the "light of the heavens" in the sky for mankind. The heavens are separate and distinct from the expanse. The heavens are, well, Heaven, and the expanse is space.

Now, could you please stop pretending i'm ignorant and misinformed? It's starting to get insulting.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 12:35:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:05:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:


Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

If you make Adam and Eve into a metaphorical story, then you do the same to Jesus since his genealogy shows him to be descended from them.

Also, Jacobs genetics are clearly contrary to modern genetics. (Genesis 30: 37-43) Placing contrasting colored sticks within view of copulating animals does not make offspring differently colored. The Bible contains scientific absurdities.
Genesis as you posted...
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban"s animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.
Nowhere does it say the following..
A) what color all the birds were
B) the branches is what caused the stripes or speckled or spotted features
C) it says only that he separated the young and bred his own. Not that the tree branches caused the result of breeding, only that it drew the birds to the trough. All the birds.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 12:41:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:
The Bible"s answer
Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

The mountains rise and fall, and today"s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis."Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up "the heavens," was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth"s surface during the first "day," or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third "day" of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5, 12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth."Genesis 1:16.
I don't like this argument because it implies that the plants were in a state of degradation. Is this after the fall? If not then this is a moot point.
Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: "The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again." However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words "sunrise" and "sunset," yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase "the ends of the earth" to mean "the most distant part of the earth"; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression "the four corners of the earth" is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor."Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (`0;), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of "the Sea of cast metal" given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that "it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it." These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

https://www.jw.org...

By the way, the plagues of Egypt and their order was actually proven as a scientific order of what would have occurred in a natural progression.
Also, the Bible mentions insects that crawl on 4 legs. This is an actual scientific fact because there are insects that only use their hind 2 legs for leaping and jumping mostly, and almost never use them to walk with.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 12:48:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The bible states that the planets=stars of our solar system within the spherical dome of ice that surrounds us, were all created before the sun. Does science agree with this?

This is one scientific theory as to the creation of our solar system, whether or not it is the best theory that we have today, time will tell. This theory states, that the process of the division of the waters [gaseous elements of our Solar nebula cloud] from the greater Galactic nebula cloud, began some five billion years ago, and that the whole process began with the division of the water above, from the waters below from which the entire Solar system was created. This took just a few hundred million years, about 400 million years in fact, and the creation of our entire solar system was completed by about 4.6 billion years ago.

It was from the galactic nebular cloud, which was the residue of the heaver elements that were exploded off with the great super nova, that was the death of earlier generation Stars, that galaxies would be formed in the second creative period=day, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the waters above from the waters below.

The accretion of the galactic nebula disk transferred angular momentum outward as it transferred mass inward, it was this that caused our solar nebula to begin to rotate and condense inward, bringing a division of the solar cloud, from the galactic cloud, or the waters above from the waters below.

Within the greater galactic nebular cloud, which was slowly beginning to revolve around the Black Hole that anchored it in space, a piece of the larger cloud complex started to collapse about five billion years ago. The cloud complex had already been "polluted" with dust grains from previous generations of stars, so it was possible to form the rocky terrestrial planets as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula.

As the cloud=waters of the solar nebula collapsed, its slight rotation increased. This is because of the conservation of angular momentum. Just like a dancer who spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the centre, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the centre but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons.

Near the centre of the cloud, where planets like earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed. As the cloud continued to fall in, the centre would get so hot that it would eventually become a star and blow away most of the gas and dust from which the planets of the solar system had been formed with a strong stellar wind.

By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old! As the solar nebula collapsed, the gas and dust heated up through collisions among the particles. The solar nebula heated up to around 3000 K so everything was in a gaseous form.

The solar nebula's composition was similar to the present-day Sun's composition: about 93% hydrogen, 6% helium, and about 1% silicates and iron, and the density of the gas and dust increased toward the core where the proto-sun was: [PROTO SUN.]. The inner, denser regions collapsed more quickly than the outer regions.

Around Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun the temperature was cool enough to freeze water (the so-called "snow line" or "frost line" ). Further out from the proto-Sun, ammonia and methane were able to condense. When the solar nebula stopped collapsing it began cooling, though the core that would later form the Sun remained hot. This meant that the outer parts of the solar nebula cooled off more than the inner parts closer to the hot proto-Sun.

Only metal and rock materials could condense (solidify) at the high temperatures close to the proto-Sun. Therefore, the metal and rock materials could condense in all the places where the planets were forming. Volatile materials (like water, methane and ammonia) could only condense in the outer parts of the solar nebula.

Because the density of the solar nebula material increased inward, there was more water at Jupiter's distance than at the distances of Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune. The greater amount of water ice at Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun helped it grow larger than the other planets. Although, there was more water closer to the proto-Sun than Jupiter, that water was too warm to condense.

Material with the highest freezing temperatures condensed to form the chondrules that were then incorporated in lower freezing temperature material. Any material that later became part of a planet underwent further heating and processing when the planet differentiated so the heavy metals sunk to the planet's core and lighter metals floated up to nearer the surface.

Because of its great compression, the core of the proto-Sun finally reached about 10 million Kelvin and after the planets of the solar system had been created, the hydrogen nuclei started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy. It was then that the Sun "turned on" and produced the strong winds called T-Tauri winds named after the prototype star in the constellation Taurus. These winds swept out the rest of the nebula that was not already incorporated into the planets. With most of the cocoon gas blown away, the new star itself becomes visible to the outside for the first time. This whole process took just a few hundred million years and was finished by about 4.6 billion years ago.

And so, it was only after the creation of the planets of our solar system that the hydrogen nuclei began fusing together within the condensing cloud thereby created our sun.

The Oort cloud or the "Opik"Oort cloud (named after Jan Oort), is a spherical cloud of predominantly icy objects that may extend up to roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun. This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, the other two reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth of the Oort cloud's distance. The outer limit of the Oort cloud defines the cosmographical boundary of the Solar System and the region of the Sun's gravitational dominance..

The Oort cloud is thought to comprise two separate regions: a spherical outer Oort cloud that surrounds our solar system, and a disc-shaped inner Oort cloud, or Hills cloud. Objects in the Oort cloud are largely composed of ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane.

At the distance of about one light year from the earth, is the great icy Dome, that is the boundary of the firmament of our heavens, in which the sun, moon, and planets of our solar system were created.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 1:06:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 12:35:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:05:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:


Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

If you make Adam and Eve into a metaphorical story, then you do the same to Jesus since his genealogy shows him to be descended from them.

Also, Jacobs genetics are clearly contrary to modern genetics. (Genesis 30: 37-43) Placing contrasting colored sticks within view of copulating animals does not make offspring differently colored. The Bible contains scientific absurdities.
Genesis as you posted...
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban"s animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.
Nowhere does it say the following..
A) what color all the birds were
B) the branches is what caused the stripes or speckled or spotted features
C) it says only that he separated the young and bred his own. Not that the tree branches caused the result of breeding, only that it drew the birds to the trough. All the birds.

In fact, it doesn't say anything about birds. It says "flocks" in regard to sheep, cattle, and goats. (Genesis 30:32). You should probably familiarize yourself with the story.

https://www.biblegateway.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 2:42:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 12:06:11 AM, Malsent wrote:

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:14 both use has-samayim (also transliterated as has-shamayim), true. However, in 1:14 has-samayim is immediately followed by birqia, which is the word the author used for space. has-samayim is "of the Heaven" while birqia is "in the expanse." It is clear that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of Heaven, while 1:14 is referring to the creation of the sun and stars. Note that the bible makes a distinction between the sun (haggadol hammawr) versus the stars (hakkowkabim). Yet, the sun IS a star, and not a particularly special one (except to us, but again this indicates the bible has a rather primitive author). Note also that the phrase hakkowkabim implies "He made the stars" meaning the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is on the fourth day, not the first.
The immediate problem with your interpretation is that it ignores the verb form of asa in verse sixteen, which indicates the creation of the luminaries at a prior date. It is later revealed, as I have shown, that it was during Genesis 1:1.

raqia, which is used in Genesis 1:14 for "expanse," means "visible arch of the sky" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). So when verse fourteen says "let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night," it is talking about the "visible arch of the sky," which would have been made during Genesis 1:1. This observation makes sense because the perspective of Genesis is on the surface, which is established by Genesis 1:2, which reads:
"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God's active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

In regards to the sun being called a "greater light" rather than something like a "greater star" or just a "star" can be explained several ways. For one, there is a special purpose being established for the "greater light" and "lesser light." The "greater light" would be used for "dominating the day" and the "lesser light" "for dominating the night." Quite obviously since this account is given from the perspective of the surface of the earth, this makes even more sense.

Finally, hakkowkabim (or whichever transliteration one prefers) may hold that meaning in certain cases, but that is not always the case. Otherwise Deuteronomy 4:19 would take on a very different meaning:
"And when you raise your eyes to the heavens and see the sun and the moon and the stars - all the army of the heavens - do not get seduced and bow down to them and serve them. Jehovah your God has given them to all the peoples under the whole heavens."

There is no reason to assume that he made the stars on day four when the sun and moon were quite obviously made prior to that.

Basically, the author of this passage of Genesis saw the sun as divine light, so he has god placing the "light of the heavens" in the sky for mankind. The heavens are separate and distinct from the expanse. The heavens are, well, Heaven, and the expanse is space.
Read above.

Now, could you please stop pretending i'm ignorant and misinformed? It's starting to get insulting.
I do not have to pretend.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 3:17:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 2:42:04 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/1/2016 12:06:11 AM, Malsent wrote:

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:14 both use has-samayim (also transliterated as has-shamayim), true. However, in 1:14 has-samayim is immediately followed by birqia, which is the word the author used for space. has-samayim is "of the Heaven" while birqia is "in the expanse." It is clear that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of Heaven, while 1:14 is referring to the creation of the sun and stars. Note that the bible makes a distinction between the sun (haggadol hammawr) versus the stars (hakkowkabim). Yet, the sun IS a star, and not a particularly special one (except to us, but again this indicates the bible has a rather primitive author). Note also that the phrase hakkowkabim implies "He made the stars" meaning the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is on the fourth day, not the first.
The immediate problem with your interpretation is that it ignores the verb form of asa in verse sixteen, which indicates the creation of the luminaries at a prior date. It is later revealed, as I have shown, that it was during Genesis 1:1.

raqia, which is used in Genesis 1:14 for "expanse," means "visible arch of the sky" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). So when verse fourteen says "let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night," it is talking about the "visible arch of the sky," which would have been made during Genesis 1:1. This observation makes sense because the perspective of Genesis is on the surface, which is established by Genesis 1:2, which reads:
"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God's active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

In regards to the sun being called a "greater light" rather than something like a "greater star" or just a "star" can be explained several ways. For one, there is a special purpose being established for the "greater light" and "lesser light." The "greater light" would be used for "dominating the day" and the "lesser light" "for dominating the night." Quite obviously since this account is given from the perspective of the surface of the earth, this makes even more sense.

Finally, hakkowkabim (or whichever transliteration one prefers) may hold that meaning in certain cases, but that is not always the case. Otherwise Deuteronomy 4:19 would take on a very different meaning:
"And when you raise your eyes to the heavens and see the sun and the moon and the stars - all the army of the heavens - do not get seduced and bow down to them and serve them. Jehovah your God has given them to all the peoples under the whole heavens."

There is no reason to assume that he made the stars on day four when the sun and moon were quite obviously made prior to that.

Basically, the author of this passage of Genesis saw the sun as divine light, so he has god placing the "light of the heavens" in the sky for mankind. The heavens are separate and distinct from the expanse. The heavens are, well, Heaven, and the expanse is space.
Read above.

Now, could you please stop pretending i'm ignorant and misinformed? It's starting to get insulting.
I do not have to pretend.

I already dealt with the idea of a prior creation/later reveal, you ignored it. The fourth day becomes irrelevant and extraneous in such a scenario. Even assuming you are correct, if they are only revealed in a later epoch then their light did nothing for the vegetation in the prior epoch, so that gets you nowhere.

In the context of the creation myth, my translation of hakkowkabim makes sense, it is describing a creation event so "he made the stars" makes sense in that context.

As for the word asa (asah), we must be using different codex's, mine (Westminster Leningrad Codex) uses wayyaas, meaning "he made" indicating the creation occurred in the fourth day/epoch, not the first. The expanse could have been made in the first epoch, and indeed I find that likely. However, the creation of the stars seems to have occurred in the fourth epoch, else why waste a day and make it seem like the creation occurred then when it would have been easier to say he revealed the stars. But again, even if the revealing of the stars occurred then it is counter-intuitive to our modern scientific understanding where stars formed in advance of the earth. That is what this thread is about, and your explanation still doesn't make the bible coincide with modern science.

Now, could we stop with the insults, because I don't see how they are helpful or productive? I'm asking as politely as I can and you are making it very difficult to stay polite.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 3:24:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Genesis" condensed account of creation........In the beginning God created the universe=heavens and earth, and the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and God"s active force was moving on the face of the waters. Then God said let there be light.

The scientific theory of creation........In the beginning, there was the "BIG BANG" which spatially separated the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which event spewed out liquid like (the waters) electromagnetic energy in the trillions of degrees, it was from the quantum of that liquid like electromagnetic energy (Waters) that the earth and all the heavenly bodies would be created, and although, all that the earth was created from, was already there in the beginning, the earth at that time had neither shape=formless nor mass=void, and no suns had yet come into existence to light up the darkness of the expanding space=bottomless pit, but there was momentum within that ever cooling expanding cloud of wave particles which are the quantum of that liquid like electromagnetic energy, which wave particles are really not particles at all, having zero mass and no electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum.

One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like (Waters) electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material, but with the angular momentum of those waves they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic molecules.

As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion"s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron. As the universe expanded and cooled, more hydrogen molecules were formed, and from these, after some thirty million years of attraction, came the formation of the first generation stars.

And God said, "Let there be light. "

But those gigantic first generation stars that were formed in the first period of universal activity=day, before the Big Crunch that brought that period of physical activity to an end, were not the sun of our solar system, which would not be created until the fourth creative day or the fourth period of universal activity.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 3:53:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 3:17:33 AM, Malsent wrote:

I already dealt with the idea of a prior creation/later reveal, you ignored it. The fourth day becomes irrelevant and extraneous in such a scenario. Even assuming you are correct, if they are only revealed in a later epoch then their light did nothing for the vegetation in the prior epoch, so that gets you nowhere.
I did not ignore it as I have addressed everything you have stated. The fourth day is far from irrelevant. The atmosphere went from translucent (light-diffusing) to transparent (light-transmitting). So we see that the atmosphere allowed some light to penetrate, which in turn allowed for plant growth. I can go into greater detail upon request.

In the context of the creation myth, my translation of hakkowkabim makes sense, it is describing a creation event so "he made the stars" makes sense in that context.
Sorry, but the immediate context does not allow for that, which I pointed out in this post:
http://www.debate.org...

As for the word asa (asah), we must be using different codex's, mine (Westminster Leningrad Codex) uses wayyaas, meaning "he made" indicating the creation occurred in the fourth day/epoch, not the first. The expanse could have been made in the first epoch, and indeed I find that likely. However, the creation of the stars seems to have occurred in the fourth epoch, else why waste a day and make it seem like the creation occurred then when it would have been easier to say he revealed the stars. But again, even if the revealing of the stars occurred then it is counter-intuitive to our modern scientific understanding where stars formed in advance of the earth. That is what this thread is about, and your explanation still doesn't make the bible coincide with modern science.
asah means "to do, fashion, accomplish, make" (NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon). Compare that to the word bara (also used in Genesis; see Genesis 1:1), which means to "create." (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Do you see the difference in word selection? If the writer, Moses, wanted to express God creating the sun, moon, and stars on day four, then he would have used the word bara rather than asa. You did not refute my point that the verb form of asa indicates a past action.

Now, could we stop with the insults, because I don't see how they are helpful or productive? I'm asking as politely as I can and you are making it very difficult to stay polite.
I am not insulting you on purpose. I am very ignorant when it comes to many subjects, one of which is not the creation account in Genesis. You are making it evident that you are ignorant of the creation account in Genesis, but fail to admit it.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:02:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 3:53:34 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/1/2016 3:17:33 AM, Malsent wrote:

I already dealt with the idea of a prior creation/later reveal, you ignored it. The fourth day becomes irrelevant and extraneous in such a scenario. Even assuming you are correct, if they are only revealed in a later epoch then their light did nothing for the vegetation in the prior epoch, so that gets you nowhere.
I did not ignore it as I have addressed everything you have stated. The fourth day is far from irrelevant. The atmosphere went from translucent (light-diffusing) to transparent (light-transmitting). So we see that the atmosphere allowed some light to penetrate, which in turn allowed for plant growth. I can go into greater detail upon request.

In the context of the creation myth, my translation of hakkowkabim makes sense, it is describing a creation event so "he made the stars" makes sense in that context.
Sorry, but the immediate context does not allow for that, which I pointed out in this post:
http://www.debate.org...

As for the word asa (asah), we must be using different codex's, mine (Westminster Leningrad Codex) uses wayyaas, meaning "he made" indicating the creation occurred in the fourth day/epoch, not the first. The expanse could have been made in the first epoch, and indeed I find that likely. However, the creation of the stars seems to have occurred in the fourth epoch, else why waste a day and make it seem like the creation occurred then when it would have been easier to say he revealed the stars. But again, even if the revealing of the stars occurred then it is counter-intuitive to our modern scientific understanding where stars formed in advance of the earth. That is what this thread is about, and your explanation still doesn't make the bible coincide with modern science.
asah means "to do, fashion, accomplish, make" (NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon). Compare that to the word bara (also used in Genesis; see Genesis 1:1), which means to "create." (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Do you see the difference in word selection? If the writer, Moses, wanted to express God creating the sun, moon, and stars on day four, then he would have used the word bara rather than asa. You did not refute my point that the verb form of asa indicates a past action.

Now, could we stop with the insults, because I don't see how they are helpful or productive? I'm asking as politely as I can and you are making it very difficult to stay polite.
I am not insulting you on purpose. I am very ignorant when it comes to many subjects, one of which is not the creation account in Genesis. You are making it evident that you are ignorant of the creation account in Genesis, but fail to admit it.

I'd say this is the first time you've actually addressed the point of your interpretation making day 4 irrelevant, but whatever. Do you have any scientific evidence to indicate the atmosphere was translucent or opaque (it's still translucent in the strictest sense), then transparent as it is today, or are you just trying to fit the scriptures into a rough framework of scientific understanding. Remember, the OP's contention is that the bible is scientifically accurate, so you can at most fit the scriptures to science, I don't have to work the other way.

Again, my codex does not use asah, but wayyaas, so I didn't ignore anything. If there is a different wording in your codex then that just shows the scriptures are not perfectly preserved which is another problem for the bible. We haven't even touched on how non-canonical provide a different interpretation of the creation account (from Jesus, no less).

Just because I have a different interpretation than you does not make me ignorant, nor misinformed, that is how you were being insulting.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:40:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:
The Bible"s answer
Science post-dates the selection of Biblical canon by some 1300 years. So the Bible cannot answer whether science agrees. Science must answer this question.

And part of the answer is that science does not agree with literal Biblical interpretations.

Another part of the answer is that non-literal Biblical interpretations are seldom authenticated, and science (in this case scientific methods used in historiology) often shows such interpretations to be historically unsupported.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:33:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 4:02:59 AM, Malsent wrote:

I'd say this is the first time you've actually addressed the point of your interpretation making day 4 irrelevant, but whatever. Do you have any scientific evidence to indicate the atmosphere was translucent or opaque (it's still translucent in the strictest sense), then transparent as it is today, or are you just trying to fit the scriptures into a rough framework of scientific understanding. Remember, the OP's contention is that the bible is scientifically accurate, so you can at most fit the scriptures to science, I don't have to work the other way.
For many millions of years after light first pierced the dark shroud surrounding Earth, the sky would have continued to resemble the heavy overcast of a stormy day. Certain atmospheric constituents, along with air temperature, pressure, and humidity, would have prevented any break in Earth's cloud cover. Volcanic activity also may have contributed to the perpetual overcast. Atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor levels were substantially higher than current levels, contributing to high humidity. At the same time, the oxygen level was much lower. Fossil evidence confirms such conditions. While this is only hypothetical, as enough evidence does not exist to validate of falsify the position, it is plausible.

Fairly recently it was discovered that methane and other organic compounds were crucial parts of the atmosphere here on earth prior to the oxygenation event. The organics would more than likely have created a haze in the atmosphere, similar to the one we see on Titan (one of Saturn's moons). You can read more about the findings here:
http://www.nature.com...

Again, my codex does not use asah, but wayyaas, so I didn't ignore anything. If there is a different wording in your codex then that just shows the scriptures are not perfectly preserved which is another problem for the bible. We haven't even touched on how non-canonical provide a different interpretation of the creation account (from Jesus, no less).
Does your codex provide the root? I can tell you what it is. Take a guess.

Just because I have a different interpretation than you does not make me ignorant, nor misinformed, that is how you were being insulting.
Nope, you are strictly misinformed. I have shown this in every way possible.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:34:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 10:39:42 PM, tstor wrote:
It was at this time that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Not that they were created.
Citation required. LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:36:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/31/2015 10:39:42 PM, tstor wrote:
It was at this time that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Not that they were created.
Citation required. LOL
Sure, Genesis 1:9-13.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:39:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:33:25 AM, tstor wrote:
For many millions of years after light first pierced the dark shroud surrounding Earth,
Citation needed. LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:41:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:39:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/1/2016 5:33:25 AM, tstor wrote:
For many millions of years after light first pierced the dark shroud surrounding Earth,
Citation needed. LOL
http://www.debate.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:42:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 1:06:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/1/2016 12:35:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:05:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 7:59:20 PM, Joshua_Verum wrote:


Are there scientific errors in the Bible?
A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a "day.""Genesis 2:4.

If you make Adam and Eve into a metaphorical story, then you do the same to Jesus since his genealogy shows him to be descended from them.

Also, Jacobs genetics are clearly contrary to modern genetics. (Genesis 30: 37-43) Placing contrasting colored sticks within view of copulating animals does not make offspring differently colored. The Bible contains scientific absurdities.
Genesis as you posted...
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban"s animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.
Nowhere does it say the following..
A) what color all the birds were
B) the branches is what caused the stripes or speckled or spotted features
C) it says only that he separated the young and bred his own. Not that the tree branches caused the result of breeding, only that it drew the birds to the trough. All the birds.

In fact, it doesn't say anything about birds. It says "flocks" in regard to sheep, cattle, and goats. (Genesis 30:32). You should probably familiarize yourself with the story.
Yep, but of course it's irrelevant because the point still stands. So you still avoid the actual point, typical. Would you believe I baited you?

https://www.biblegateway.com...
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:46:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:33:25 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/1/2016 4:02:59 AM, Malsent wrote:

I'd say this is the first time you've actually addressed the point of your interpretation making day 4 irrelevant, but whatever. Do you have any scientific evidence to indicate the atmosphere was translucent or opaque (it's still translucent in the strictest sense), then transparent as it is today, or are you just trying to fit the scriptures into a rough framework of scientific understanding. Remember, the OP's contention is that the bible is scientifically accurate, so you can at most fit the scriptures to science, I don't have to work the other way.
For many millions of years after light first pierced the dark shroud surrounding Earth, the sky would have continued to resemble the heavy overcast of a stormy day. Certain atmospheric constituents, along with air temperature, pressure, and humidity, would have prevented any break in Earth's cloud cover. Volcanic activity also may have contributed to the perpetual overcast. Atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor levels were substantially higher than current levels, contributing to high humidity. At the same time, the oxygen level was much lower. Fossil evidence confirms such conditions. While this is only hypothetical, as enough evidence does not exist to validate of falsify the position, it is plausible.

Fairly recently it was discovered that methane and other organic compounds were crucial parts of the atmosphere here on earth prior to the oxygenation event. The organics would more than likely have created a haze in the atmosphere, similar to the one we see on Titan (one of Saturn's moons). You can read more about the findings here:
http://www.nature.com...

Again, my codex does not use asah, but wayyaas, so I didn't ignore anything. If there is a different wording in your codex then that just shows the scriptures are not perfectly preserved which is another problem for the bible. We haven't even touched on how non-canonical provide a different interpretation of the creation account (from Jesus, no less).
Does your codex provide the root? I can tell you what it is. Take a guess.

Just because I have a different interpretation than you does not make me ignorant, nor misinformed, that is how you were being insulting.
Nope, you are strictly misinformed. I have shown this in every way possible.

I guess you've never been out of a city--even with heavy cloud cover and atmospheric obfuscation the stars are still visible--go out to the countryside some night and you'll see this.

It doesn't matter what the root is, the word is wayyaas meaning "he made" indicating an actual creative act, not a revealing one. Other words such as galah could have been used if your theory were correct. It appears you are the one that is misinformed, not I.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 5:54:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:46:35 AM, Malsent wrote:

It doesn't matter what the root is, the word is wayyaas meaning "he made" indicating an actual creative act, not a revealing one. Other words such as galah could have been used if your theory were correct. It appears you are the one that is misinformed, not I.
It does matter what the root is, as it is asa. So you are distinguishing asa from wayyaas despite asa being the root. My position stands unchallenged as you have yet to (and cannot) refute that the verb form of asa in Genesis 1:16 denotes past action. galah could have been used, sure. However, that would have made the passage more confusing. Consider the definitions of the word:
away into exile 2, banished 1, betray 1, captives 1, captivity 1, carried 1, carried and away 1, carried into exile 4, carried them into exile 3, carried them away into exile 2, carried them captive 1, carried away 14, carried away into exile 10, carried away to exile 1, carried away captive 1, carried...away into exile 4, carry them away as exiles 2, certainly go 3, certainly go into captivity 1, committed 1, depart 1, departed 3, deported 1, disappears 1, discloses 2, disclosing 1, exile 8, exiled 4, exiles 1, expose 2, exposed 3, go from you into exile 1, go into exile 6, go exiled 1, gone into exile 1, indeed reveal 1, inform* 1, known* 2, laid bare 3, lay bare 1, led him captive 1, led away 3, led away into exile 3, led...away into exile 2, lift 1, made 1, make 2, open 4, opened 1, opens 3, published 2, remove 1, removed 3, reported 1, reveal 5, reveal* 1, revealed 12, revealed* 2, revealing 1, reveals 4, revelation* 1, sent into exile 1, sent you into exile 2, set forth 1, shamelessly uncovers 1, show 1, strip off 1, stripped 1, taken 1, taken into exile 1, things revealed 1, uncover 22, uncovered 22, uncovers 1, went into exile 1
(NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon)

Some connotations would have confused the meaning.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 6:01:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 5:36:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/1/2016 5:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/31/2015 10:39:42 PM, tstor wrote:
It was at this time that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Not that they were created.
Citation required. LOL
Sure, Genesis 1:9-13.
No mention of making lights visible, you don't have any trouble making your already ridiculous book even stupider by getting it to agree with jehovian drivel.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 6:03:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 6:01:56 AM, bulproof wrote:

No mention of making lights visible, you don't have any trouble making your already ridiculous book even stupider by getting it to agree with jehovian drivel.
I do not have time to repeat myself to a man with no ears.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)