Any insightful science in the Bible?

[JohnClay]

The world is stable. It's stable in it's relation to us and to the universe. When you walk outside you don't fear being flung off or even register the movement and its also stable in its orbit around the sun. So there is my answer to anyone who says stable means fixed still.

Ok it is possible that the word "stable" is compatible with an earth that is rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.... but as usual it is also even more compatible with the flat earth view

I am a Bible literalist over passages that are meant to be taken literally. I believe in both 6 day creation and the global flood because not only is Genesis historical narrative but other Bible passages support it.

Note that Genesis 1 has a poetic structure... and many Christians would believe that the sun, moon and stars weren't literally created after plants....

 

[JohnClay]

Taken together these references,

The circuit or orbit (not circle),

Is there a verse saying the earth orbits the sun?

The sides (a flat earth doesn't have sides),

I thought a flat circle has sides - or at least edges....

The fact of sunrise/sunset (night and day).

support a globe.

With a flat earth the sun is literally rising and setting... with a globe the sun is fairly stationary but just appears to move around the earth...

 

[JohnClay]

.....If they want to believe the earth is that shape or a circle set into a square or even a cube up on pillars, that is their prerogative. As it doesn't affect their salvation or any other Bible doctrine I'm not bothered....

A related quote:
Why Does Creation Matter?

Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.​

 

[dcalling]

A related quote:
Why Does Creation Matter?

Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.​

Time is relative. To this day we don't know exactly what time is, why all other dimensions can go back and forth yet the dimension of time can only go one way (some in Quantum physics claim practices go back in time, but that is only a hypotheses).

You can imagine the entire universe as a big simulation, and time can be adjusted easily by the programmer, God.

 

[dcalling]

Ok it is possible that the word "stable" is compatible with an earth that is rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.... but as usual it is also even more compatible with the flat earth view

Note that Genesis 1 has a poetic structure... and many Christians would believe that the sun, moon and stars weren't literally created after plants....
View attachment 298808

You can say it is poetic, but you never know what God means. The structure seems sensible, i.e. you must first invent light (which is the basics of all), then you can have other things that needs or produces light. You don't need Sun to give light. Today we can use led or other artificial lights. God is light (even though it is not in human eye detectable range), and in the future we were told Sun/moon will go away, so the light source will be God

 

[JohnClay]

Time is relative. To this day we don't know exactly what time is, why all other dimensions can go back and forth yet the dimension of time can only go one way (some in Quantum physics claim practices go back in time, but that is only a hypotheses).

Yeah in quantum physics there can be "retrocausality" - Feynman diagrams seem to involve things moving backwards in time....
Retrocausality - Wikipedia

You can imagine the entire universe as a big simulation, and time can be adjusted easily by the programmer, God.

I agree... BTW I think the 10^57 atoms in the Sun are approximated rather than always being faithfully simulated...

 

[JohnClay]

You can say it is poetic, but you never know what God means. The structure seems sensible, i.e. you must first invent light (which is the basics of all), then you can have other things that needs or produces light. You don't need Sun to give light. Today we can use led or other artificial lights. God is light (even though it is not in human eye detectable range), and in the future we were told Sun/moon will go away, so the light source will be God

Yeah it can help stop the Sun being worshipped but it seems according to science the sun, moon and stars were formed before plants...

 

[coffee4u]

Ok it is possible that the word "stable" is compatible with an earth that is rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.... but as usual it is also even more compatible with the flat earth view

Except the Bible doesn't teach flat earth.
If people want to take poetry that way its up to them. There is also probably someone who wants to claim the earth is a cube up on pillars.

Are you a flat earth prominent? You seem to be very invested in this. Or as I asked before is this your way of trying to discrete the Bible. Which is it?

Note that Genesis 1 has a poetic structure... and many Christians would believe that the sun, moon and stars weren't literally created after plants....

Genesis 1 is a highly structured patterned text but it is not poetry. The structure of 2 Kings or Judges also has patterning. The only poetry in Genesis 1 is verse 27.
Genesis 1:27



27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
The rest of the text may sound poetic to you but it does not meet Hebrew poetic structure forms. The non-standard vocabulary and unusual verb patterning of Hebrew poetry are missing in all but verse 27. For this reason you will often find verse 27 separate from the rest of the text and indented in modern Bible versions to make it clear that verse is poetry.

 

[JohnClay]

Except the Bible doesn't teach flat earth.

Christian flat earthers would disagree.

If people want to take poetry that way its up to them. There is also probably someone who wants to claim the earth is a cube up on pillars.

Are you a flat earth prominent? You seem to be very invested in this. Or as I asked before is this your way of trying to discrete the Bible. Which is it?

I believe that most of the Bible isn't historical and if it implies the earth is flat, as Christian flat earthers believe, that is a good argument for my position.

Genesis 1 is a highly structured patterned text but it is not poetry....

Day 1 matches up with day 4, etc. You'd say that it is simply literal history but if the sun, moon and stars were formed before the plants, like most scientists believe, then I think the creation order was based on a non-literal structure which I'd call "poetry".

 

[coffee4u]

Christian flat earthers would disagree.

So? They are welcome to it.

I believe that most of the Bible isn't historical and if it implies the earth is flat, as Christian flat earthers believe, that is a good argument for my position.

You are also welcome to your view. But while you are so concerned about that, you may also want to read the gospels and understand what the Bible is really about -Jesus dying for your sin. Because no matter if you believe the world is flat or a sphere, the reality of judgement and eternity are what matters. The world could be a flying piece of Swiss cheese, still would not change a thing.

Day 1 matches up with day 4, etc. You'd say that it is simply literal history but if the sun, moon and stars were formed before the plants, like most scientists believe, then I think the creation order was based on a non-literal structure which I'd call "poetry".

Day 1 has nothing to do with day 4. On day 1 God made some kind of light shine. It may have been light coming from God himself, or it may have been the heavenly host or it may have been a temporary light source, whatever it is was we are not told, but it was not the sun.

Scientists think they know so much about a time and event that no one was here to see and no one can test. Creation was a miracle, by its very definition it falls outside of science. The only tests that can be run are on current conditions based on assumptions formed by evidence from current conditions. The world as God created it is gone.

If you believe in flat earth then you might want to reevaluate how much stock you place in science because the two don't go together. One thing flat earth proponents don't believe in is planets.

 

[coffee4u]

A related quote:
Why Does Creation Matter?

Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.​

You are talking to a creationist- remember.
Creation is a vital part of the gospel.
Most people who are flat earth believers are also creationists, yes.
But not all creationists are flat earth believes.

Also your link goes to Answer in Genesis. They, like me, are creationists, they are not flat earth believers.

 

[JohnClay]

Day 1 has nothing to do with day 4

Nothing???
.

3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good. He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day.” He called the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning. It was day one.​

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the huge space of the sky. Let them separate the day from the night. Let the lights set the times for the holy celebrations and the days and the years. 15 Let them be lights in the huge space of the sky to give light on the earth.” And that’s exactly what happened. 16 God made two great lights. He made the larger light to rule over the day and the smaller light to rule over the night. He also made the stars. 17 God put the lights in the huge space of the sky to give light on the earth. 18 He put them there to rule over the day and the night. He put them there to separate light from darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning. It was day four.
​

On day 1 God made some kind of light shine. It may have been light coming from God himself, or it may have been the heavenly host or it may have been a temporary light source, whatever it is was we are not told, but it was not the sun.

I didn't say the light sources were identical.... I said "Day 1 matches up with day 4, etc" - I think they match up very significantly... (though I know some of those matches (like "it was good") match with other days as well)

....Also your link goes to Answer in Genesis. They, like me, are creationists, they are not flat earth believers.

It is related to whether the "science" behind the Bible is relevant to the gospel message.... and that quote says that if millions of years never happened then "the Bible is false". Using similar reasoning I went from being a YEC to an atheist. Christian flat earthers see the flat earth as part of the "science" in the Bible.

 

[coffee4u]

Nothing???
.

3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good. He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day.” He called the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning. It was day one.​

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the huge space of the sky. Let them separate the day from the night. Let the lights set the times for the holy celebrations and the days and the years. 15 Let them be lights in the huge space of the sky to give light on the earth.” And that’s exactly what happened. 16 God made two great lights. He made the larger light to rule over the day and the smaller light to rule over the night. He also made the stars. 17 God put the lights in the huge space of the sky to give light on the earth. 18 He put them there to rule over the day and the night. He put them there to separate light from darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning. It was day four.
​

I didn't say the light sources were identical.... I said "Day 1 matches up with day 4, etc" - I think they match up very significantly... (though I know some of those matches (like "it was good") match with other days as well)

Day 1 has nothing to do with the creation of the sun, moon and stars. God quite purposely left off creating them until day four. That in itself is a statement. Rather than trying to say one has something to do with the other we should be thinking on why God did what he did. Perhaps he held off on creating the sun, moon and stars because he knew people would worship them as god's.

It is related to whether the "science" behind the Bible is relevant to the gospel message.... and that quote says that if millions of years never happened then "the Bible is false". Using similar reasoning I went from being a YEC to an atheist. Christian flat earthers see the flat earth as part of the "science" in the Bible.

Of course evolution is false, it's the greatest hoax of Satan to ever deceive the world.

Flat earth proponents make up a very small sub section of creationists. Most of us who believe in creation do not believe in flat earth. I'm not sure why you are so keen to connect the two as if all creationist believed in a flat earth, we don't.
That would be like any other generalization such as "all vegetarians eat tofu"
Yes some creationist believe in a flat earth. Most of us do not. It appears you can't handle that fact but must make out we are all flat earth believers. One last time we are not.
I think I am done here.

 

[JohnClay]

Day 1 has nothing to do with the creation of the sun, moon and stars.

Don't you see how similar many of the words and phrases are? (I used colors) I don't think it was an accident. It is about day and night and light and darkness. The sun moon and stars are related to those things.
It is like day 2's sky and sea being related to day 5's birds and sea creatures. That doesn't mean day 2 has birds or sea creatures.

 

[JohnClay]

...Flatearth proponents make up a very small sub section of creationists. Most of us who believe in creation do not believe in flat earth. I'm not sure why you are so keen to connect the two as if all creationist believed in a flat earth, we don't.

Well I'm aware of YEC sites that are completely against a flat earth but they use science as a counterargument rather than Bible arguments. I suspect they never accept a possibility of a flat earth because the scientific support is even worse than YEC so would be even easier for scoffers to criticize. I know Christians who are open to a flat earth including intelligent programmers. BTW there are verses about the truth seeming like foolishness when worldly wisdom is used.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there anything related to physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc that is mentioned in the Bible that couldn't have just been reasoned about by thinkers and philosophers of the time?

Electronic communications.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

 

[JohnClay]

Electronic communications.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

BTW the CEV says "or will lightning flash at your command?"

 

[JohnClay]

Well I found this:
101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge from the Bible | Rapture Forums

Things that haven't been mentioned yet include:

87. – Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.​

88. – Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last year’s harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.​

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Is there anything related to physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc that is mentioned in the Bible that couldn't have just been reasoned about by thinkers and philosophers of the time? i.e. that suggests that the knowledge came from God rather than from people of the time?

Sometimes I hear about hygiene (which doctors didn't bother with until around the mid 1800s).... but that might just be about ceremonial cleanliness.

The Bible could have said that more than a thousand thousand thousand years ago the heavens were created as a speck that was incredibly hot. Then it spread out and formed the stars. Then more than a thousand thousand thousand years later the Sun, Earth and "wandering stars" (planets) were formed. (rather than the Bible seeming to say that the stars were formed before the Earth)

If you think those numbers are too big for the Bible consider these:
1 Chronicles 21:5 - 1,100,000 ("eleven times one hundred thousand")
Revelation 5:11 - "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands"

Or it could have said that our mind comes from our head.... instead it seems to be saying that our mental abilities come from our heart and gut, etc.

Note that I don't think there is anything in the Bible that contradicts the idea that the Earth is flat. Isaiah 40:22's "circle of the earth" could be interpreted as talking about a ball but it doesn't contradict the idea that the earth is a flat disc.

Apparently some Christians say that the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook. But I think its poetry could involve real science rather than seem to involve a very non-scientific world-view.

Creationists would say that the universe is really only a few thousand years old, just like the Bible implies but do you have any evidence that the universe is that old besides the genealogies in Genesis?

The problem is that even if there is some accurate science in the bible, the only way we know it is accurate is through science that confirms it. You cannot know anything is true by reading it in a book without evidential support.

Wrong scientific ideas in the bible are corrected by science.
Wrong scientific ideas concluded by science are corrected by science.

There has never been a scientific claim by science that has been refuted by the bible. It is always the other way around.

 

[mindlight]

Is there anything related to physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc that is mentioned in the Bible that couldn't have just been reasoned about by thinkers and philosophers of the time? i.e. that suggests that the knowledge came from God rather than from people of the time?

Sometimes I hear about hygiene (which doctors didn't bother with until around the mid 1800s).... but that might just be about ceremonial cleanliness.

The Bible could have said that more than a thousand thousand thousand years ago the heavens were created as a speck that was incredibly hot. Then it spread out and formed the stars. Then more than a thousand thousand thousand years later the Sun, Earth and "wandering stars" (planets) were formed. (rather than the Bible seeming to say that the stars were formed before the Earth)

If you think those numbers are too big for the Bible consider these:
1 Chronicles 21:5 - 1,100,000 ("eleven times one hundred thousand")
Revelation 5:11 - "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands"

Or it could have said that our mind comes from our head.... instead it seems to be saying that our mental abilities come from our heart and gut, etc.

Note that I don't think there is anything in the Bible that contradicts the idea that the Earth is flat. Isaiah 40:22's "circle of the earth" could be interpreted as talking about a ball but it doesn't contradict the idea that the earth is a flat disc.

Apparently some Christians say that the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook. But I think its poetry could involve real science rather than seem to involve a very non-scientific world-view.

Creationists would say that the universe is really only a few thousand years old, just like the Bible implies but do you have any evidence that the universe is that old besides the genealogies in Genesis?

You cannot disprove any of the claims of scripture using science and self evidently, a God of miracles is not going to be bound by a so-called uniformitarian evidence-based approach. Creation, Fall, and Flood are all non-analogous supernatural events. So given that abiogenesis is a clear myth with the one exception of our own planet where God did it in a matter of days science should restrict itself to what it can prove and honor its own evidence-based presuppositions and methods. Big Bang and MacroEvolution are pure speculations as is the age of the universe and science has nothing to say about the most important aspects of our existence and the great questions of any age. So asking for the bible to talk science to you would be like asking a professor of theology to talk in baby language to a chimp. Not sure an honest dialog with atheistic scientists is even possible until they acknowledge the limits of science and what they cannot talk about with any authority.