Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[AV1611VET]

Science and religion can live side by side with many things. I like science. I see it as a gift from God.

Amen!

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-
​

Ok simple task, prove from The Bible that the sun is a star and stars are suns (as science claims).

Why would we do that? What would be the point. The bible can't even tell me what the Sun is made of. It isn't an appropriate reference for the nature of the Sun and other stars.

 

[sjastro]

Science and religion can live side by side with many things. I like science. I see it as a gift from God.

As this thread indicates science and religion cannot live side by side.
Speaking as a Christian and scientist, I find the remark of science being a gift from God from one particular individual here a deliberate slur as it takes the accomplishments away from the scientists, yet when there is the perception of science getting it wrong it becomes all the scientists fault.

 

[AV1611VET]

As this thread indicates science and religion cannot live side by side.
Speaking as a Christian and scientist, I find the remark of science being a gift from God from one particular individual here a deliberate slur as it takes the accomplishments away from the scientists, yet when there is the perception of science getting it wrong it becomes all the scientists fault.

"Perception of science getting it wrong"?

Is that how you look at it?

Would you like me to post some pictures of "perceptions of science getting it wrong"?

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

-
​

Ok simple task, prove from The Bible that the sun is a star and stars are suns (as science claims).

I have not invited you to nor am I at your beckoned call to prove to you anything based on what question you put to me. I post replies to you only when I want to based on what I might want to say.

 

[Lost4words]

As this thread indicates science and religion cannot live side by side.
Speaking as a Christian and scientist, I find the remark of science being a gift from God from one particular individual here a deliberate slur as it takes the accomplishments away from the scientists, yet when there is the perception of science getting it wrong it becomes all the scientists fault.

Wrong.

God is the creator of everything. He has given humankind something more than any other creature on earth.

He has given us the ability to learn, to explore and to understand the beauty of His creation.

 

[sjastro]

Wrong.

God is the creator of everything. He has given humankind something more than any other creature on earth.

He has given us the ability to learn, to explore and to understand the beauty of His creation.

Did you try reading my post?
The remark that science is a gift from God has been used to denigrate the accomplishments of scientists yet if science gets it wrong than God gets a free pass.
I don't have to name the particular individual concerned who has a long history of blaming science for things that don't even involve science and then idiotically asserts that science is a gift from God.
This individual seems to be blissfully unaware he is denigrating God in the process.

I am a firm believer in free will and the credit and the failures of science fall with the scientists not God.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have to name the particular individual concerned who has a long history of blaming science for things that don't even involve science and then idiotically asserts that science is a gift from God.

And you know exactly where I stand on both sides of the coin re science and the Bible.

I've posted my standards numerous times.

This individual seems to be blissfully unaware he is denigrating God in the process.

Should I give God the credit for Thalidomide? the Challenger disaster? Pluto's demotion via a rigged vote?

Should I throw in the Titanic, the Florida footbridge, and L'Aquila for good measure?

I am a firm believer in free will and the credit and the failures of science fall with the scientists not God.

If you're such a firm believer in free will, then what's your problem with me?

Do I have free will too?

 

[Estrid]

Catholic church is very much in favour of science.

God gave us science remember. He gave it to us through learned people.

Not that I believe in any gods, but in what sense
can you possibly say humankind was " given" science?

It has been a long hard process to develop science, even
without the church fighting it every inch.

Nothing was just " given".

People are faulty and inadequate enough already,
without denying credit for what we have done.

 

[Estrid]

Bible is not supposed to be used for scientific purpose. You still err in this, again and again.

How do you know it's not?

It was for many centuries, still is seen as the authority on, say, earth history by, at a guess,
most Christians.

The book presents as infallible, not something
to disregard where facts are concerned.

To me the " not to be used as" is a latter day
construct to plug a hole.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not that I believe in any gods, but in what sense can you possibly say humankind was " given" science?

Via the gift of knowledge.

When God created the earth, He hid "Easter eggs" in it -- (like oil) -- whose discovery lay dormant until the right time.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

When the right time came, God gave scientists the knowledge to eventually find what it is He wanted them to find.

Daniel 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.

Remember: God works on a timetable.

It has been a long hard process to develop science,

Yes it has.

God doesn't just hand us His Easter eggs on a silver platter.

He sealed them up, and makes us work for them.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

... even without the church fighting it every inch.

Don't blame the church for "trying the spirits" and having a probation period between when a discovery is made, and then finally accepted.

The church is wise enough to allow for "beta testing."

That's why she didn't just accept heliocentrism at first.

Remember Frances Kelsey?

Did she just accept what other scientists were telling here about Thalidomide, or did she demand further testing?

Her unwillingness to just buy into what she was being told saved our country from a scientific tragedy.

Nothing was just "given".

That's right.

As James put it:

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

A good Easter egg deserves a fair amount of sweat equity.

Do you think parents just lay Easter eggs out in the open for kids to find them right off?

No.

They hide them here and there, and the kids love to hunt for them.

People are faulty and inadequate enough already, without denying credit for what we have done.

Stop with the begging and demanding credit for your works.

In due time, God will exalt His children for their works.

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know it's not?

Because people who do end up making grievous mistakes.

Such as you do, when you harp on the Bible saying Pi = 3.0

It was for many centuries, still is seen as the authority on, say, earth history by, at a guess, most Christians.

As It should.

The book presents as infallible, not something to disregard where facts are concerned.

But It isn't a science book.

Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

To me the "not to be used as" is a latter day construct to plug a hole.

What hole?

 

[trophy33]

How do you know it's not?

Easily. The modern empirical concept of science (with its logical formalism and naturalism) did not exist in the Old Testament era. It was the mythological era. We cannot read such texts as scientific, its an obvious error - anachronism.

 

[Estrid]

Easily. The modern empirical concept of science (with its logical formalism and naturalism) did not exist in the Old Testament era. It was the mythological era. We cannot read such texts as scientific, its an obvious error - anachronism.

I see your poin. Science, as conceived today
is far more rigorous and formal than,
say, the time of Darwin, Newton, Copernicus,
Lucretius, Aristotle.

But the study of nature was carried out, as
also it has been in stone age tribes who learned
the poisons and medicines and the tides and
migrations.

Aridtotle was not very rigorous with his statement
that crocodile top jaw hinges, not the bottom.

Roman theoretical,physics as reported by Lu retius
is fun to read, besides quite ingenious but insistently wrong.

And yet it was science as practiced then, and the future may see present practice as sorely lacking.

Reading Genesis, I see no ' spirotual", ethical, moral,
content whatever in the 6 day creation, very very dubious spiritual content in " flood".

So why is it there?

It's presented as, believed to be factual content.
It's written to be taken as true and those who
wrote it must have believed it was truth..

IF there'd been a flood, mentioning it would be at
least proto- science. A basis in fact upon which to build. And support the chridtian claim
that science grew out of Chridtianity. Flood and all.

Now, I'm no chridtian. I saw a very different book when I read it. I know much of it simply is not factual.

If / since the bible is nine factual, deeply misleading
actually, for what reason would such as the 6 day
creation be written, other than to tell ( what they
believed to be) the truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Reading Genesis, I see no 'spiritual', ethical, moral, content whatever in the 6 day creation,

No love in the creation of males and females?

No creating a man, giving him a job, then giving him a beautiful wife, after creating the Garden of Eden for them?

I like what someone once said:

God made Adam & Eve, then built the chapel (Garden of Eden) they got married in.

So you see no spiritual, ethical, or moral content whatsoever in the six day creation, but you do see millions and millions of years of death, decay, fights or flights, and survivals of the fittest as Mother Nature's way of bringing us into existence?

That's too bad.

Would you know real love if you saw it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Reading Genesis, I see no 'spiritual', ethical, moral, content whatever in the 6 day creation,

Dlamberth, you see love under every nook and cranny of the universe.

Do you agree with this statement?

 

[dlamberth]

Dlamberth, you see love under every nook and cranny of the universe.

Do you agree with this statement?

No. I do not.
Creation stories in every religion set the ground work for those who follow that religion.

 

[ralliann]

The moon is not always present in the night sky to 'rule' it. (Otherwise, solar eclipses such as the recent partial one could not occur.)

The moon is still present.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I do not.

Thank you for an honest answer.

 

[sjastro]

On the subject of day and night, according to Genesis 1:4-5 on day 1 of creation.

And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day

On day 4 of creation according to Genesis 1:14-16.

God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.” Following this, it is written that God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night—as well as the stars.

Can someone explain how God had already divided the day into light and darkness on day 1 but the Sun (and Moon), the sources of light were created on day 4?
Genesis is far more problematical than whether moonlight is reflected sunlight or not, it violates cause and effect.