Science Vs. the bible

[Thinkingstuff]

I was wondering how some of you would answer some of these questions. I'll start with a simple question.
The bible says

God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Supposing the Greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon. Note the moon isn't a light source like the sun or the stars. It does not produce its own light but reflects the sun's light. Therefore this narrative seems off in that two great lights were made. In reality, One great light was made and an object that reflects the great light was made. How do you answer?

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

or

However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [a] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.

When it is clear that rabbits don't do this. They don't chew the cud.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I was wondering how some of you would answer some of these questions. I'll start with a simple question.
The bible says

Supposing the Greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon. Note the moon isn't a light source like the sun or the stars. It does not produce its own light but reflects the sun's light. Therefore this narrative seems off in that two great lights were made. In reality, One great light was made and an object that reflects the great light was made. How do you answer?

My thought is the Bible is not a science book and should not be used to explain natural occurrences ... just as science should not be used for spiritual insights. People who lived in those days explained in accordance with their understanding. The important thing is that they said that God did it.

Scripture tells why God created, science tells how God did it ... knowing that our understand will change as time goes on and we learn more. I do not know how they explained the waxing and waning of the moon. I am sure they had their explanation. Groups all over the world had stories to explain this phenomenon. For instance the Inuit tell this story:


Annigan is the name of the moon god of some of the Inuit people who live in Greenland.

Annigan chases his sister, Malina, the Sun goddess across the sky. During this chase, Annigan forgets to eat and becomes thinner and thinner. This is symbolic of the phases of the moon, particularly the crescent. To satisfy his hunger, he disappears for three days each month (new moon) and then returns full (gibbous) to chase his sister all over again. Malina wants to stay far away from her bad brother. That is why the sun and moon rise at different times.

 

[JMSR]

Rabbits do chew the cud, but they don't regurgitate it. They reach around back and catch it before it hits the ground.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Careful. You'll be accused of not believing the word of God. And if your premise is correct then the bible couldn't be 100% factual but pretty reliant on what people observed and how they express their observation. How then can this be the word of God? It sound more like the word of man.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rabbits do chew the cud, but they don't regurgitate it. They reach around back and catch it before it hits the ground.

They are not ruminates. Which is cud chewing. eating it from their dung is not the same thing. Maybe the translators got it wrong? Then how reliable is scripture?

 

[JMSR]

They are not ruminates. Which is cud chewing. eating it from their dung is not the same thing. Maybe the translators got it wrong? Then how reliable is scripture?

They're pseudo ruminants, and it's not really they're dung they're eating.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They're pseudo ruminants, and it's not really they're dung they're eating.

No but its still not the same thing. Now to a person not familiar with the science of it they may observe this behavior and liken it to Cow that chew the cud. But it doesn't match up with science.

 

[JMSR]

No but its still not the same thing. Now to a person not familiar with the science of it they may observe this behavior and liken it to Cow that chew the cud. But it doesn't match up with science.

Technically it does. The process is the same, but performed in a different manner. Cows regurgitate, chew, digest again. A rabbits body recyles food internally before passing and reingesting.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Technically it does. The process is the same, but performed in a different manner. Cows regurgitate, chew, digest again. A rabbits body recyles food internally before passing and reingesting.

NO its not the same at all. Rabbits digestion is designed for coprophagia. Which is not rumination. Two different things.

 

[JMSR]

NO its not the same at all. Rabbits digestion is designed for coprophagia. Which is not rumination. Two different things.

They're both reingesting semi digested food.

 

[Amy.G]

Ken Ham explains.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-064/rabbits-chew-their-cud

 

[Deacon]

Although some would certainly disagree, the bible shouldn’t be read as a modern text book.

Proper interpretation of difficult passages is aided by reading the bible with an understanding of the culture in which it was written.

Hebrew culture wasn’t scientific. They looked at things phenomenally (as perceived by the senses or through immediate experience).
It helps to look at both questions through this lens.

So though the rabbit doesn’t “chew the cud” it looked that way to the people of the time and that was enough of a reason to make it unclean.
And although the “lesser light” doesn’t shine of itself it was perceived to shine.

Rob

 

[menageriekeeper]

However the moon obtains its light is not the point of the passage. The point of the passage is that the moon provided a lessor light for the night.

And the whole cud chewing thing is not why the rabbit was unclean. It was unclean because it didn't have a split hoof (no hoof at all for that matter). Read the Word. Secondly, because we divide rabbits up as a non cud chewing critter, doesn't mean that people 4000 years ago did. Remember who this was written to and for. Just because we see and do things differently in the year 2010 doesn't mean that the scriptures are "wrong" if taken in the correct context.

 

[Revmitchell]

Modern day science is not all that trust worthy. Of course this gets covered up by statements like "We will learn more later". Where the Bible speaks it is completely trust worthy and accurate in all matters.

The so called science of today is not devoid of mans flaws, prejudices and biases. Just look at the global warming myth. Man is currently using science as a political tool to control people.

However, God's word is all trust worthy. Every word and forever.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Modern day science is not all that trust worthy. Of course this gets covered up by statements like "We will learn more later". Where the Bible speaks it is completely trust worthy and accurate in all matters.

The so called science of today is not devoid of mans flaws, prejudices and biases. Just look at the global warming myth. Man is currently using science as a political tool to control people.

However, God's word is all trust worthy. Every word and forever.

True! Reminds me of the story of the blacksmith who had a pile of busted hammers and only one long lasting anvil. The hammers of false knowledge (science) being broken aginst the anvil of God's Word.

 

[lori4dogs]

I was wondering how some of you would answer some of these questions. I'll start with a simple question.
The bible says

Supposing the Greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon. Note the moon isn't a light source like the sun or the stars. It does not produce its own light but reflects the sun's light. Therefore this narrative seems off in that two great lights were made. In reality, One great light was made and an object that reflects the great light was made. How do you answer?

or When it is clear that rabbits don't do this. They don't chew the cud.

I have a similar question that I was asked recently. I didn't know how to respond.

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Fowl do not go upon all four.

And then there is this:

Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."

 

[lori4dogs]

Although some would certainly disagree, the bible shouldn’t be read as a modern text book.

Proper interpretation of difficult passages is aided by reading the bible with an understanding of the culture in which it was written.

Hebrew culture wasn’t scientific. They looked at things phenomenally (as perceived by the senses or through immediate experience).
It helps to look at both questions through this lens.

So though the rabbit doesn’t “chew the cud” it looked that way to the people of the time and that was enough of a reason to make it unclean.
And although the “lesser light” doesn’t shine of itself it was perceived to shine.

Rob

This sounds like a good explanation for what seems to be an error. I have heard it said that the bible needs to be interpreted within the historical context that it is written. Would you look at the passages I listed in the post above and explain what seems to be a contradiction or factual error?

 

[annsni]

I have a similar question that I was asked recently. I didn't know how to respond.

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Fowl do not go upon all four.

The word that is translated as "fowl" can also be a type of "insect" that can fly.

 

[lori4dogs]

The word that is translated as "fowl" can also be a type of "insect" that can fly.

Thank you, Ann

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Thank you, Ann

Insects don't creep upon all four. They have six legs.