Did you read the resent about Sharks found in Kansas? Wonder how they got there? lol The flood of course! http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/02/23/shell-crusher-dinosaur-uncovered
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Science Vs. the bible
- Thread starter Thinkingstuff
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1. Ruminants have four stomachs - the word used in Lev 11 is not "four stomachs".
2. The Hebrew in Lev 11 speaks of "bring forth again" and it is being translated as "chews cud".
3. Also the word that is translated rabbit may not be a rabbit at all.
What we do have is the fact that a rabbit does chew it's food twice through what is called "Refection". Partially digested food is eaten in that way - to get all the food digested.
However rabbits also grind their teeth in a way that gives the observer the impression that the animal is ruminating when in fact it is not. If the "observer" is the one out looking for food - that could be "important".
The point of Lev 11 was not "here is a biology lesson on a rabbit's four stomachs" - rather it was "here is a lesson what YOU may eat as food".
Thus it was pretty obvious in the case of the Rabbit - that it did not have a hoof - much less a split hoof. But what was not obvious is that the chewing action that they were observed to do - was not in fact the result of four stomachs at work. The point of the text is that the lack of the hoof was enough to disqualify the animal as being "food" for humans.
It is somewhat facinating to me that the point of the text gets completely ignored while the not-point gets all the attention.
in Christ,
Bob
2. The Hebrew in Lev 11 speaks of "bring forth again" and it is being translated as "chews cud".
3. Also the word that is translated rabbit may not be a rabbit at all.
What we do have is the fact that a rabbit does chew it's food twice through what is called "Refection". Partially digested food is eaten in that way - to get all the food digested.
However rabbits also grind their teeth in a way that gives the observer the impression that the animal is ruminating when in fact it is not. If the "observer" is the one out looking for food - that could be "important".
The point of Lev 11 was not "here is a biology lesson on a rabbit's four stomachs" - rather it was "here is a lesson what YOU may eat as food".
Thus it was pretty obvious in the case of the Rabbit - that it did not have a hoof - much less a split hoof. But what was not obvious is that the chewing action that they were observed to do - was not in fact the result of four stomachs at work. The point of the text is that the lack of the hoof was enough to disqualify the animal as being "food" for humans.
It is somewhat facinating to me that the point of the text gets completely ignored while the not-point gets all the attention.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Another question in the OP is about the Sun and moon made on day 4 of creation week.
The text says "TWO great lights" were made - it does not say HOW those two great lights "were lit".
The main force of the text is the much more interesting fact that in a single 24 hour period BOTH the Sun and Moon were developed to the point of giving light on the earth.
Getting stuck on just HOW each one is "lit" is to miss the elephant in the living room.
in Christ,
Bob
The text says "TWO great lights" were made - it does not say HOW those two great lights "were lit".
The main force of the text is the much more interesting fact that in a single 24 hour period BOTH the Sun and Moon were developed to the point of giving light on the earth.
Getting stuck on just HOW each one is "lit" is to miss the elephant in the living room.
in Christ,
Bob
Bats do. The phrase "all fowls" merely means flying things. I have seen bats creep.
Last edited by a moderator:
If what the rabbit does fits the Hebrew definition of "chew the cud," then it's 100% factual.
It's still a source of light. The windows in a french door are called "lights," even though they do not produce their own light either. It's their function that defines them.
Your definition of light is too narrow.
The sun is the source, not the moon. To say the moon is the source is like saying a mirror is the source of the image. IOW's when you look at yourself iin a mirror you see a reflection of the source of yourself.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
You have to remember the target audience. They didn't have the technology to make paper. The stories were passed down verbally until Moses' time. There was no way for them to understand that the moon reflected the sun's light and wasnt a primary source of light from itself. What they would have understood was that the moon was a 'lessor light'.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
See the your entire post is based on the observer. Or the man who wrote the text. So the question then becomes is the observation (whether scientifically factual or not) made by man the inspired word of God? IF so then how factual must the scripture be?
And your other verses make a good point. Also note his answer is based on the observation rather than the superior knowledge of God who since he created it all would know the technical differences. Its not a contradiction is its just the observation. But the point is should the bible be looked at scientifically? If so then there are errors a divine being should have anticipated in the writing of his inspired word should there not?
Note that with these verses there is always supplemental explanations that at times seemed to force it with our current knowledge. Like fitting a square peg in a round hole. I often look at the genesis museum in Kentucky this way. The fact is the bible is based on the observation of those who wrote them not on scientific fact. God does not interestingly give advanced knowledge of things men could not know at the time of the writing. Such as the moon is not its own source of light. Or that the process of digestion is different for a rabbit than it is for a cow. I find that particuarily telling.
Then a rose is not a rose and can be defined by any other name.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Then why would you believe in a literal 6 days of creation? How would they have understood the events past oral tradition. If the story is based on the observer and how they understood their world rather than Gods knowledge then maybe the 6 days are off too?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Hmmm. but the bible says
Or two sources of lights independent of each other. To a bronze age man this may indeed seem to be true but now we know its not.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
When modern man looks up into the sky at night - and sees the full moon shining at full strength - DOES he see a "light"? yes!
Does he see that light "in the sky"? yes!
Is it the brightest light he sees at night in the sky even though it is not the "bronze age"? yes!
DOES the text say "the lights are INDEPENDENT of each other"? No!
DOES the text say that both sun and moon are "lit by nuclear fusion"? No!
Does the text address HOW either of the "LIGHTS" are shining? No!
Are you still missing the "elephant in the room" when it comes to the science point regarding the making of both the Sun and the moon in a single 24 hour day after plants were made? yes!
in Christ,
Bob
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Contrary to your supposition it says God made "two lights" which denote source and independence. The real elephant in the room is that the bible is writen by men who wrote what they observed as they understood it in their context. Therefore if they misunderstood how something actually functions will it not be evident in their writings? Of course. So how does that affect your view of how God inspired the bible? In fact that alone show God did not dictate the bible but used men in their circumstances with their limited knowledge at the time to write God's inspired word like a conducter conducts an orchestra. So the real elephant isn't whether or not plants were around before photosynthesis but on the nature of the inspiration itself.
It certainly isn't a very direct way of saying sun or moon is it?
The early portions of Genesis use a highly stylized almost poetic Hebrew form.
The author could have used the word for the sun (has-sem-mes) or the moon (hay-ya-reh), they certainly were available and are quite common in the rest of scripture. It suited God’s purpose to use the words he used in Genesis.
Fortunately the bible is its own commentary.
to him who made the great lights, for his steadfast love endures forever; the sun to rule over the day, for his steadfast love endures forever; the moon and stars to rule over the night, for his steadfast love endures forever;
Psalm 136:7–9 ESV
Rob
menageriekeeper
Active Member
First off, I have no problem with a 6 day creation. Nor do I have a problem with a 6 day creation resulting in a world that appears much older than it is, which seems to be the real issue you are questioning. A light to the eye is a light whether it be an object that is producing light (phosphorescent bugs) or the reflection of light from some other object.
6 days are 6 days to any observer. But if I am recording a day in the life of Mars, its going to be different than a day in the life of earth. But why would God give to us a history of Mars, we don't live there! The question you ask is illogical because we have no evidence that an earth day has ever changed from taking 24 of our hours to spin one revolution.
The possibility exists that God was describing HIS view of time, but even then it only adds around 4000 years to the life of the earth. So what's the prob?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm not really questioning creation. However, I am questioning the nature of inspiration. How you answer that affects your understanding of the bible. For instance; Do you take everything as dictated by God to Man and that Man was only a hollow shell when he wrote scripture? Or do you view that God coordinated all the events surrounding the writer and allowed the writers voice to come through misconspetions and all? Does how you view it from either perspective effect the main message of salvation or must you view it only from a particular POV. Is the entire bible meant to be taken literally or do we have to understand the thinking and the cultures of the people writing it. Are we excussed when the bible doesn't match scientific fact or must it be forced into compliance with science fact by additional reconnings that the original writers did or did not intend?
Why for instance is there no record of slave hebrews leaving Egypt in Egyptian records? Why is there not one single archeological find of the wandering in the desert? Or why isn't there enough water in the world to cover the entire planet including the tallest mountains? Where did the excess water go?
Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of the literal interpretation of scripture. Since you quote J.I.Packer take a look at this:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html