The Bible as science

[Revmitchell]

Crabby, what you are doing is called quibbling.

Ah well the Bible is just a book of words.

 

[Marcia]

The question is much broader than creation. Let me try to widen it and hope the discussion remain narrow dwelling on Genesis 1 and 2.


The Bible says:



Insects have six legs, not four.

Have you checked other translations? Many words for animals and other creatures in Hebrew are hard to know in English - that is, the translators often did not know exactly what was being referred to.

Here is the NET Bible:
‘Every winged swarming thing that walks on all fours 18 is detestable to you. 11:21 However, this you may eat from all the winged swarming things that walk on all fours, which have jointed legs 19 to hop with on the land.

The notes say:
Heb “the one walking on four” (cf. vv. 21-23 and 27-28). 19 tn Heb “which to it are lower legs from above to its feet” (reading the Qere “to it” rather than the Kethib “not”).
20 tn For entomological remarks on the following list of insects see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:665-66; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 160-61.


To use the NKJV and disputed words as evidence that the Bible is not scientific seems rather shortsighted to me. Of course God knows what insects are -- He created them!


Do you consider the possibility that it's a word/translation issue?

 

[Marcia]

Here is how other versions have it:

[URL="http://kingjbible.com/leviticus/11.htm"]King James Bible

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.[/URL]American King James Version
All fowls that creep, going on all four, shall be an abomination to you.
American Standard Version
All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.
Bible in Basic English
Every winged four-footed thing which goes on the earth is disgusting to you;
Douay-Rheims Bible
Of things that fly, whatsoever goeth upon four feet, shall be abominable to you.
Darby Bible Translation
Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
English Revised Version
All winged creeping things that go upon all four are an abomination unto you.
Webster's Bible Translation
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you.
World English Bible
"'All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you.
Young's Literal Translation
Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four -- an abomination it is to you.

Commentary
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary20. All fowls that creep, &c.-By "fowls" here are to be understood all creatures with wings and "going upon all fours," not a restriction to animals which have exactly four feet, because many "creeping things" have more than that number. The prohibition is regarded generally as extending to insects, reptiles, and worms.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-20.htm

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Crabby:
The value of π (pi)
The mathematical number π is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. The value of π truncated at 10 digits is 3.141592653. The bible itself gives us a different value of π.
Quote:
Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. Genesis I Kings 7:23 King James Version
.
A circle with a diameter of 10 units should have a circumference of 31.4 units not 30. There is some controversy over this. Some may take it as God being powerful enough to change the value of π, while the other end of the scale some believe it is clearly an approximation; indeed, both figures of 10 cubit diameter, 30 cubit circumference and π of 3 are correct to 1 significant figure.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.p...s_in_the_bible

Here's something in response to the above from a Christian apologetics site:

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (see also 2 Chron. 4:2)​

Some critics say that the measurements given for the circular bath do not give a proper value for pi. There are a couple of answers to this, one of which we give a link to below, and which is better than the one I have here. The more common answer is that these verses give an estimate of pi that is rounded to the nearest full digit.



Objection: The fact is that 30 cubits is not the correct answer. If you say that 31.4 is not the correct answer either, then I will allege that your 31.4159265 figure is incorrect as well. Following the stream of logic you have set in motion, there is no correct answer, because every answer involves rounding. Any answer would be automatically false.


Of course there is a certain category error here, since the value of pi is (so we are told by the mathematicians) one of those things that we can never provide the "correct" answer for -- it goes on an on and on. So the 1 Kings writer would have either had to estimate or else he would still be writing today.


You are assuming the answer involves rounding without proving as much. The answer is wrong until you can prove it results from rounding. You can't allege it's the result of rounding until I prove it's not.

Despite this, it is well-known and accepted that ancient estimates of distance, length, etc. were not always given down to the levels of our modern measurements (though see below). Thus it is the critics burden to show that rounding is not involved, if anything, since rounding was the norm, <MORE>

From
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html

 

[Marcia]

Another response:

My friend Gavin brought to my attention what looks like an error in 1 Kings 7:23. It concerns a circumference calculation. For the calculation the number 3 seems to be used for the usual 3.14 of pi( π ). So what gives?

Bear in mind any number can be rounded to any level of precision desired; one can round π to the nearest ten and get zero. Rounding it to the nearest unit, giving 3, makes perfectly good sense if that is what you want to do.

The real question is, what is lost if one rounds π down to 3? We are reducing its value by .14/3.14 = 4.5%, and so any calculations we make will have that much error; but for many purposes that would be perfectly acceptable.

Whenever we work with π we are rounding it to some number of digits, so all such calculations are inaccurate. The only issue is how much accuracy we need for a particular application.

The Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 does not state that π = 3.0. It states that a particular object (the circular basin in front of the Jerusalem Temple) had a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. So the correct question is not, "Is it proper to round pi to 3.0?" but "Is it proper to round the circumference of this circle to 30 cubits?" Or better, "Are a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits consistent within reasonable measurement error?"

We do not know the precision of the measuring instruments used to measure the diameter and circumference of this circle. But here is what would naturally be understood if one saw this figure in a scientific journal: in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit - that is, plus or minus 0.5 cubit.

So let's suppose that the diameter was measured, or specified in the design, to be 10 cubits plus or minus 0.5 cubit. Then the actual circumference would be 29.8 to 32.98 cubits --- based on a diameter in the range from 9.5 to 10.5 cubits. If we make the same assumption about the precision of the circumference measurement, we get a range of 29.5 to 30.5 cubits. Notice that the two ranges have considerable overlap.

There is therefore no inconsistency between the diameter and the circumference as reported in the Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 .

http://kickagainstthegoads.blogspot.com/2006/07/and-1-kings-723.html

 

[Marcia]

For those interested in responses to Crabby's post #58 re Lev and 1 Kings passages, please see my posts 62-65 that give responses.

I think it's good to know that there are responses to these issues, because skeptics and others often bring these up. Christians have brains and can respond. We don't need to be silent.

 

[Marcia]

I didn't post all that suff for fun. I hope someone reads it and benefits. :type:

 

[Marcia]

Well, I guess posting all that stuff was just a waste of my time.

 

[Steven2006]

Well, I guess posting all that stuff was just a waste of my time.

Actually I had read it when you posted it, thank you I appreciated it. I should have said so at the time.


Threads like this from the OP makes me think of this verse.

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly {and} empty chatter {and} the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"-- 1Ti 6:20

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How important is it to you that the Bible is 100% accurate on scientific matters, including medical sciences?

Medical science is limited by what the writer's of the text understood. For instance God told them to check for mold they might not have understood why God told them to do it (probably draw correlations) so they could only explain as they understood something. There are many area's of scripture that God doesn't speak to so the description or understanding of a scientific or medical matter becomes reliant on the writer and may not be that accurate.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Medical science is limited by what the writer's of the text understood. For instance God told them to check for mold they might not have understood why God told them to do it (probably draw correlations) so they could only explain as they understood something. There are many area's of scripture that God doesn't speak to so the description or understanding of a scientific or medical matter becomes reliant on the writer and may not be that accurate.

I agree and that is one reason I do not believe Gen. 1 and 2 can be taken literally, though the important truth that God did it is there. The Bible is not a science book, it is not a history book ... though there is some good history contained in it, it is not a literature book, though I really like Proverbs and they migh be considered literature by some.

 

[Winman]

I believe they were days as we know them. Just because the Bible tells us that 1,000 years is the same to God as one day doesn't mean that those "days" were each 1,000 years long. Those who can't seem to accept that God was perfectly capable of creating EVERYTHING in just six 24 hour days believe it was a LOT longer than that.

After each day's creation, we read, "And the morning and the evening---." I don't believe God needed to take six days to create everything; He just chose to take six days. He also didn't need to "rest" after the creation. Does God get tired? It simply means He stopped creating--at least at that time. Personally, I believe He is still creating great sights for His pleasure that mankind will never see while we're in this limited body.

I agree with you, God could have created everything in an instant, he used 6 days as a pattern and sign.

As for the sun revolving around the earth, in a sense it does, it is a matter of perspective. And there is real evidence that our solar system is the center of the universe, you may have heard of the fingers of God.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=304

I voted extremely important, but as others have said, it is important science agrees with scripture, not the other way around.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I agree with you, God could have created everything in an instant, he used 6 days as a pattern and sign.

As for the sun revolving around the earth, in a sense it does, it is a matter of perspective. And there is real evidence that our solar system is the center of the universe, you may have heard of the fingers of God.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=304

I voted extremely important, but as others have said, it is important science agrees with scripture, not the other way around.

where is Cappernicus and Galileo when you need them? Of course if I view the solar system from my perspective everything revolves around me. However, the solar system is heliocentric the galaxy is blackhole centric. the center of the universe may be elsewhere.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I agree and that is one reason I do not believe Gen. 1 and 2 can be taken literally, though the important truth that God did it is there. The Bible is not a science book, it is not a history book ... though there is some good history contained in it, it is not a literature book, though I really like Proverbs and they migh be considered literature by some.

The bible is a library of books that contains History, literature, and everything else that goes with it. However, a lot of things are spoken from an understanding of the day it was writen in. Which makes the bible an interesting books since even though that is the form it was writen in it still relates to today.

 

[Marcia]

Medical science is limited by what the writer's of the text understood. For instance God told them to check for mold they might not have understood why God told them to do it (probably draw correlations) so they could only explain as they understood something. There are many area's of scripture that God doesn't speak to so the description or understanding of a scientific or medical matter becomes reliant on the writer and may not be that accurate.

Just because they did not have the scientific understanding of later ages, God would still not reveal something that is inaccurate.

 

[Marcia]

Actually I had read it when you posted it, thank you I appreciated it. I should have said so at the time.


Threads like this from the OP makes me think of this verse.

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly {and} empty chatter {and} the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"-- 1Ti 6:20

Thanks, Steven! :wavey:

 

[just-want-peace]

Just because they did not have the scientific understanding of later ages, God would still not reveal something that is inaccurate.

BINGO, SLAM DUNK, and AMEN!!
​

Steven2006 sez:

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly {and} empty chatter {and} the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"-- 1Ti 6:20

Bolded mine

Again I say:

BINGO, SLAM DUNK, and AMEN!!
​

 

[windcatcher]

The Bible says, let God be true and every man a liar. Therefore the Word of God is true. We might be faulty in translation. We might be faulty in interpretation. But God's Word is true and He has promised to preserve it.

I have difficulty with so many translations existant in the English language based chiefly upon one point: How can one call any Bible as the Word of God and still protect it with copywrite protections and restrictions? If it is to preserve the 'intellectual property of a person or group of people' or the financial gain of a publishing house which does the printing..... just where is the morality and ethics of this in relationship to the free use of the Word and the free distribution of the same? If I have trouble with the older language of an earlier version..... perhaps the problem is that I'm ignorant of the meaning of the antiquated use of words... which could easily be remedied by consulting with authorities and references of that time. ........ But that is not the subject of this thread.

I disagree with some of the points made in this thread.
For one thing The Bible is the Book of Books.
It does contain books of history: Books which chronicaled or recorded the actions of kings. It does contain books of prophecy. It contains a Book of songs, poetry, literature, praise. As a whole, it is beautiful literature. The Proverbs contain the best wisdom for living of any similar book ever written. It is concise in its presentation. Sure, it presents several repeated themes.... each one reworded a little differently .....yet consistent throughout. I say its concise because many have attempted to write similar 'self help' books of thick content and never contained the whole of the proverbs or its themes, with such simplicity and easily understood if one just exercises a little thought in addition to reading.

It contains the best and most concise law ever written, which if just the 10 commandments were followed and enforced.... man could live civilly with each other. I'm not aware that the laws regarding agriculture were ever followed consistantly: Nevertheless, although its not a book of zoology or botany, if anyone has had a smattering of these courses, and compared the practices with the stewardship of the land and the balance of organisms which facilitate plant life and the retention and breakdown of minerals in the earth with the balance of orgainc matter in the soil.... there's a wisdom unexplained and unexamined by science, which might prove to be most practical and profitable.

Before genetics were ever scientifically proven, the practices of husbandry followed the practice of genetic selection in spite of the absence of scientific understanding. While Darwin tried to prove that man descended from apes, and assumptions were drawn for a long time based upon his theories of evolution by which some people justified the distinction of the races as being a progression of evoluntionary change.... the Bible says God made man in his image, and the Bible says God made us of one blood. But it wasn't until modern blood typing that it was discovered.... that blood transfusions can be given or received based, get this, not on racial divisions but based on blood type. With just one woman and just one man, the genetic pool of human kind containing all 4 blood types could descend.

Darwin proposed that man descended from apes/ monkeys: in such theories... man represents 'a higher animal form'. Organs like the tail bone and the appendix are considered by evolutionist as being 'vestigal' organs from a past time when man needed them before 'he evolved'. Yet modern understanding in those doctors and scientist who have studied specifically in these areas of human anatomy know that the tail bone in man is essential and is the organ where the insertion or origin of important muscles, tendons and ligaments which support the strength of the pelvic girdle and support the function of organs in the pelvis important to biological purposes and child birth. The appendix was long considered a 'vestigal organ' of no consequence.... but recent studies have shown that it has some connection related to health and immunity and that it is a pocket inwhich biologically necessary and 'good' bacteria which are helpful to the digestive and nutritive efficiency of the gut, can reside and replenish the gut after bouts of assault by substances ingested which attack and removed the normal flora. BTW, the monkey has no appendix and neither do most mamauls.... so if Darwin was correct.... it is either a new organ which 'evolved' in man or an organ which 'evolved out' from monkeys and apes.

Joesph Lister is credited with being the father of modern sanitation related to medical practice and Louis Pastuer credited for discovering that micro organism present in a solution may cause disease..... yet the Bible teaches the 'uncleanness' and isolation of those who have contact with a dead body..... which is a measure to prevent transferance of disease from the dead to the living..... and washing the hands and the body under running water.... which carries away the filth. The Bible teaches the annointing of the sick with oil: We now generally interpret this to mean just pouring a little oil like on the forehead.... but there are some who believe this practice was also a rubbing or massaging of the oil or pouring to cover a place of soreness or injury. Oil does have some properties which can act as a lubricant, and a barrier to some types of pathogens and aid healing ..... and can act as a carrier for herbal healing remedies... or be made from some 'herbs' such as frankinsense or myrrh which have healing and anti microbial properties. The Bible gives the details for exerting quarantine of those who could spread an incurable infection to others...... and the remedy for relief and restoration should healing ever occur....... long before medicine discovered such a need or proposed such a practice.... based on modern science.

I don't understand all the dietary laws given in the scripture.... but I have read some evidence that a diet with high protein content is antagonistic to the biological availablity of calcium in absorption and/or its retention in the bones...... could this be a scientific explanation for avoiding milk products with a meal of beef or is the reason just related to ritual or spiritual obediance to the authority of God?

The way this poll is presented.... I cannot answer. It isn't relevant as imo if science disagrees or conflicts with the Bible.... the science is wrong and in error or we've erred in interpreting, such as taking a common usage or phrase too literally (ex: we still commonly refer to the sun's rising and setting).

Once again... the Bible says Let God be true and everyman a liar. That's good enough for me.

 

[Johnv]

The Bible says, let God be true and every man a liar. Therefore the Word of God is true.

That's not at issue. What's often at issue is our interpretation and application of what God says.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just because they did not have the scientific understanding of later ages, God would still not reveal something that is inaccurate.

I didn't say God revealed something inaccurate. I'm suggesting that where God is quoted is one hundred percent correct. Where the writer produces his own thoughts is his own. Doesn't make scriptures less valid. For instance how accurate is the Song of Song's. With how people feel about each other and how God feels about us its very accurate. However, may it make scientific error's? Yes, because its not the point of the book to discuss physics its about our relationship with God. Therefore its a poor source of scientific information.