can one believe the bible and teach science

[RJ]

I see things differently, that science was invented and created by man, to try and sustain an existence that is independent from God. Science is basically Satanic so that people can say "look at what we can do as human beings, we don't need God", I don't think God invented it, needed it, or intends to use it in the future new heaven and new earth. Using the Bible for science is using it for a purpose contrary to God's will. Look at where science is headed - science is going to make us all gods. Look at the main objectives of science today - save the planet (global warming etc), live longer (give man eternal life), prove that there is no God (evolution etc), and relocate to another planet (space exploration and mars colonization).

• Yes, I am used to you seeing some things I do differently, that's what makes the world go around.
• The way some scientist feel is sad and their problem.Spiritually, as a Christian, you must agree that God is Omnipotent and in his perfect power, he created everything. John 1 1:3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
• Based on that premise, man only has found and then explain and used science that is in the Universe but, truly they have only found what God has already created!

 

[james1523]

• Yes, I am used to you seeing some things I do differently, that's what makes the world go around.
• The way some scientist feel is sad and their problem.Spiritually, as a Christian, you must agree that God is Omnipotent and in his perfect power, he created everything. John 1 1:3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
• Based on that premise, man only has found and then explain and used science that is in the Universe but, truly they have only found what God has already created!

Not that I believe you are wrong, I believe you are right, God "created" science, but He allowed (fallen, Satanatized) man to do it. Why? To Him it is a tool to advance the gospel. God allowed the internet, high speed travel, etc for the purpose of the gospel. But, in a perfect world there would be no science, just as there would be no money (science and money go hand in hand, and both are somewhat controlled by Satan). Some might say that science is a neutral thing, used to worship the creation rather than the creator. But, I think that science is the worship of the creation - it's hard not to fall in love with science and the creation we are studying.

 

[RJ]

Not that I believe you are wrong, I believe you are right, God "created" science, but He allowed (fallen, Satanatized) man to do it. Why? To Him it is a tool to advance the gospel. God allowed the internet, high speed travel, etc for the purpose of the gospel. But, in a perfect world there would be no science, just as there would be no money (science and money go hand in hand, and both are somewhat controlled by Satan). Some might say that science is a neutral thing, used to worship the creation rather than the creator. But, I think that science is the worship of the creation - it's hard not to fall in love with science and the creation we are studying.

You would agree with Jesus that all good things come from above, so, what about all the good science has done...say penicillin as only one of thoussands of scientific discoveries?

 

[james1523]

You would agree with Jesus that all good things come from above, so, what about all the good science has done...say penicillin as only one of thoussands of scientific discoveries?

I'm trying to imagine Adam and Eve in lab-coats conducting scientific experiments on the plants and animals in the Garden of Eden..and as for their scientific or innovative ability they weren't very good, as they were only able to make themselves a fig leaf for clothing... .sorry I digress.. the only truly good and perfect thing from above, is Christ. Science is not from above, but from below, from the Earth. Science has done many bad things as well. Science is in many ways, man's attempt to reach God (or become like god). "God gave us science" - there is no record of God giving anything scientific to human beings, is there?

 

[RJ]

I'm trying to imagine Adam and Eve in lab-coats conducting scientific experiments on the plants and animals in the Garden of Eden..and as for their scientific or innovative ability they weren't very good, as they were only able to make themselves a fig leaf for clothing... .sorry I digress.. the only truly good and perfect thing from above, is Christ. Science is not from above, but from below, from the Earth. Science has done many bad things as well. Science is in many ways, man's attempt to reach God (or become like god). "God gave us science" - there is no record of God giving anything scientific to human beings, is there?

Brother James, don't be so cynical! You ignore the good science that has helped man. The bad science is just man's sinful and corrupt nature.
No there is probably no records but there is plenty proof that God gave man power over his surroundings and the highest level of intelligence and the power to reason and the need to seek knowledge over all other beings!...I'm done...you have the last word!

 

[james1523]

Brother James, don't be so cynical! You ignore the good science that has helped man. The bad science is just man's sinful and corrupt nature.
No there is probably no records but there is plenty proof that God gave man power over his surroundings and the highest level of intelligence and the power to reason and the need to seek knowledge over all other beings!...I'm done...you have the last word!

Let us see what God's Word says about seeking knowledge:

Ecc 12:
11 The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd. 12 And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.


It doesn't matter if we are "Christian scientists" or "evolutionary scientists", the pursuit of knowledge or science is ultimately vain thing, and rather than pursuing knowledge, God would have us fear Him and keep His commandments.

 

[Taylor Barrett]

It's not really about the context but the language used. If they believed the world was not flat, they would not have used such terminology. Just as you or I would not believe and say that a dog has wings, if we knew that a dog does not have wings. But I agree with you, I don't believe that the flat earth has corners either, because it is a circular disk, it refers to all over the Earth. However North, East, South West can refer to on a flat Earth as well, as it is common to find such compass points on a two dimensional map.

There is as much Biblical "evidence" that the sky is hard, as there is to say that the Earth is a sphere. If we gather the verse by verse evidence it points overwhelmingly to a flat earth. A suggestion that the ancient Hebrew's understanding of cosmology and science was the same as the Greeks or even ours today, is absurd.

Regardless of how we interpret individual verses, this doesn't change the fact that the authors of the Old Testament believed in a flat earth according to ancient Hebrew cosmology, please look up ancient Hebrew cosmology and Biblical authorship. The Egyptian-educated Moses, at least, believed in a flat earth.

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
Isaiah 40:22

• Almost all the early and medieval church scholars who commented on the earth’s shape explicitly said it was round.
• Medieval European rulers used a golden sphere or orb called the globus cruciger to represent the earth under Christ’s rule.
• Columbus’s opponents never disputed the shape of the earth, but only its size—and they were right!
• The flat earth myth began with a fictional account of Columbus in the 19th century by Washington Irving. Then it was aggressively pushed in influential anti-Christian polemics by Draper and White.
• A final irony: the leading flat-earther today is an evolutionist.

 

[james1523]

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
Isaiah 40:22

• Almost all the early and medieval church scholars who commented on the earth’s shape explicitly said it was round.
• Medieval European rulers used a golden sphere or orb called the globus cruciger to represent the earth under Christ’s rule.
• Columbus’s opponents never disputed the shape of the earth, but only its size—and they were right!
• The flat earth myth began with a fictional account of Columbus in the 19th century by Washington Irving. Then it was aggressively pushed in influential anti-Christian polemics by Draper and White.
• A final irony: the leading flat-earther today is an evolutionist.

Thankyou for your input. I am not talking about the flat earth myth.
I am talking about the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews.
This thread is about evidence and facts, so I will only concern myself with the facts:

An early-twentieth-century conceptualization of ancient cosmology. Early Hebrews conceived of the universe as consisting of a disk-shaped Earth that was the center of the cosmos, in which a domelike sky was supported by pillars of heaven. From G. L. Robinson's <cite style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.7600002288818px;">Leaders of Israel</cite> (New York: Association Press, 1913), p. 2.

If you put "hebrew cosmology", into Google or Google images, you will see pictures showing how they viewed the world.
They believed that the Earth was a hemispherical dome and the Earth was a flat round disk. Hard dome sky above, supporting pillars underneath.
Their view of cosmology was similar to the surrounding Egyptians or Babylonians.
Not surprising given that Moses was educated by the Egyptians, and this was the best scientific knowledge they had available at the time (Acts 7:22).

This is why Isaiah 40:22 says circle of the Earth. It describes circumference of a flat round disk, not circumference of a sphere.
The tent spread over the earth - a reference to the dome shaped sky.
They did not believe the Earth was a sphere - this is why the Bible says that the Earth has supporting pillars and was immovable, fixed in place (Job 9:6).
The concept of a spherical ball rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun was not known to Moses, Job or anyone else in the Old Testament.
By the time of the new testament however, they believed that the Earth was a spherical ball as we do, thanks to the Greeks.
The flat earth myth is true - it is just a myth.. but the flat-earth cosmology of the ancient Hebrews (and hence, the Old Testament as well) is not a myth.

And yes there are still people today who deny the moon landing and that the earth is indeed flat or does not revolve around the sun.

The Bible is not and never has been a scientific book - not its purpose.
The scientific knowledge contained therein, is limited and is current only to the time of the Old Testament Hebrews - i.e. outdated.
God doesn't really correct anyone's scientific view of the world, whether that is Job's view that the Earth has supporting pillars, or Moses's wisdom of the Egyptians.
God doesn't do "brain dumps" of scientific truth.

 

[Taylor Barrett]

If the Bible is "completely trustworthy in all things scientific", then you should be able to name a few technologies or medicines that we use today that were developed based upon the scientific knowledge in the Bible. Can you do that? I can't, and that is why I believe the Bible is not trustworthy in scientific things, just like a recipe book is not trustworthy in all things medical. No one ever passed a science exam based upon the scientific knowledge contained in the Bible.

Modern medicine?
It's not so modern!


by David A. Wise


Summary
Many basic principles of modern medicine and hygiene were revealed in the Bible thousands of years before they were discovered by modern science.
The earliest evidence we have of public health and sanitary practices is found in the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.


In these writings, the Israelites were instructed to isolate, and if necessary quarantine, those who were sick. They were to destroy contaminated objects, to burn used dressings, and to bury fecal waste outside of the camp. The Israelites were prohibited from eating animals which had died of natural causes. They were also admonished to practise personal hygiene by hand-washing and keeping clean, and to take certain precautions when touching the infected or deceased.


'When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean ... Every bed, whereon he lieth ... is unclean ... And whosoever toucheth his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water ... And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water ... And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water ...' (Leviticus 15:2,4,5,8,11).


These same regulations applied to a woman for a specific number of days following childbirth.Furthermore, it was clearly forbidden for the Israelites to engage in any sexual relationships outside of marriage. Sexually transmitted diseases today would virtually disappear if sexual activity were confined to marriage, consisting of the biblical plan of one husband and one wife (Genesis 1:27 and 2:23,24).






ENJOY GREAT HEALTH


The Israelites believed that God, through Moses, had given his people a set of instructions. If they obeyed, they would enjoy great health. If they disobeyed, they would not.


'If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God ... I will put none of these diseases upon thee' (Exodus 15:26).


It is generally accepted that modern medical science came about in 1876 when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch demonstrated (almost simultaneously and unknown to each other) the idea that contagion passes from one individual to another.


The discoveries made by these men, however, were ignored and even scornfully rejected by virtually the entire medical establishment of their day. Medical scientists and practising physicians fiercely defended the age-old Greek philosophy that microbial life could be generated de novo under certain conditions.


LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE


Through careful experimentation, Pasteur and Koch were able to demonstrate irrefutably that even the simplest of living things did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter. More importantly, Koch proved that particular kinds of microbes were responsible for particular kinds of maladies.


While presenting his ingenious 'swan-neck flask' experiment, Pasteur spoke triumphantly:


'I have taken my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have taken it full of the elements appropriate to the development of microscopic organisms. And I wait, I watch, I question it! — begging it to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first creation.


'But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it sheltered from the only thing man does not know how to produce; from the germs which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ is Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment!'


EVOLUTION MYTH


Louis Pasteur, a deeply religious man, had demonstrated that life arose from life. His experiments dealt a devastating blow to the evolutionary myth that life arose from non-living matter — a belief still held by evolutionists today.


The refutation of spontaneous generation, and the establishment of the germ concept of disease, was one of the greatest contributions ever made to the saving of human lives. Had this not been done, physicians might still be devoting their efforts towards combating disease-producing organisms that were thought to have arisen spontaneously from within the patient's body.


Today, physicians know that pathogens do not arise spontaneously, but are the descendants of parent organisms that were originally transmitted from outside the body. Equipped with this evidence, Pasteur and others11 prevailed on surgeons and medical practitioners to adopt health and sanitary procedures that are strikingly similar to those recorded in the Pentateuch 4,000 years earlier.


The results were spectacular. Millions of lives were and have been saved.


MODERN MEDICINE IN THE BIBLE


It is clear that the facts of modern medicine agree marvellously with the Bible. For example, the Mosaic regulations pertaining to childbirth, sexual relationships, hand-washing, wound and discharge care, quarantining, burial precautions, and waste disposal are examples which indicate that diseases are communicable, and that the best protection against them is to prevent their spread.


In Genesis 1:24 and 25 we read that God commanded all living things to reproduce 'after their kind'. Preventive medicine becomes possible with the knowledge of this truth alone!


As has been said, although the Bible is not a science text, whenever it speaks of scientific matters it speaks truly and accurately. The explanation of this phenomenon is that the Bible is what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God.


What is certain in any case is that no constructive progress in medicine was possible until the ancient evolutionary doctrine of spontaneous generation was discarded. The fierce battle to destroy this superstitious myth regarding the origins of microscopic life is surely one of the most exciting sagas in the long development of modern medicine.

 

[Taylor Barrett]

That is an incorrect assumption based upon high school science teaching us that science is something a person does in a laboratory wearing a lab coat - real science does not have to be observable, repeatable or testable. Not all science involves experiments and observation. For example in astronomy, a person cannot fly to the stars or gather a sample of a star, but they can observe what has happened in history past. Geology is another example where things are not observable, repeatable or testable. But this does not mean that astronomy and geology is not real science. Science can start with philosophical speculation and fallacious starting assumptions, which may lead to a hypothesis. Speculative theories are used and are useful in science. Many technologies we take for granted today started with completely crazy speculations and assumptions. Evolutionary science is based upon observations, eg the fossil record etc. A Christian scientist will use the same fossil record as their observations of the past. Evolution can also be observed in a laboratory setting with bacteria or fruit flies that have short generation times. We should note that the Bible, i.e. Creation in Genesis, is neither observable, repeatable or testable either. Therefore science does not favor either one or the other, it comes down to a matter of faith.

Change within a kind is not evolution.

Google= scientific method.

 

[Taylor Barrett]

Thankyou for your input. I am not talking about the flat earth myth.
I am talking about the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews.
If you put "hebrew cosmology", into Google or Google images, you will see pictures showing how they viewed the world.
They believed that the Earth was a hemispherical dome and the Earth was a flat round disk. Hard dome sky above, supporting pillars underneath.
Their view of cosmology was similar to the surrounding Egyptians or Babylonians.
Not surprising given that Moses was educated by the Egyptians, and this was the best scientific knowledge they had available at the time.
This is why Isaiah 40:22 says circle of the Earth. It describes circumference of a flat round disk, not circumference sphere.
The tent spread over the earth - a reference to the dome shaped sky.
They did not believe the Earth was a sphere - this is why the Bible says that the Earth has supporting pillars and was immovable, fixed in place (Job 9:6).
The concept of a spherical ball rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun was not known to Moses, Job or anyone else in the Old Testament.
By the time of the new testament however, they believed that the Earth was a spherical ball as we do, thanks to the Greeks.
The flat earth myth is true - it is just a myth.. but the flat-earth cosmology of the ancient Hebrews (and hence, the Old Testament as well) is not a myth.

And yes there are still people today who deny the moon landing and that the earth is indeed flat or does not revolve around the sun.

What you are sayng, if I understand correctly, is that some hebrew people used to interpret the bible in a way that made them think the earth was flat. ok. sure. and there are Christians today who believe in evolution and the big bang. That doesnt mean anything. what matters is what the word of God says. Hebrew tradition is not The Word of God. The Word of God is The Word of God.

 

[Brad Huber]

Change within a kind is not evolution.

Google= scientific method.

Likewise, adaptation of life is not the same as what evolution teaches. Science taking the adaptation of life as proof of evolution is like saying the earth is flat because it seems that way when you look at the horizon. Proponents of evolution make foolish assumptions because it support an anti-God mindset.

 

[james1523]

What you are sayng, if I understand correctly, is that some hebrew people used to interpret the bible in a way that made them think the earth was flat. ok. sure. and there are Christians today who believe in evolution and the big bang. That doesnt mean anything. what matters is what the word of God says. Hebrew tradition is not The Word of God. The Word of God is The Word of God.

Sorry I'm not saying that.
It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of what the Bible literally says.
The Bible literally says this:

Ancient Israel imagined the earth to be a flat disk (Isa 42:5) resting on a foundation or pillars (Job 9:6). It is surrounded by the ocean (Pss 24:2; 136:6). It has four corners (Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2; job 37:3; 38:13) and an edge (Isa 24:36) or ends (Isa 40:8; Job 28:4; Ps 48:11; Jer 6:22; 25:32). It also has a center or navel (Ezek 38:12). Except for the implication that Jerusalem is the earth’s center, ancient Israel’s view of the world did not differ from that of other ancient Near Eastern peoples.

The Hebrews wrote the Old Testament, the cosmology revealed in the Bible matches their ancient traditions. Much like if the Chinese wrote the Bible, it might contain references to chopsticks and rice, the Hebrews wrote according to their own understanding of the world.

 

[james1523]

Change within a kind is not evolution.

Google= scientific method.

Change within a kind is precisely what evolution is about, it's called micro-evolution, but is pretty much the same thing that is said to happen at the macro level as well. As I said before, both astronomy and geology are like evolution, in that they have to look at evidence of things happened in the past that cannot be replicated in a lab or observed. Yet no one would say that astronomy and geology are not science.

 

[james1523]

Likewise, adaptation of life is not the same as what evolution teaches. Science taking the adaptation of life as proof of evolution is like saying the earth is flat because it seems that way when you look at the horizon. Proponents of evolution make foolish assumptions because it support an anti-God mindset.

Adaptation of life is what evolution teaches.

 

[james1523]

Modern medicine?
It's not so modern!


by David A. Wise


Summary
Many basic principles of modern medicine and hygiene were revealed in the Bible thousands of years before they were discovered by modern science.
The earliest evidence we have of public health and sanitary practices is found in the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.


In these writings, the Israelites were instructed to isolate, and if necessary quarantine, those who were sick. They were to destroy contaminated objects, to burn used dressings, and to bury fecal waste outside of the camp. The Israelites were prohibited from eating animals which had died of natural causes. They were also admonished to practise personal hygiene by hand-washing and keeping clean, and to take certain precautions when touching the infected or deceased.


'When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean ... Every bed, whereon he lieth ... is unclean ... And whosoever toucheth his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water ... And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water ... And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water ...' (Leviticus 15:2,4,5,8,11).


These same regulations applied to a woman for a specific number of days following childbirth.Furthermore, it was clearly forbidden for the Israelites to engage in any sexual relationships outside of marriage. Sexually transmitted diseases today would virtually disappear if sexual activity were confined to marriage, consisting of the biblical plan of one husband and one wife (Genesis 1:27 and 2:23,24).






ENJOY GREAT HEALTH


The Israelites believed that God, through Moses, had given his people a set of instructions. If they obeyed, they would enjoy great health. If they disobeyed, they would not.


'If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God ... I will put none of these diseases upon thee' (Exodus 15:26).


It is generally accepted that modern medical science came about in 1876 when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch demonstrated (almost simultaneously and unknown to each other) the idea that contagion passes from one individual to another.


The discoveries made by these men, however, were ignored and even scornfully rejected by virtually the entire medical establishment of their day. Medical scientists and practising physicians fiercely defended the age-old Greek philosophy that microbial life could be generated de novo under certain conditions.


LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE


Through careful experimentation, Pasteur and Koch were able to demonstrate irrefutably that even the simplest of living things did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter. More importantly, Koch proved that particular kinds of microbes were responsible for particular kinds of maladies.


While presenting his ingenious 'swan-neck flask' experiment, Pasteur spoke triumphantly:


'I have taken my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have taken it full of the elements appropriate to the development of microscopic organisms. And I wait, I watch, I question it! — begging it to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first creation.


'But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it sheltered from the only thing man does not know how to produce; from the germs which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ is Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment!'


EVOLUTION MYTH


Louis Pasteur, a deeply religious man, had demonstrated that life arose from life. His experiments dealt a devastating blow to the evolutionary myth that life arose from non-living matter — a belief still held by evolutionists today.


The refutation of spontaneous generation, and the establishment of the germ concept of disease, was one of the greatest contributions ever made to the saving of human lives. Had this not been done, physicians might still be devoting their efforts towards combating disease-producing organisms that were thought to have arisen spontaneously from within the patient's body.


Today, physicians know that pathogens do not arise spontaneously, but are the descendants of parent organisms that were originally transmitted from outside the body. Equipped with this evidence, Pasteur and others11 prevailed on surgeons and medical practitioners to adopt health and sanitary procedures that are strikingly similar to those recorded in the Pentateuch 4,000 years earlier.


The results were spectacular. Millions of lives were and have been saved.


MODERN MEDICINE IN THE BIBLE


It is clear that the facts of modern medicine agree marvellously with the Bible. For example, the Mosaic regulations pertaining to childbirth, sexual relationships, hand-washing, wound and discharge care, quarantining, burial precautions, and waste disposal are examples which indicate that diseases are communicable, and that the best protection against them is to prevent their spread.


In Genesis 1:24 and 25 we read that God commanded all living things to reproduce 'after their kind'. Preventive medicine becomes possible with the knowledge of this truth alone!


As has been said, although the Bible is not a science text, whenever it speaks of scientific matters it speaks truly and accurately. The explanation of this phenomenon is that the Bible is what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God.


What is certain in any case is that no constructive progress in medicine was possible until the ancient evolutionary doctrine of spontaneous generation was discarded. The fierce battle to destroy this superstitious myth regarding the origins of microscopic life is surely one of the most exciting sagas in the long development of modern medicine.

There are scientific truths in the Bible and it is amazing how God communicated these things to the Israelites, but the whole Bible is not scientifically true maybe because not every statement is from God but from man. I would expect the law of Moses to be accurate, as it was given to him directly from God. But in other places where it involves human error or assumption, I don't think it can be so accurate. For example in 1 Kings 7:23 a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits should have a circumference of about 31.4 cubits not 30. The article's statement "whenever it speaks of scientific matters it speaks truly and accurately.", is itself an inaccurate and even dishonest statement. In hindsight, it is easy to see what is scientifically true or not, but we have to consider whether overall, in every respect, the Bible is accurate and true in regards to all things scientific. In response to the part regarding hygiene, the Bible also suggests that it is okay to use human waste as cooking fuel (Ezek 4:12). If we were to use the Bible as our textbook of all things scientific, we might be inclined to use human waste for our cooking. But we don't, because we know today that it is an unsafe practice, and we did not acquire that knowledge from the Bible. There were a lot of things that the ancient world knew but were lost or ignored in later times, only to be rediscovered in modern times. In the Bible there are scientific things that are true, and there are also scientific things that are not true (for example, that the Earth does not move 1 Chr 6:30). There only needs to be one false scientific assertion in the Bible to disprove the idea of scientific accuracy in all respects.

 

[Brad Huber]

Adaptation of life is what evolution teaches.

No, they teach much more than life adapting, they teach life changing from microbes to higher complex organisms like humans which goes against the second law of thermodynamics I believe, that the natural order of things is that things change from the complex to the less complex and from order to chaos. Evolution teaches the opposite.

 

[RJ]

We just are not fully capable of understanding completely, only God is omnipotent. We no more "fully" can explain evolution / creation, no more than we can explain resurrection, immaculate conception, Jeus was fully man and at the sametime full God, than we can explain any of God's miracles. Oh we quote scripture and make our interpretations, say the Holy Spirit is guiding us when, at the same time, we have totally diiferent views.
It boils down to faith, blessed are those who don't see but believe.
I know in all my heart, there is some type of connection between evolution and creation and not until we die and see Jesus "face to face" will we know!
With out distinction, we all can agree that Jesus is Lord!

 

[Taylor Barrett]

Sorry I'm not saying that.
It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of what the Bible literally says.
The Bible literally says this:

Ancient Israel imagined the earth to be a flat disk () resting on a foundation or pillars (). It is surrounded by the ocean (). It has four corners ( job 37:3; 38:13) and an edge () or ends (). It also has a center or navel (. Except for the implication that Jerusalem is the earth’s center, ancient Israel’s view of the world did not differ from that of other ancient Near Eastern peoples.

The Hebrews wrote the Old Testament, the cosmology revealed in the Bible matches their ancient traditions. Much like if the Chinese wrote the Bible, it might contain references to chopsticks and rice, the Hebrews wrote according to their own understanding of the world.

There are things called figures of speech and literary devices. I am gong to be frank with you, what you have done is placed your faith in first man's ideas, and in order to make the bible conform to your worldly opinions concerning "science" you have interpreted the bible accordingly; being heavily influenced by the atheist God-haters who invented evolution and all these nonsense interpretations of The Bible.

In fact, it is abundantly clear from even those very same passages you just quoted for 'evidence' of biblical flat earth cosmology, that in fact the bible very clearly teaches, thousands of years before any atheist ever knew it, that the earth is a sphere. "circle of the earth" "belly of the earth" "center of the earth" (4 corners = 4 winds = over the entire globe) "suspended in space" (surrounded by waters = original "pangea" continent before the land masses were seperated due to global flood and the opening of the fountains of the great deep) by the way.. "fountains of the great deep".. science didnt know about the massive amount of water inside the earth until just this past year or so....

 

[Taylor Barrett]

but the whole Bible is not scientifically true maybe because not every statement is from God but from man..

Which parts are inspired and which are not ?

I know in all my heart, there is some type of connection between evolution and creation and not until we die and see Jesus "face to face" will we know!

the connection is this = satan has fed unbelievers a lie, and the lie has grown to the point that even true born again believers are convinced of its truth.

I know, i believed evolution all my life. I know about every piece of "evidence", and in fact i could argue for evolution probably better than the vast majority of all laymen. I studied it at the college level and i have studied it in depth since becoming a Christian. the fact of the matter is that there is no real evidence for evolution.