Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

can one believe the bible and teach science

go to creation daught kom and search for evolution and big bang topics.

(moderators, Chad gave me permission to post links to creation daught kom)
 
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....

  • Never said I believe in evolution per se but I don't totally disagree is some form of it either. I totally believe in creation but I don't agree that there is'n't something there that are related to both.
  • What I tried to explain,is that God's creation is one of his miracles and we are not capable of fully explaining it , no more than any of his other miracles.
  • You can't explain his miracles but you believe in them, similar to how you only believe in creation...Adam made from clay; Eve made from a rib. I believe in these things but can't expalin them any better than you can.
  • I can also say this, in God's omnipotence, though we can't explain his work, we shouldn't put him in a box or be so arrogent to say than he did not make creation and evolution, in some way related.
  • When I die and meet God "Face to Face", I will ask him and if he says creation only or says a combination of both; my knowledge will be complete and I will say, "Thank You Lord" for either reply!
  • You spin this how every you wish.
 
Last edited:
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.
Except for your knowledge of course!
 
The theory of evolution is a product of sinful man who despises God, searching for an idea to escape HIS judgement. It is a philosophy, a presupposition, a godless starting assumption which dogmatically rejects the supernatural. There is no evidence for it, and there is no science behind it. Satan is the most powerful of the angels, and for an angel to decieve the whole world into believing a lie is for an adult to steal candy from a baby. It is not arrogant to say that God did not use evolution, it is biblical. Genesis is in no way compatible with evolution, and the gospel is completely contradictory to it as well. Death and suffering entered the world after the fall, not before it. God created the world perfect, there were no thorns and there was no death. These things occured after the fall. The earth had vegetation growing on it before the sun was created, not after. CREATION, not "evolution'. Rocks do not turn into rocket scientists, and trees do not turn into tree huggers.



"Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding."
Proverbs 3:5

"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"
Jeremiah 17:9

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'"
1 Corinthians 1:19


 
Which parts are inspired and which are not ?

I believe a Christian should be honest. And if it is honest to say that there is an inaccuracy in the Bible, I would do so, and not pretend it is not there. There is 1 Kings 7:23 at least, because it is mathematically inaccurate (actually I do not doubt its inspiration, only its scientific accuracy). Let us focus on this one verse (it only takes one inaccurate verse to disprove a claim that the whole bible is scientifically accurate):
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.

The diameter of the molten sea is 10 cubits, and has a circumference of 30 cubits as stated by verse 23.
However the mathematical formula for circumference is PI (3.14) times diameter (10 cubits), which gives 31.4 cubits circumference.
The Bible is inaccurate to about 1.41 cubits which is 2.1 feet (1 foot = 1.5 cubits).
If a math or science student answered such a calculation with 30 cubits, they would be marked wrong, no doubt.
A tolerance of 2.1 feet is too large by any good engineering standard, and too large to be a rounding error (rounding gives us 31 cubits, not 30).

The author of Scripture (not God, in this particular case, because it is in error, but whoever recorded the incorrect value of 30 cubits) either did not care about the scientific accuracy, or was reporting their actual calculation which was erroneously calculated because they did not know the value of PI to sufficient accuracy. Either way, this is a clear example of the Bible being scientifically inaccurate, and therefore a claim of the whole bible being scientifically accurate in every respect is not true. The Bible is scientifically accurate some, or most of the time, but all of the time, it is not. Inspiration and accuracy are two different things. Just because God inspires something does not mean what He inspired is always scientifically accurate. I believe many times He will communicate to us on our level with the scientific inaccuracies that we hold, because if He told us the truth it would be too vast for our finite minds to comprehend. God is not going to inspire the authors of the Bible to write about computers, rifles, motor cars or electricity, He will talk to them using the language and science that they understand, whether that be a flat earth or a round earth, horses or bows and arrows.


 
Last edited:
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....

Many of those things such as circle of the earth, belly, and suspended in space, could equally apply to a flat earth as to a round earth. A flat earth has a circle, a belly and is suspended in space as well. In regards to spiritual things or poetic things, sure we should interpret them, but in regards to science, there is no need for interpretation of its scientific facts. Interpretation is required if it is a poetic book, and I think you are suggesting that it is more poetic than scientific, at least in reference to the verses I quoted which disprove your views. But to be scientific, if it says circle, it means circle, and not ball or sphere. If it says fixed, it does not mean spinning around, if it says pillars of the Earth, it does not mean the nothingness of space, but supporting pillars, if it says windows of heaven, it means windows of heaven and is not trying to be poetic or flowery.

Actually I did not seek to use atheist or anti-God sources at all, I got what you call the "nonsense interpretations of the Bible" from sources including Professors of the Hebrew Bible and these things I stated are also found in Christian Bible scholars one of which I quoted previously. The internet abounds in scholarly sources that can confirm what I posted above. They are not merely interpretations but regarded as the facts of Bible history. I try to use "credible scientific source" as a "real scientist" would.

There are things which are true yes, that the earth is suspended in space.
However the Bible also says that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved.
To be intellectually fair and honest, you cannot pick and choose and say that the Bible says the earth is suspended in space, which is true, and evidence for the Bible's scientific accuracy,
and yet ignore (or explain away as a figure of speech) the verse which says the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved (which is not scientifically accurate, as we all know that the Earth wobbles, rotates and moves around the Sun).
Suppose that we are uneducated in modern science and only have the Bible as our scientific textbook.
If we read the Bible without modern day scientific bias, we would not be able to conclude that the Earth is rotating on its axis and revolves around the Sun, or that it is a spherical ball.
A flat earth conclusion is the normal conclusion for anyone who observes the Sun on a fixed Earth. The Sun rises from below the horizon and sets below the horizon, therefore the earth must be flat and there is nothing below the Earth, but supporting pillars or otherwise. That would be the normal conclusion for anyone who only observes the sun rise and set, as the ancients did, and had no way to travel to space or travel to the ends of the earth and discover that the Earth is not flat.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yes, macro evolution is a lie, their version of adapting is things improving , but the observable facts are that things get worse. They consider an animal losing its eyesight because it lives in a dark cave to be an "improvement".
 
Last edited:
The average persons understanding of science is that it is this pure or noble pursuit to advance human knowledge and improve our society, cure cancer, and poverty etc and that knowledge for knowledge's sake is neither right nor wrong.
But science always has an agenda and in our capitalist society is driven by two things - fear and greed.
Fear - science is directed towards efforts to solve the "what ifs".
Greed - science, like anything, is directed towards efforts that will be profitable and make people rich.
People's lives and health and the truth (in regards to Creation vs Evolution) is not greater than the power of mammon.
 
Last edited:
James,
I pray that you never get sick and need any medical techniques or medication to save you life because I am assuming you would never us anything associated with medical science.
 
James,
I pray that you never get sick and need any medical techniques or medication to save you life because I am assuming you would never us anything associated with medical science.

It's okay to use it, just like we must use mammon to survive....
However,
45000 Americans die every year because they don't have access to healthcare.
270 million children in the world don't have access to healthcare.
There are 314,000 protestant Christian congregations in the United States. Surely there are enough Christians to heal the sick.
If they cannot (ie have no ability to) heal the sick then they are not real disciples of Christ (Mark 16:18).
We wouldn't take our car to a mechanic who could not fix it, so why would we take ourselves to a church that cannot fix us? And if we can find healing in a church then why do we need doctors?
 
Last edited:
Did any of the amazing design evident in the current research strike any of you the way it did me? We are not looking at evolved things; that's impossible; we are looking at God's decrees for biological life. Don't you think?
 
Last edited:
I believe a Christian should be honest. And if it is honest to say that there is an inaccuracy in the Bible, I would do so, and not pretend it is not there. There is 1 Kings 7:23 at least, because it is mathematically inaccurate (actually I do not doubt its inspiration, only its scientific accuracy). Let us focus on this one verse (it only takes one inaccurate verse to disprove a claim that the whole bible is scientifically accurate):
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.

The diameter of the molten sea is 10 cubits, and has a circumference of 30 cubits as stated by verse 23.
However the mathematical formula for circumference is PI (3.14) times diameter (10 cubits), which gives 31.4 cubits circumference.
The Bible is inaccurate to about 1.41 cubits which is 2.1 feet (1 foot = 1.5 cubits).
If a math or science student answered such a calculation with 30 cubits, they would be marked wrong, no doubt.
A tolerance of 2.1 feet is too large by any good engineering standard, and too large to be a rounding error (rounding gives us 31 cubits, not 30).

The author of Scripture (not God, in this particular case, because it is in error, but whoever recorded the incorrect value of 30 cubits) either did not care about the scientific accuracy, or was reporting their actual calculation which was erroneously calculated because they did not know the value of PI to sufficient accuracy. Either way, this is a clear example of the Bible being scientifically inaccurate, and therefore a claim of the whole bible being scientifically accurate in every respect is not true. The Bible is scientifically accurate some, or most of the time, but all of the time, it is not. Inspiration and accuracy are two different things. Just because God inspires something does not mean what He inspired is always scientifically accurate. I believe many times He will communicate to us on our level with the scientific inaccuracies that we hold, because if He told us the truth it would be too vast for our finite minds to comprehend. God is not going to inspire the authors of the Bible to write about computers, rifles, motor cars or electricity, He will talk to them using the language and science that they understand, whether that be a flat earth or a round earth, horses or bows and arrows.




Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0?
by Russell Grigg


In 1 Kings 7:23 there is an intriguing statement: ‘And he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] 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.’ A similar account is given in the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 4:2.


From time to time sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of the value pi π, 3.14159…).1


Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.


The first concerns the meaning of the word cubit, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man's forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.


From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.


If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32÷ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ÷ 10 = 3.


While the above seems reasonable, and the Ask ‘Dr Math’ Forum agrees that there is no error in the Bible here, we have no way of knowing for certain whether the measurements were approximated in this way. However, even if it is assumed that the measurements given were precisely 10 and 30 cubits, the following appears to provide a definitive answer.


Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily.3 It is believed by Bible scholars to have looked like the drawing below.4




Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:


The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram).


The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:


diameter =
circumference ÷ pi
=
30 cubits ÷ 3.14
=
9.55 cubits.
Thus the external diameter of the vessel at the point where the circumference was measured must have been 9.55 cubits.5


It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination.
 
A flat earth conclusion is the normal conclusion for anyone who observes the Sun on a fixed Earth. The Sun rises from below the horizon and sets below the horizon, therefore the earth must be flat and there is nothing below the Earth, but supporting pillars or otherwise. That would be the normal conclusion for anyone who only observes the sun rise and set, as the ancients did, and had no way to travel to space or travel to the ends of the earth and discover that the Earth is not flat.

in fact, Greek philosophers over 2,000 years ago believed the earth was round. its a pretty simple thing for even an unbeliever to deduce, based on the sloping horizon, the round moon and sun, and the curved shadow upon the moon. But i suppose you believe those gentile unbelievers, fornicating sinners back in greece 2,000 years ago knew more about creation that The Holy Spirit who lived inside the prophets of old.
 
in fact, Greek philosophers over 2,000 years ago believed the earth was round. its a pretty simple thing for even an unbeliever to deduce, based on the sloping horizon, the round moon and sun, and the curved shadow upon the moon. But i suppose you believe those gentile unbelievers, fornicating sinners back in greece 2,000 years ago knew more about creation that The Holy Spirit who lived inside the prophets of old.

From what I've read its more like 500-600 years ago, not 2000. The ancient Greeks pre-Socrates believed in a flat Earth. The fact is, it was the Hellenistic Greeks who spread the idea of a spherical Earth to the world (including the middle east), not the ancient Hebrews or the Bible. It is not easy to realize that the Earth revolves around the Sun. People naturally describe things that they observe from their point of view. From our point of view, the sun and moon appears as a flat disk, not as a spherical ball and the sun goes around us, we don't go around it. From our point of view, we are not moving (when in fact we are moving very very fast). Rest assured, those who deny the spherical earth today, have a plausible explanation for everything, including the sloping horizon. So these things are not readily apparent to the average observer. On the other hand, the Bible should not be regarded as a scientific book, because it may lead us to deny the miraculous virgin birth (scientifically impossible), the ability to defy gravity (scientifically impossible) and heal paraplegics (scientifically impossible).

I am not saying this because I am influenced by atheists or any of the sort, I am getting this information from scholarly Jewish and Christian sources:
The Hebrew Universe:
The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round, covered by the great dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars (Job 26.11; 37.18). Above the firmament and under the earth was water, divided by God at creation (Gen 1.6, 7; cf Pss 24.2; 148.4). The upper waters were joined with the waters of the primordial deep during the Flood; the rains were believed to fall through windows in the firmament (Gen 7.11; 8.2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen 1.14-19; Ps 19.4, 6). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num 16.30-33; Isa 14.9, 15).” (339)Firmament:
“The Hebrew term raqia’ suggests a thin sheet of beaten metal (cf. Exod. 39.3; Num 17.3; Jer 10.9; also Job 37.18)… Job 26.13 depicts God’s breath as the force that calmed (or ‘spread’, ‘smoothed’) the heavens. Luminaries were set in the firmament on the fourth day of creation (Gen 1.14-19). Rains were believed to fall through sluices or windows in its surface (cf. Gen 7.11).” (338-339)
— Achtemeier, Paul J (Ed). The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. (New York: HarperCollins, 1996)

Hebrew Cosmology:
To the ancient Hebrews the earth was the centre of the universe. Above it were the sky and the heavens, and below it were the Underworld, or Sheol, and the waters (eg. Exod 20.4; Ps 24.2; 136.6). (Though at times the Hebrews did cite only heaven and earth as composing the universe (eg. Ps 124.8), actually they held to this tripartite concept (eg. Phil 2.10). The earth, with Canaan at its centre (Ps 74.12), was believed to be one mass of land (cf the ‘ends of the earth’ (Ps 65.5) or its ‘four corners’ (Isa 11.12)) surrounded by an ocean. It rested on pillars (1 Sam 2.8; Job 9.6; Ps 75.3) or on firm foundations (Ps 104.5; but cf Job 26.7).” (298)Firmament:
(Heb raqia; Vulg Lat firmamentum, from LXX Gk stereoma ‘foundation’). The expanse of sky or heaven (Gen 1.8) separating the water below (rivers, seas, subterranean waters) from the waters above (precipitation). In ancient Israelite cosmogony the firmament may have been viewed as a dome or curtain (cf Ps 104.2) of beaten metal (cf Heb rq ‘beat out’; Job 37.18) from which were suspended the stars and planets (Gen 1.14-17). Rain and other heavenly blessings could pour down upon the earth through windows in the firmament (7.11; 2 Kings 7.2; Ps 78.23-24).” (p. 383)
— Myers, Allen C (Ed). The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987)

Hebrew cosmology pictured a flat earth, over which was a dome-shaped firmament, supported above the earth by mountains, and surrounded by waters. Holes or sluices (windows, Gen 7.11) allowed the water to fall as rain. The firmament was the heaven in which God set the sun (Ps 19.4) and the stars (Gen 1.14) on the fourth day of the creation. There was more water under the earth (Gen 1.7) and during the Flood the two great oceans joined up and covered the earth; sheol was at the bottom of the earth (Isa 14.9; Num 16.30.” (136)​
— Browning. WRF Dictionary of the Bible. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)

Like the Midrash and theTalmud, the Targum does not think of a globe of the spherical earth, around which the sun revolves in 24 hours, but of a flat disk of the earth, above which the sun completes its semicircle in an average of 12 hours. (The Distribution of Land and Sea on the Earth's Surface According to Hebrew Sources, Solomon Gandz, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 22 (1953), pp. 23-53, published by American Academy for Jewish Research.
 
It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.
- rounding errors are inaccuracies. If one wanted to reconstruct the object using the measurements given, they would not be able to.

this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm
- using forearms for measurement is scientifically inaccurate. This points to their inability to measure things accurately.

Pulpit commentary on the Bible:
"The historian obviously uses round numbers when he speaks of the diameter as ten and the circumference as thirty cubits. If the diameter was exactly ten, the circumference would of course be about 31.5 cubits. But the sacred writers seldom aim at precision. "


The best explanation is that one measurement is for the rim and the other for the circumference of the smaller circle which gives a value closer to PI.
 
Last edited:
Even though the Hebrews had advanced laws for cleanness, it is not always the case, - the Bible describes spreading the blood of birds over your house, as a kind of purification (disinfectant?) which is not exactly a hygienic thing to do:

Lev 14:48-53
48-53 “But if when the priest comes and conducts his examination, he finds that the fungus has not spread after the house has been replastered, the priest is to declare that the house is clean; the fungus is cured. He then is to purify the house by taking two birds, some cedar wood, scarlet thread, and hyssop. He will slaughter one bird over fresh water in a clay pot. Then he will take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet thread, and the living bird, dip them in the blood of the killed bird and the fresh water and sprinkle the house seven times, cleansing the house with the blood of the bird, the fresh water, the living bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet thread. Last of all, he will let the living bird loose outside the city in the open field. He has made atonement for the house; the house is clean.

A person who only has the Bible as their scientific guide might conclude that bird blood is a suitable disinfectant.
 
Back
Top