Free Republic

i suppose he was famous in the early days of the evolution industry. i posted a better thread on the scientific accuracy of the Bible also in the religion board. this one didn’t get its point across and is too long.

Alright.

But I would think that more friendly key words like, God or faith would be included as well.

and the Bible IS scientifically accurate. I posted another thread that gets to the point quicker, but in case you don’t catch it, here is what it touches on:

(written by Charlie Campbell)

A. The Sun

In contrast to the Qur’an, the Bible teaches that the sun is actually on a circuit through space. Writing of the sun in Psalm 19:6, David said, “Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end.” For many years critics scoffed at this verse, claiming that it taught that the sun revolves around the earth. Scientists at that time thought the sun was stationary. However, it has been discovered in recent years that the sun is in fact on a circuit through space, just like the Bible says.

B. The Shape of the Earth

When the rest of the world believed the earth was flat, Isaiah declared that the world was round… Isaiah 40:22 “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.” The Hebrew word there for circle [“chuwg”] literally means “sphere.” When did Isaiah write these words? Between 740 and 680 B.C. That was at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere. Other verses are Proverbs 8:27 and Job 26:10. More than 2,000 years later some people still believed that Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) was going to sail off the edge of a flat planet in 1492!

C. The Suspension of the Earth

Before Isaac Newton discovered gravity Hindus believed that the earth rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a turtle that was swimming in a great endless sea. The Greeks believed that the mythical god Atlas carried the earth on his shoulders. What did the Bible say? In one of the oldest books in the Bible, Job said in Job 26:7, “He [God] hangs the earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the earth hangs on nothing until 1650.

D. The Stars

Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The Greek astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus (190-120 B.C.) said there were exactly 1,026 stars. The astronomer, and mathematician Ptolemy said there were 1,056 stars. The German astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), counted 1,006. The whole thought of the stars being uncountable was contrary to modern science until the invention of the telescope. When Galileo first pointed his telescope to the heavens in 1608, we discovered there were a lot more stars than anybody had ever imagined, just as Jeremiah had said:

Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.” Today, with the help of powerful telescopes and modern satellite photographs, scientists estimate the universe contains approximately 100 billion galaxies containing approximately 200 billion stars each. Carl Sagan (1934-1996), the world famous astronomer, said, “The total number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet Earth.” (Cosmos, p. 196). That is enough stars for every person alive on planet earth to personally own approximately 2 trillion stars each. Dr. Mark Eastman says, “Counting at a rate of ten stars per second it would take over 100 trillion years. Surely the host of heaven cannot be numbered!”

If you want more of these kinds of amazing scientific insights, check out: answersingenesis.org and icr.org

How did the authors of the Bible know that the stars were uncountable, that the earth was round and hangs on nothing? Were they taking lucky guesses? I don’t think so. Their flawless accuracy rules that out. The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:21 that “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” God, who knows all there is to know about the universe He created, superintended the writing of the Bible to make sure that what He wanted written, was written.

You can remember these first five evidences with the acronym F.A.C.E.S.

Science has limits, yes and is not an ideal basis of morality no doubt.

Science isn't a basis of morality at all. Science is an intellectual tool that is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because

1. something like that cannot happen,

2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and

3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.

The answer to the above is, of course,

1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;

2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,

3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.

The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?

* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?

Science has limits, yes and is not an ideal basis of morality no doubt. What Macarthur points out though, is that even though the Bible is not a science textbook—it is scientifically ACCURATE.

For example, while different cultures thought someone was holding our planet up (like Atlas for the Greeks) or were supported on the backs of elephants standing on turtles (the Hindu belief) —> Job 26:7 states:

“7 God spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.”

This is just one of MANY scientifically accurate statements that predate modern discoveries made by man and manmade instruments. It was impossible to verify this type of statement when it was written...(around 1500 BC) but now we can :)!

Hi TruthConquers,

I don’t see how the key word list is odd at all. Before I started actually posting on FR, I read a lot of threads dealing with atheist writers such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. I also know that there are plenty of conservatives who do not have a Biblical worldview and plenty of CHristians who don’t know how to defend the validity of the Bible on archeological, historical, and scientific grounds. That’s why I see this post as relevant to all such discussions. It doesn’t just take “faith” to believe what the Bible has to say. One can come to the conclusion that it can be trusted on logical and rational grounds. Trusted based on *EVIDENCE.*

Yeah thanks for pointing that out. That is weird. I don't know why the link isn't working. Hmm... Well, I posted the entire thing up above anyway. I kind of regret doing that and want to post something much more ABRIDGED maybe tomorrow...showing how the Bible was already making scientific claims which predate man's actual discoveries to affirm it. Such as the earth being round and the earth being suspended on nothing. Other cultures and religions were WAY OFF base on those facts alone.

Science is man. The values that come out of it are the same ones that go into it. Climategate isn’t surprising. Libtard in, libtard out, and maybe it is a good thing that climategate has opened up a few eyes.

bookmark for later

“The true nature of God is what’s unknowable.”

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact represention of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.” Hebrews chapter 1.

The God who speaks, and makes His nature quite knowable through the Lord Jesus Christ.