Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Tribune7
The story of creation is vague. It's not hard to read it as an allegory.

We agree on that.

I was impressed by the description of the water cycle in Job 36:27 and the fact that Job 26:7 states that God "hangs the earth upon nothing.” That's pretty remarkable considering the state of science at the time.

Job isn't scientifically impressive:

36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
36:28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
36:29 Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?
And as for "hanging the earth on nothing," I can quote you a dozen flat-earth passages, and in many of them the earth rests on pillars. I don't find scripture to be scientifically accurate at all. Not one bit. It's descriptions of nature are entirely in keeping with the naked-eye observations of people at the time it was written. Very inspiring. Very uplifting. Filled with wisdom. But I'll get my science elsewhere, thank you.

Another scientifically profound thing I found in Scripture was that the material universe is going to end. That always struck me as being counter-intuitive. Ancient peoples made their monuments expecting them to last forever. But, as I said, the Bible is not a science book and I think the lack of scientific details is most significant.

The universe seems as if it never "end." Present thinking is that it will expand forever. We agree on one thing. It's not a science book. Not even close.

1,354 posted on 12/29/2002 4:56:54 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1349 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
Job isn't scientifically impressive:

It impressed me.

The universe seems as if it never "end." Present thinking is that it will expand forever.

Present thinking calls for the heat death of the universe.

We agree on one thing. It's not a science book. Not even close.

It's not meant to be a science book. It is not anti-science and the natural observations in the book hold up remarkably well. Much better than Darwin's work which is only 150 years old.

1,376 posted on 12/29/2002 8:55:53 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1354 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson