[Sandwich]

The problem is that we're not arguing beliefs here. We're arguing provable facts. Your statement is that the Bible's Genesis story matches the scientific one. This is provably false. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of things being in the wrong order. They simply do not match. If you want to argue that the Bible is correct and science is wrong, go for it. But don't try telling me that they say the same thing cause it's blatantly obvious they do not.

You misunderstand then. My statement is that the Bible's account of creation - as described in an understandably limited fashion by being condensed down to a mere few dozen sentences without much in the way of scientific terms to lean on - is "becoming" more and more plausible according to evidence uncovered by science as time goes on. Your argument against the supposed inaccuracies of the Biblical account of creation sounds very plausible right now, and I'm sure scientists' argument of an eternal universe sounded equally as plausible 60 years ago.

Look, we both have been saying that science adapts its theories as new evidence gets uncovered. What I'm saying is that that new evidence is making scientific view of the beginning of the universe more in-line with the Biblical account - not the traditional "6 days of creation as we know days now", but instead an account that makes more sense by applying what we know about the universe today to what would have happened back then.

I'm not saying science is wrong by any means. I'm saying it's incomplete (we all know this), and the more complete it gets, the more it helps us understand how the universe began, the more in line both accounts of the beginning of it all become with each other.

What new evidence though? What new evidence has ever been used to alter the Bible in the last few hundred years? (With the exception of the Book of Mormon). Science always claims that its understanding of the universe is flawed and may be updated at a later point if new evidence appears. Christianity makes no such claims. The Bible is correct is the claim that is made. And if you want to claim that the Bible can be updated based on a scientific understanding of the universe, I want to know which parts of the bible can't be updated.

Not alter or update the Bible itself. That's sort of the equivalent of saying that new scientific discoveries alter the underlying laws of physics of the universe. All new discoveries do - in both Biblical and scientific realms - is alter (usually clarify or enhance) our comprehension of the subject matter.

EDIT: And since you asked which parts of the Bible can't be updated, I'll give it a shot, although likely it won't be of much interest to non-Christians:

I was studying the book of Revelation a while back, and I realized there were 2 primary types of prophetic accounts in that book (the book is John's account of the visions he had while on the isle of Patmos).

One type is a direct report of words heard in the vision, for example, in Revelation 9:14: "...one saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, 'Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.'". IMO this kind of reporting on events can be taken as literally as an audio recording... in other words it's accurate as to what was said, although the speaker could have been speaking metaphorically.

The other type is the kind where John is trying to come up with his own words to explain what he's seeing. Presuming that he is seeing a vision of things far in his future, it's only natural that he would lack accurate words and be forced to describe the unfamiliar by comparing or equating it to the familiar. For example, in Revelation 9:7, he begins describing "locusts" that came up out of a great pit in the earth: "The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men." He goes on for a few more verses, attempting to describe these... things, whatever they are. But note the wording he uses. Numerous uses of "appearance" and "like". This kind of account IMO is not to be taken literally, but with a grain of salt in that the report uses what we could call "poetic license".

I know that's not exactly what you were asking, but it's the closest I could get. Hope it makes sense, for what it is.

[BloodEagle]

Can everyone stop referring to science as an entity? Please?

[The E]

I'm not saying science is wrong by any means. I'm saying it's incomplete (we all know this), and the more complete it gets, the more it helps us understand how the universe began, the more in line both accounts of the beginning of it all become with each other.

But what is your backup plan in case scientific evidence flatly contradicts biblical accounts? There are already numerous conflicts between what we know, and what Genesis says, conflicts that cannot be explained by saying "Genesis had to be dumbed down". Your belief that scientific and religious accounts will eventually converge onto a common ground is ... questionable, to say the least, given that the biblical account is so malleable, so self-contradictory, so open for interpretation.

If we accept the theory that biblical evidence is just ciphered scientific truth, then we should be able to use it in the same way we can use a scientific hypothesis. That is, we should be able to make predictions based on what the bible says, and then arrive at statements we can test using the scientific method. I would refer you to the story of Noah for an easily testable hypothesis.

The problem for me is that your approach to finding the truth is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. You are assuming that you know the truth (or rather, that some people writing a short story collection a couple thousand years ago knew the truth), and that it can only be discovered and reaffirmed. To that end, you try to reinterpret what you know in the light of new discoveries, paving over any discrepancies by saying either "Well, obviously the biblical account had to be made understandable to the lay person" or by saying "Well, obviously there are still discoveries to be made that will prove the biblical account to be right".

For me, it is easier to start with a blank slate and fill it with the discoveries we make to arrive at a continually updated, continually improved picture of reality. What you are doing is starting with a complete picture, comparing it to mine, and then pointing towards rough similarities and saying that they're equivalent.

[Bobboau]

yeah if the bible is true why doesn't it say anything about evolution?

[Sandwich]

But what is your backup plan in case scientific evidence flatly contradicts biblical accounts? There are already numerous conflicts between what we know, and what Genesis says, conflicts that cannot be explained by saying "Genesis had to be dumbed down". Your belief that scientific and religious accounts will eventually converge onto a common ground is ... questionable, to say the least, given that the biblical account is so malleable, so self-contradictory, so open for interpretation.

Just by glancing over that first chapter in your link, I see around half of the points that are made there are explained or invalidated by that one article I linked to, which I'm beginning to suspect nobody but me read. If you wish to continue debating this with me (please do, as this is an enjoyable challenge), read that article first.

For me, it is easier to start with a blank slate and fill it with the discoveries we make to arrive at a continually updated, continually improved picture of reality. What you are doing is starting with a complete picture, comparing it to mine, and then pointing towards rough similarities and saying that they're equivalent.

I regard the Bible as a translated written description of reality, and science as an examination of a photograph of reality.

In the Bible's case, the ridiculously complex, incredible universe in which we live has been depicted by relatively rudimentary words, which themselves have been fallibly translated into languages most of us can understand (I think we can all agree that no matter how you regard the Bible, it's best to examine what it says in the original language rather than someone's translation of such).

In science's case (sorry, BloodEagle!), we get to study our ridiculously complex, incredible universe through the image of it that our relatively rudimentary instruments present us, and from our/their very restricted point of view in space-time.

In neither case do you get perfectly accurate knowledge about reality. The Bible states things as fact, and leaves it up to the reader to properly understand what was stated. Science observes, measures, and reaches a conclusion or, more often, multiple and sometimes contradictory conclusions, based on the available evidence. Both are equally "at the mercy" of our human understanding of what's presented, and that understanding has changed over time as new information comes in.

yeah if the bible is true why doesn't it say anything about evolution?

Not that you're going to read it, but the same author, Dr. Schroeder, has an article about that as well: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60

[Ghostavo]

Sandwich, was Man created after or before the other animals? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:25-27 or with Genesis 2:18-19?

Was earth created after or before the stars? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:16-19 or with Job 38:4-7?

How can you posit that the Bible is correct when it contradicts itself?

[The E]

If you wish to continue debating this with me (please do, as this is an enjoyable challenge), read that article first.

I tried. Its main hypothesis seems to be that, since spacetime was all bunched up after the big bang, time was passing more slowly, so that 6 days back then are equivalent to several billion years our time due to spacetime expansion.

There are several logic leaps in there (although that may just be due to me not being a bible/Torah scholar) from my perspective, and more importantly, nothing said in there is relevant to a scientific examination of the universe, since it does not present a testable hypothesis!

The main problem I have here is that in his explanation, time flows at arbitrary rates. One day is several billion years long, another just several million, then suddenly it accelerates until one day is only several thousand years long. If the original hypothesis were true, if this "God time" is governed by the expansion of the universe, then why isn't there a consistent formula for it? We know that universal expansion has been uniform over the timescale involved, so such a formula should be easy to derive, should it not?

Again, we have so far seen information flow one way, with scientific evidence being fit into the religious interpretation. Where are the instances of this going the other way?

[Luis Dias]

Can everyone stop referring to science as an entity? Please?

So much this it's not even funny. My brain goes mental every time I read "I believe in SCIENCE!"

[Grizzly]

In the Bible's case, the ridiculously complex, incredible universe in which we live has been depicted by relatively rudimentary words, which themselves have been fallibly translated into languages most of us can understand (I think we can all agree that no matter how you regard the Bible, it's best to examine what it says in the original language rather than someone's translation of such).

In science's case (sorry, BloodEagle!), we get to study our ridiculously complex, incredible universe through the image of it that our relatively rudimentary instruments present us, and from our/their very restricted point of view in space-time.

In neither case do you get perfectly accurate knowledge about reality. The Bible states things as fact, and leaves it up to the reader to properly understand what was stated. Science observes, measures, and reaches a conclusion or, more often, multiple and sometimes contradictory conclusions, based on the available evidence. Both are equally "at the mercy" of our human understanding of what's presented, and that understanding has changed over time as new information comes in.

And the bible was written by whom? In the case of scientists, you know who said what, and they can be held accountable for their actions (in case fraud or misguidances took place). The source of the Bible, however, is unveriafable. This is an important point in why scientist's papers are much more legitimate on "The Truth" then the Bible is.

[FlamingCobra]

Sandwich,


It really looks like you're trying very hard to make the Bible match up with current scientific models and theories, and you're going out and deliberately seeking information/statements that back up your beliefs.

This is called "confirmation bias." It is a well-documented and studied phenomenon in psychology.

I can understand your feelings, because I did this for the longest time. But things just didn't match up, and come of God's erm... 'policies' just didn't make sense.

[Flak]

I do agree with scientists' papers, if only they stay firm with their discipline. When politics come in, just like in the church, things get messed up.

[Bobboau]

Not that you're going to read it, but the same author, Dr. Schroeder, has an article about that as well: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60

did you just seriously respond to a post with a troll face in it as if it were a serious attempt at discussion?

I skimmed the article, it seems to be about explaining how god and evolution can coexist, when that wasn't the point being raised, the bible says nothing about common ancestry, or speciation, it says man was specially created, separate from everything else in god's image. while you might be able to think up ways in which a god could have used evolution as a tool of creation I don't see how it has any founding in the bible. not that I think that the bible should be used as the foundations of your beliefs. and if you want to be hyper-technical about it, if god was guiding it then it was not evolution, it would be more like domestication.

[Sandwich]

Sandwich, was Man created after or before the other animals? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:25-27 or with Genesis 2:18-19?

The account of creation in Genesis 1 is generally viewed as the general overview account, presented in chronological order. Genesis 2, after the first couple of verses, focuses more on the details of the creation of Man. When it refers to God bringing forth trees and whatnot, it's referring to the Garden of Eden specifically, not the entire planet (which already had flora & fauna).

So Man was created after the other animals... being a higher form of life and all.

Oh, and nice attempt at forcing my choice there... which account do I disagree with. Smoothly done.

Was earth created after or before the stars? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:16-19 or with Job 38:4-7?

Tell me, where did you get this one from? You really should read up on the references yourself instead of taking them blindly; Job 38:4-7 has nothing to do with the creation of the stars (unless "sang together" is a Biblical euphemism for "got created" that I'm unaware of...):

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7

Nice try tho. Including references really makes things seem authoritative - just make sure they're accurate next time.

In all honesty though, if it was a simple typo and you meant to reference a different passage, then please forgive my thinly-veiled sarcasm.

How can you posit that the Bible is correct when it contradicts itself?

The flaw, my dear sir, is in us - our comprehension of the matter. Just ask an astronomer or cosmologist who was around in 1959-1965. We make mistakes. Acknowledging those mistakes when evidence to the contrary comes to light is not weakness, but maturity.

The main problem I have here is that in his explanation, time flows at arbitrary rates. One day is several billion years long, another just several million, then suddenly it accelerates until one day is only several thousand years long. If the original hypothesis were true, if this "God time" is governed by the expansion of the universe, then why isn't there a consistent formula for it? We know that universal expansion has been uniform over the timescale involved, so such a formula should be easy to derive, should it not?

Thank you for trying at least. I can imagine the article could be a bit difficult for, say, an atheist to put up with (not sure what you are - not that it matters TBH).

In any case, do read the update at the very very end of the article... it talks a bit about the calculations used and whatnot. I'm afraid, however, that for the full details, you'd have to check his book (The Science of God), as he states at the initial end of the article.

Again, we have so far seen information flow one way, with scientific evidence being fit into the religious interpretation. Where are the instances of this going the other way?

Why does it have to go the other way? Is it written anywhere that there has to be a balance?

Anyway, in this instance we have scientific evidence helping to clarify the Biblical narrative, so the other way would be Biblical accounts clarifying scientific observations...? Well, not that many in the scientific community were listening to what the Bible said about things, but I believe the example I've been giving this entire time counts - the Bible has stated for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, whereas scientific opinion only recently arrived at the same conclusion. Aside from that one, there's also the Bible informing us about the existence of either Herod or Pontus Pilate (sorry, I can't remember which) almost 2000 years, yet archaeological evidence for his existence was not discovered until recently.

Is that what you were asking?

Can everyone stop referring to science as an entity? Please?

So much this it's not even funny. My brain goes mental every time I read "I believe in SCIENCE!"

Sorry... it's just a lot quicker to type.

And the bible was written by whom? In the case of scientists, you know who said what, and they can be held accountable for their actions (in case fraud or misguidances took place). The source of the Bible, however, is unveriafable. This is an important point in why scientist's papers are much more legitimate on "The Truth" then the Bible is.

Actually, the authors for many (I'd guess most, even) of the books of the Bible are quite known. Of course, we only know about most of these authors from the Bible itself, so that may not be good enough for you. But even presuming it is good enough, then what? How does knowing that King David wrote chapter XYZ of Psalms make a difference between it and a Psalm where the author is unknown?

No, seriously. I can understand how knowing the author's identity today makes a difference, but when we are talking about authors who lived and died many thousands of years ago, most of whom we only know about from the very stories in question, what actual difference does it make?

It really looks like you're trying very hard to make the Bible match up with current scientific models and theories, and you're going out and deliberately seeking information/statements that back up your beliefs.

This is called "confirmation bias." It is a well-documented and studied phenomenon in psychology.

I can understand your feelings, because I did this for the longest time. But things just didn't match up, and come of God's erm... 'policies' just didn't make sense.

I thought liberals were supposed to be, well... liberal in what they accepted. Yet mention the Bible agreeing with science (sorry again, BloodEagle) and y'all get all paranoid and crotchety (if you don't get the reference, drop out of this thread right now and go watch Firefly).

Not that you're going to read it, but the same author, Dr. Schroeder, has an article about that as well: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60

did you just seriously respond to a post with a troll face in it as if it were a serious attempt at discussion?

I skimmed the article, it seems to be about explaining how god and evolution can coexist, when that wasn't the point being raised, the bible says nothing about common ancestry, or speciation, it says man was specially created, separate from everything else in god's image. while you might be able to think up ways in which a god could have used evolution as a tool of creation I don't see how it has any founding in the bible. not that I think that the bible should be used as the foundations of your beliefs. and if you want to be hyper-technical about it, if god was guiding it then it was not evolution, it would be more like domestication.

Yes, yes I did. Try a rageface and see what happens.

You do realize that there are many different aspects that fit under the umbrella of the term "evolution", right? Some of them do not contradict the Bible, others do. That article was, among other things, differentiating between the two aspects.

Also, the "created in God's image" thing is widely regarded to refer to basically every aspect that makes us human except for the physical (since God is spirit, after all). Just saying...


...and going to bed. It's after 7am for Pete's sake.

[Grizzly]

Actually, the authors for many (I'd guess most, even) of the books of the Bible are quite known. Of course, we only know about most of these authors from the Bible itself, so that may not be good enough for you. But even presuming it is good enough, then what? How does knowing that King David wrote chapter XYZ of Psalms make a difference between it and a Psalm where the author is unknown?

No, seriously. I can understand how knowing the author's identity today makes a difference, but when we are talking about authors who lived and died many thousands of years ago, most of whom we only know about from the very stories in question, what actual difference does it make?

It makes all the difference in the world. There's a reason why roman history writers are not taken for granted in modern history.

Because the goal and intent of the authors is unknown.  The thing with scientists is that I know the methods they used to reach their conclusions (as they have written it down, as part of the scientific process). The bible, on the other hand, just says "this is the truth" without any justification. How can one see the bible as "The truth" when you do not know the author's methods, goal and intention? For all you know, the book is one huge propaganda piece written to justify the Jewish' conquest of Israel.

[The E]

The main problem I have here is that in his explanation, time flows at arbitrary rates. One day is several billion years long, another just several million, then suddenly it accelerates until one day is only several thousand years long. If the original hypothesis were true, if this "God time" is governed by the expansion of the universe, then why isn't there a consistent formula for it? We know that universal expansion has been uniform over the timescale involved, so such a formula should be easy to derive, should it not?

Thank you for trying at least. I can imagine the article could be a bit difficult for, say, an atheist to put up with (not sure what you are - not that it matters TBH).

In any case, do read the update at the very very end of the article... it talks a bit about the calculations used and whatnot. I'm afraid, however, that for the full details, you'd have to check his book (The Science of God), as he states at the initial end of the article.

You'll forgive me if I don't. If he can't be bothered to explain his math in a simple article about said math, or submit his hypothesis to peer review in a real journal, then I can't be bothered to take him seriously as a scientist.

Again, we have so far seen information flow one way, with scientific evidence being fit into the religious interpretation. Where are the instances of this going the other way?

Why does it have to go the other way? Is it written anywhere that there has to be a balance?

Anyway, in this instance we have scientific evidence helping to clarify the Biblical narrative, so the other way would be Biblical accounts clarifying scientific observations...? Well, not that many in the scientific community were listening to what the Bible said about things, but I believe the example I've been giving this entire time counts - the Bible has stated for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, whereas scientific opinion only recently arrived at the same conclusion. Aside from that one, there's also the Bible informing us about the existence of either Herod or Pontus Pilate (sorry, I can't remember which) almost 2000 years, yet archaeological evidence for his existence was not discovered until recently.

Is that what you were asking?

Not entirely.

You see, here's the way I'm coming at this:

1. Your hypothesis is that the Bible contains an encoded version of real history, based on your observation that scientific evidence seems to kinda-sorta link up to biblical accounts.
2. If we take this hypothesis as true, then we should be able to make inferences about future discoveries by studying the bible, or find historical evidence for events mentioned there.

But what happens if we do try that? Suddenly, the bible doesn't actually seem to hold just the truths, but a collection of truths and allegories and metaphors in a wild jumble, without a clear and universally accepted guide on what is what.

Let's take the story of Noah and the Ark as an example. If it was true, if all of that really happened, we would need to see several things reflected in the historical and archaeological record. We would need to see signs of worldwide flooding. We would need to see signs of a massive die-off of animals and humans around the same time. We would also need to see a sudden burst in speciation shortly afterwards. We would also have to see a clear pattern of migration lines from the Ark's last resting place to the rest of the world.

However, none of these things can be found. So, what does that mean? Clearly, you would say, this means that this story is allegorical, but how would you know this from the text? And what is it an allegory for?

[Ghostavo]

Was earth created after or before the stars? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:16-19 or with Job 38:4-7?

Tell me, where did you get this one from? You really should read up on the references yourself instead of taking them blindly; Job 38:4-7 has nothing to do with the creation of the stars (unless "sang together" is a Biblical euphemism for "got created" that I'm unaware of...):

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7

Nice try tho. Including references really makes things seem authoritative - just make sure they're accurate next time.

You might want to reread that.

It's kinda hard for "the morning stars to sing together" when they didn't exist yet according to Genesis, hence the contradiction. But hey, let's ignore Job then and consider that Genesis, the supposed reference on creation, tells us that the Earth was created before the stars...

How can you posit that the Bible is correct when it contradicts itself?

The flaw, my dear sir, is in us - our comprehension of the matter. Just ask an astronomer or cosmologist who was around in 1959-1965. We make mistakes. Acknowledging those mistakes when evidence to the contrary comes to light is not weakness, but maturity.

Ah... so when the Bible is wrong, it's our comprehension that is lacking and somehow it is correct in a cryptic way, and when it's close enough for people to say "Well, if you squint your eyes enough it kinda looks close" it's correct.

[Bobboau]

We make mistakes.

like believing that a 5000 year old collection of fables cannot be anything other than inerrant about the truths of the mechanics of nature? this could possibly be a mistake?

[karajorma]

This is actually an important question. Scientists always assume that anything in science including the entire methodology itself could be incorrect. Is there a similar assumption being made about the Bible? Could parts of it simply be wrong? Not allegorical, not symbolic, simply wrong. i.e stuff that got included by someone who didn't have divine inspiration for it. 

[Turambar]

This is actually an important question. Scientists always assume that anything in science including the entire methodology itself could be incorrect. Is there a similar assumption being made about the Bible? Could parts of it simply be wrong? Not allegorical, not symbolic, simply wrong. i.e stuff that got included by someone who didn't have divine inspiration for it. 

Haven't you ever heard of Faith?  If there was ever a halfass patch for "what if we got something wrong" it's faith.

[karajorma]

I know, but given that Sandwich was making the claim that scientists should make allowances for the fact that the entire methodology of science is wrong, I was wondering if he'd agree that religion should also make the same allowance or if he'd simply hide behind the whole "The bible is true, we might be reading it wrong though" argument.