Science Vs. the bible

Did you read the resent about Sharks found in Kansas? Wonder how they got there? lol The flood of course! http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/02/23/shell-crusher-dinosaur-uncovered

 

1. Ruminants have four stomachs - the word used in Lev 11 is not "four stomachs".

2. The Hebrew in Lev 11 speaks of "bring forth again" and it is being translated as "chews cud".

3. Also the word that is translated rabbit may not be a rabbit at all.

What we do have is the fact that a rabbit does chew it's food twice through what is called "Refection". Partially digested food is eaten in that way - to get all the food digested.

However rabbits also grind their teeth in a way that gives the observer the impression that the animal is ruminating when in fact it is not. If the "observer" is the one out looking for food - that could be "important".

The point of Lev 11 was not "here is a biology lesson on a rabbit's four stomachs" - rather it was "here is a lesson what YOU may eat as food".

Thus it was pretty obvious in the case of the Rabbit - that it did not have a hoof - much less a split hoof. But what was not obvious is that the chewing action that they were observed to do - was not in fact the result of four stomachs at work. The point of the text is that the lack of the hoof was enough to disqualify the animal as being "food" for humans.

It is somewhat facinating to me that the point of the text gets completely ignored while the not-point gets all the attention.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Another question in the OP is about the Sun and moon made on day 4 of creation week.

The text says "TWO great lights" were made - it does not say HOW those two great lights "were lit".

The main force of the text is the much more interesting fact that in a single 24 hour period BOTH the Sun and Moon were developed to the point of giving light on the earth.

Getting stuck on just HOW each one is "lit" is to miss the elephant in the living room.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bats do. The phrase "all fowls" merely means flying things. I have seen bats creep.

 

If what the rabbit does fits the Hebrew definition of "chew the cud," then it's 100% factual.

 

It's still a source of light. The windows in a french door are called "lights," even though they do not produce their own light either. It's their function that defines them.

Your definition of light is too narrow.

 

The sun is the source, not the moon. To say the moon is the source is like saying a mirror is the source of the image. IOW's when you look at yourself iin a mirror you see a reflection of the source of yourself.

 

Saying the moon isn't a source of light is like saying a well isn't a source of water.

 

You have to remember the target audience. They didn't have the technology to make paper. The stories were passed down verbally until Moses' time. There was no way for them to understand that the moon reflected the sun's light and wasnt a primary source of light from itself. What they would have understood was that the moon was a 'lessor light'.

 

When modern man looks up into the sky at night - and sees the full moon shining at full strength - DOES he see a "light"? yes!

Does he see that light "in the sky"? yes!

Is it the brightest light he sees at night in the sky even though it is not the "bronze age"? yes!

DOES the text say "the lights are INDEPENDENT of each other"? No!


DOES the text say that both sun and moon are "lit by nuclear fusion"? No!

Does the text address HOW either of the "LIGHTS" are shining? No!

Are you still missing the "elephant in the room" when it comes to the science point regarding the making of both the Sun and the moon in a single 24 hour day after plants were made? yes!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Do you have any suggestions on what it might be or have been?

 

It certainly isn't a very direct way of saying sun or moon is it?

The early portions of Genesis use a highly stylized almost poetic Hebrew form.

The author could have used the word for the sun (has-sem-mes) or the moon (hay-ya-reh), they certainly were available and are quite common in the rest of scripture. It suited God’s purpose to use the words he used in Genesis.

Fortunately the bible is its own commentary.

to him who made the great lights, for his steadfast love endures forever; the sun to rule over the day, for his steadfast love endures forever; the moon and stars to rule over the night, for his steadfast love endures forever;
Psalm 136:7–9 ESV

Rob

 

First off, I have no problem with a 6 day creation. Nor do I have a problem with a 6 day creation resulting in a world that appears much older than it is, which seems to be the real issue you are questioning. A light to the eye is a light whether it be an object that is producing light (phosphorescent bugs) or the reflection of light from some other object.

6 days are 6 days to any observer. But if I am recording a day in the life of Mars, its going to be different than a day in the life of earth. But why would God give to us a history of Mars, we don't live there! The question you ask is illogical because we have no evidence that an earth day has ever changed from taking 24 of our hours to spin one revolution.

The possibility exists that God was describing HIS view of time, but even then it only adds around 4000 years to the life of the earth. So what's the prob?

 

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of the literal interpretation of scripture. Since you quote J.I.Packer take a look at this:


http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html