The Bible as science

Ah well the Bible is just a book of words.

 

Have you checked other translations? Many words for animals and other creatures in Hebrew are hard to know in English - that is, the translators often did not know exactly what was being referred to.

Here is the NET Bible:
‘Every winged swarming thing that walks on all fours 18 is detestable to you. 11:21 However, this you may eat from all the winged swarming things that walk on all fours, which have jointed legs 19 to hop with on the land.

The notes say:
Heb “the one walking on four” (cf. vv. 21-23 and 27-28). 19 tn Heb “which to it are lower legs from above to its feet” (reading the Qere “to it” rather than the Kethib “not”).
20 tn For entomological remarks on the following list of insects see J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB), 1:665-66; and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC), 160-61.


To use the NKJV and disputed words as evidence that the Bible is not scientific seems rather shortsighted to me. Of course God knows what insects are -- He created them!


Do you consider the possibility that it's a word/translation issue?

 

Here is how other versions have it:

http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-20.htm

 

Here's something in response to the above from a Christian apologetics site:

From
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html

 

Another response:

http://kickagainstthegoads.blogspot.com/2006/07/and-1-kings-723.html

 

For those interested in responses to Crabby's post #58 re Lev and 1 Kings passages, please see my posts 62-65 that give responses.

I think it's good to know that there are responses to these issues, because skeptics and others often bring these up. Christians have brains and can respond. We don't need to be silent.

 

I didn't post all that suff for fun. I hope someone reads it and benefits. :type:

 

Well, I guess posting all that stuff was just a waste of my time.

 

Actually I had read it when you posted it, thank you I appreciated it. I should have said so at the time.


Threads like this from the OP makes me think of this verse.

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly {and} empty chatter {and} the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"-- 1Ti 6:20

 

Medical science is limited by what the writer's of the text understood. For instance God told them to check for mold they might not have understood why God told them to do it (probably draw correlations) so they could only explain as they understood something. There are many area's of scripture that God doesn't speak to so the description or understanding of a scientific or medical matter becomes reliant on the writer and may not be that accurate.

 

I agree with you, God could have created everything in an instant, he used 6 days as a pattern and sign.

As for the sun revolving around the earth, in a sense it does, it is a matter of perspective. And there is real evidence that our solar system is the center of the universe, you may have heard of the fingers of God.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=304

I voted extremely important, but as others have said, it is important science agrees with scripture, not the other way around.

 

where is Cappernicus and Galileo when you need them? Of course if I view the solar system from my perspective everything revolves around me. However, the solar system is heliocentric the galaxy is blackhole centric. the center of the universe may be elsewhere.

 

The bible is a library of books that contains History, literature, and everything else that goes with it. However, a lot of things are spoken from an understanding of the day it was writen in. Which makes the bible an interesting books since even though that is the form it was writen in it still relates to today.

 

Just because they did not have the scientific understanding of later ages, God would still not reveal something that is inaccurate.

 

Thanks, Steven! :wavey:

 

BINGO, SLAM DUNK, and AMEN!!
​

Steven2006 sez:

Bolded mine

Again I say:

BINGO, SLAM DUNK, and AMEN!!
​

 

The Bible says, let God be true and every man a liar. Therefore the Word of God is true. We might be faulty in translation. We might be faulty in interpretation. But God's Word is true and He has promised to preserve it.

I have difficulty with so many translations existant in the English language based chiefly upon one point: How can one call any Bible as the Word of God and still protect it with copywrite protections and restrictions? If it is to preserve the 'intellectual property of a person or group of people' or the financial gain of a publishing house which does the printing..... just where is the morality and ethics of this in relationship to the free use of the Word and the free distribution of the same? If I have trouble with the older language of an earlier version..... perhaps the problem is that I'm ignorant of the meaning of the antiquated use of words... which could easily be remedied by consulting with authorities and references of that time. ........ But that is not the subject of this thread.

I disagree with some of the points made in this thread.
For one thing The Bible is the Book of Books.
It does contain books of history: Books which chronicaled or recorded the actions of kings. It does contain books of prophecy. It contains a Book of songs, poetry, literature, praise. As a whole, it is beautiful literature. The Proverbs contain the best wisdom for living of any similar book ever written. It is concise in its presentation. Sure, it presents several repeated themes.... each one reworded a little differently .....yet consistent throughout. I say its concise because many have attempted to write similar 'self help' books of thick content and never contained the whole of the proverbs or its themes, with such simplicity and easily understood if one just exercises a little thought in addition to reading.

It contains the best and most concise law ever written, which if just the 10 commandments were followed and enforced.... man could live civilly with each other. I'm not aware that the laws regarding agriculture were ever followed consistantly: Nevertheless, although its not a book of zoology or botany, if anyone has had a smattering of these courses, and compared the practices with the stewardship of the land and the balance of organisms which facilitate plant life and the retention and breakdown of minerals in the earth with the balance of orgainc matter in the soil.... there's a wisdom unexplained and unexamined by science, which might prove to be most practical and profitable.

Before genetics were ever scientifically proven, the practices of husbandry followed the practice of genetic selection in spite of the absence of scientific understanding. While Darwin tried to prove that man descended from apes, and assumptions were drawn for a long time based upon his theories of evolution by which some people justified the distinction of the races as being a progression of evoluntionary change.... the Bible says God made man in his image, and the Bible says God made us of one blood. But it wasn't until modern blood typing that it was discovered.... that blood transfusions can be given or received based, get this, not on racial divisions but based on blood type. With just one woman and just one man, the genetic pool of human kind containing all 4 blood types could descend.

Darwin proposed that man descended from apes/ monkeys: in such theories... man represents 'a higher animal form'. Organs like the tail bone and the appendix are considered by evolutionist as being 'vestigal' organs from a past time when man needed them before 'he evolved'. Yet modern understanding in those doctors and scientist who have studied specifically in these areas of human anatomy know that the tail bone in man is essential and is the organ where the insertion or origin of important muscles, tendons and ligaments which support the strength of the pelvic girdle and support the function of organs in the pelvis important to biological purposes and child birth. The appendix was long considered a 'vestigal organ' of no consequence.... but recent studies have shown that it has some connection related to health and immunity and that it is a pocket inwhich biologically necessary and 'good' bacteria which are helpful to the digestive and nutritive efficiency of the gut, can reside and replenish the gut after bouts of assault by substances ingested which attack and removed the normal flora. BTW, the monkey has no appendix and neither do most mamauls.... so if Darwin was correct.... it is either a new organ which 'evolved' in man or an organ which 'evolved out' from monkeys and apes.

Joesph Lister is credited with being the father of modern sanitation related to medical practice and Louis Pastuer credited for discovering that micro organism present in a solution may cause disease..... yet the Bible teaches the 'uncleanness' and isolation of those who have contact with a dead body..... which is a measure to prevent transferance of disease from the dead to the living..... and washing the hands and the body under running water.... which carries away the filth. The Bible teaches the annointing of the sick with oil: We now generally interpret this to mean just pouring a little oil like on the forehead.... but there are some who believe this practice was also a rubbing or massaging of the oil or pouring to cover a place of soreness or injury. Oil does have some properties which can act as a lubricant, and a barrier to some types of pathogens and aid healing ..... and can act as a carrier for herbal healing remedies... or be made from some 'herbs' such as frankinsense or myrrh which have healing and anti microbial properties. The Bible gives the details for exerting quarantine of those who could spread an incurable infection to others...... and the remedy for relief and restoration should healing ever occur....... long before medicine discovered such a need or proposed such a practice.... based on modern science.

I don't understand all the dietary laws given in the scripture.... but I have read some evidence that a diet with high protein content is antagonistic to the biological availablity of calcium in absorption and/or its retention in the bones...... could this be a scientific explanation for avoiding milk products with a meal of beef or is the reason just related to ritual or spiritual obediance to the authority of God?

The way this poll is presented.... I cannot answer. It isn't relevant as imo if science disagrees or conflicts with the Bible.... the science is wrong and in error or we've erred in interpreting, such as taking a common usage or phrase too literally (ex: we still commonly refer to the sun's rising and setting).

Once again... the Bible says Let God be true and everyman a liar. That's good enough for me.

 

That's not at issue. What's often at issue is our interpretation and application of what God says.

 

I didn't say God revealed something inaccurate. I'm suggesting that where God is quoted is one hundred percent correct. Where the writer produces his own thoughts is his own. Doesn't make scriptures less valid. For instance how accurate is the Song of Song's. With how people feel about each other and how God feels about us its very accurate. However, may it make scientific error's? Yes, because its not the point of the book to discuss physics its about our relationship with God. Therefore its a poor source of scientific information.