Science

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I like the way you approach science. How you see the difference between religious faith and science. I don't have any problem with this.

Once the Earth was lifeless. You say that science says that something wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. All life? Can you be more specific what science says in this subject? It's new to me. As I under let's not get too technical. We agree on the main differences between science and religion.

========================================
Once the Earth was lifeless. You say that science says that something wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. All life? Can you be more specific what science says in this subject? It's new to me. As I understand it, from the first molecule on Earth became self replicating, and this event is the key event to our life of today, I don't think the Earth has been lifeless since. If I'm wrong in this, this event took place like 3.85 billion of years ago, and the life returned again. Well, we have had some mass extinction, but it always left some organism that the future life emanates from.
========================================

My point is simply that some modern day catastrophy theories are reminiscient about what many of us understand the Bible to me saying.

We have heard of killer comets. We have heard of killer gas. We have heard of killer asteroids. We have heard of events that caused catastrophic cessations of lives on earth, whether all or some may vary from theory to theory.

Now I will quote to you the writings of a Jewish reader of the Hebrew Scriptures predating the modern scientific age. Remember this statement was written before the invention of geology or the formation of evolutionary theory.

"These are the generations of heaven and earth .... Now wherever there is written the word 'these' the previous words are put aside. And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."

This is a translation from a Book called Sefer Hazzohar - "The Book of Light", sometimes refered to simply as Zohar.

The authorship of this book is traditionally attributed to a certain Simeon ben Jochai a disciple of Akiba ben Joseph who was the president of the School of Bene Barek near Saffa. He [Simeon] was executed in 135 A.D.

Point here is that this commentary on Genesis written towards the end of the first century / beginning of second century A.D. reveals an understanding of some Hebrew reading scholars that Genesis refers to a previous pre-Adamic world or worlds that were destroyed.

They were not accomodating their theology to modern theories which had not yet been invented. They understood that some catastrophy of divine judgment had occured in previous worlds.

Some modern catastrophy theories therefore move closer to ancient understandings of the Scripture. The RcV translates "But the earth became waste and emptiness" in Gen. 1:2

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep."

Concordant Version, and Emphasized Bible are similar in thier rendering of the Hebrews to bring out catastrophy indicated in verse 2.

Apparently, the Hebrew scholar commenting on Genesis from Zohar would have had an understanding like this in the end of the first century / beginning of the second.

Originally posted by jaywill
[bMy point is simply that some modern day catastrophy theories are reminiscient about what many of us understand the Bible to me saying.
[/b]

You seem to answer questions I did never put. So I disregard these.

I responded to your words:
"I read that the earth was seen in a state of ruin and void. Science today tells us that some terrible catatastrophy or catastraphies wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man."

And I still object that nothing has ever wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. There has been killer asteroids, pandemias, hot earth as well as cold earth, and other things, agree, but neither of these did ever wipe out all life previous to the arrival of man. Do you have any scientific data that back your claim up?

But this is not important. If you decide to pass my question, then no harm is done.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You seem to answer questions I did never put. So I disregard these.

I responded to your words:
"I read that the earth was seen in a state of ruin and void. Science today tells us that some terrible catatastrophy or catastraphies wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man."

And I still object that nothing has ever wiped out all life previous ...[text shortened]... aim up?

But this is not important. If you decide to pass my question, then no harm is done.

===================================
And I still object that nothing has ever wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. There has been killer asteroids, pandemias, hot earth as well as cold earth, and other things, agree, but neither of these did ever wipe out all life previous to the arrival of man. Do you have any scientific data that back your claim up?
===================================

I am not presently aware of a theory that all living things were made exticnt before the arrival of human beings. Perhaps there is such a theory. I do not know. I know of theories of mass extinctions.

For example, scientists question what caused the dinosaurs to go into extinction. And just the other day a science program postulated that the mammoths and other large prehistoric mammals suddenly went into extinction because of a foreign rocky object bursting into a fireball near to earth impact.

My emphasis was simply on mass extinctions and environmental destruction.

I cannot help but noticed that a first century rabbinical commentator talked about worlds being destroyed.

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
And I still object that nothing has ever wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. There has been killer asteroids, pandemias, hot earth as well as cold earth, and other things, agree, but neither of these did ever wipe out all life previous to the arrival of man. Do you have any scientific data that bac elp but noticed that a first century rabbinical commentator talked about worlds being destroyed.

So by saying "Science today tells us that some terrible catatastrophy or catastraphies wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man", your formulation "all life" should be read something like "some life"?

Not important. Let's drop the subject.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
Once the Earth was lifeless. You say that science says that something wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. All life? Can you be more specific what science says in this subject? It's new to me. As I understand it, from the first molecule on Earth became self replicating, and this event is the ke understanding like this in the end of the first century / beginning of the second.

[/b]Jaywill quoting ha Zohar!? Baruch atah Hashem! 😉


First, Jaywill, I have always respected your willingness (with the exception of some crucial aspects of Christian doctrine; and I understand that) to non-dogmatically explore various possibilities—including in your own exegesis.


Reading this post got me to set some other things aside and explore various Jewish views on tohu and bohu: including the Bahir (another kabbalistic work) as well as the Zohar and some different Torah commentaries. Different rabbis have different opinions on such matters: that’s a core feature of Judaism, exploring all the possibilities (even the most speculative), and allowing them to “shoulder up against one another”.



Kabbalah has taken many forms )including some “new-agey” ones that I have learned to avoid). The best introduction might be Daniel Matt’s The Essential Kabbalah, which gives a broad selection. Matt, who is probably the pre-eminent translator/commentator of the Zohar today (he authored a selection for Paulist Press, and the Pritzker Edition of the complete Zohar—of which I, as yet, own only the first volume), also wrote a book called God and the Big Bang. You might find it interesting. I pulled it off the shelf today, and realized that my memory had been a bit unfair to Matt in this work: he does not attempt any synthesis of science and spirituality, but attempts to set up a kind of dialogue. There is also some bare-bone presentation of kabbalah as the mystical theology of Judaism.


Neat stuff. Be well.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a pretty weak test, really. It presumes that our current holdings in science are the ultimate standard. Given the ever-shifting perspectives for what passes as modern science, using such a barometer is fraught with all kinds of problems.

Such a test also places the Bible at a disadvantage; namely, that it act as something unintended. Although ...[text shortened]... primarily as a recorded history of God's dealings with man... a very, very broad brush stroke.

It is a test to see whether Biblical prophesy predicts scientific findings as was claimed earlier in the thread. If the Bible makes no such prophesies then the test will fail without reflecting badly on the Bible - but badly on the people making the claim.
If science is as shifting or inaccurate as you imply, then the original claim is clearly faulty too as a Bible that backs up faulty science is no less faulty.

Originally posted by jaywill
My emphasis was simply on mass extinctions and environmental destruction.

I cannot help but noticed that a first century rabbinical commentator talked about worlds being destroyed.

And it is such a tenuous link as to be practically meaningless. Certainly to claim from that observation that Science is comming closer to the Bible would be going too far.
There are literally hundreds of ways to read the phrase 'worlds being destroyed' and you could fit it to hundreds of actual scenarios.

Originally posted by vistesd


To sum up: even to set the Bible over against science is, to my mind, a mistake; a mistake that often comes from some commitment to overly-literalistic readings that—again, in my opinion—distort the very (literary) nature of the texts. Science is science, torah is torah.

Well said.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a pretty weak test, really. It presumes that our current holdings in science are the ultimate standard. Given the ever-shifting perspectives for what passes as modern science, using such a barometer is fraught with all kinds of problems.

Such a test also places the Bible at a disadvantage; namely, that it act as something unintended. Although ...[text shortened]... research developed, the Bible's rendition of events has always been the lone one standing.

"the Bible has never been shown to be at odds with any proven scientific finding."

depends on what you understand by proven scientific finding. because from our point of view, evolution is quite proven. from our point of view, any change in science in the future will only improve this theory either by adding or adjusting some of it's aspects.


"its intention is primarily as a recorded history of God's dealings with man... "
with this, i disagree as a christian. bible's purpose is to give us god's message which is jesus. anything else is filling.

Originally posted by vistesd
Jaywill quoting ha Zohar!? Baruch atah Hashem! 😉


First, Jaywill, I have always respected your willingness (with the exception of some crucial aspects of Christian doctrine; and I understand that) to non-dogmatically explore various possibilities—including in your own exegesis.


Reading this post got me to set some other things aside a ...[text shortened]... re-bone presentation of kabbalah as the mystical theology of Judaism.


Neat stuff. Be well.[/b]

===============================
First, Jaywill, I have always respected your willingness (with the exception of some crucial aspects of Christian doctrine; and I understand that) to non-dogmatically explore various possibilities—including in your own exegesis.
================================

Thanks for the information about the modern zohar translation.

But what are these exceptions "crucual aspects of Christian doctrine" ?

Are your "other possibilities" not considered by me without me giving you a reason ? That doesn't sound like me.

Do you think that "dogma" can be correct sometimes ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is a test to see whether Biblical prophesy predicts scientific findings as was claimed earlier in the thread. If the Bible makes no such prophesies then the test will fail without reflecting badly on the Bible - but badly on the people making the claim.
If science is as shifting or inaccurate as you imply, then the original claim is clearly faulty too as a Bible that backs up faulty science is no less faulty.

Although I don't pretend to know the intimate details of the hundreds of prophetic utterances found in the Bible, I think I can nonetheless end the speculation here. Prophecy does not concern itself with anything as mundane and insignificant as scientific. While certainly some aspects of various prophecies have included mundane properties (governmental leaders, economic conditions, sociological events, etc.), it's difficult to imagine God sending a word to any of the prophets about, say for example, a future discovery of the vaccine for polio.

While said vaccine for polio was indeed important in the scope of things, it doesn't fall into the same group of significant events to rise to the level of being mentioned by God. The nature of prophecy (nevuah) is to introduce to the listening audience a confounding idea, one meant to produce scandal with an eye toward eventual fruit, like a seed into hardened ground, for spiritual harvest.

As interesting as our observations and discoveries are, none of them are game-changers... at least, not on the level that God wants us to be living.

I think the more important point here is that the Bible has yet to be shown wrong in its stance on any of the mundane topics. Where it says the sun rises and sets, so do we--- even though we know the celestial dance is configured differently than such a phrase allows--- probably because we're subconsciously acknowledging the singular importance of the earth among all heavenly bodies.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"the Bible has never been shown to be at odds with any proven scientific finding."

depends on what you understand by proven scientific finding. because from our point of view, evolution is quite proven. from our point of view, any change in science in the future will only improve this theory either by adding or adjusting some of it's aspects.


"its i ...[text shortened]... n. bible's purpose is to give us god's message which is jesus. anything else is filling.

depends on what you understand by proven scientific finding. because from our point of view, evolution is quite proven. from our point of view, any change in science in the future will only improve this theory either by adding or adjusting some of it's aspects.

Assuming you refer to that perspective of evolution which puts itself at odds with the account of Creation as outlined in the book of Genesis, I'm afraid to inform you that you (and that group which finds itself in agreement with you) are mistaken.

Not that it is that big of a deal: many Christians throughout history have found themselves out in left field by their misguided attempts to appease the wrong crowd, and we've made it this far, nonetheless.

"its intention is primarily as a recorded history of God's dealings with man... "
with this, i disagree as a christian. bible's purpose is to give us god's message which is jesus. anything else is filling.

To my understanding, "God's dealings with man" finds its penultimate point in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Within the first chapter of the first book, to the last chapter of the final book, He is shown to be the Unique Person, the focus of and reason for the entire realm of existence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]depends on what you understand by proven scientific finding. because from our point of view, evolution is quite proven. from our point of view, any change in science in the future will only improve this theory either by adding or adjusting some of it's aspects.

Assuming you refer to that perspective of evolution which puts itself at odds with the ...[text shortened]... n to be the Unique Person, the focus of and reason for the entire realm of existence.[/b]

I'm afraid to inform you that you (and that group which finds itself in agreement with you) are mistaken.
isn't humility supposed to be a trademark of the christian? how do you presume to know more than the majority of the scientific comunity? how can you be so sure? don't say that the bible says so because it is not logical to assume a book that deals with the spiritual would put so much stock in a scientific issue told to nomadic shepherds from the second millenia BC. do you require it to prove everything? do you take some bits literaly and others metaphoricaly? does the fact that God stopped the sun in the sky in one of joshua's battles to make the day longer mean that the sun is revolving around the earth?(thanks vistesd for pointing this example out)




just because your point includes mine doesn't mean your point is correct and mine is wrong.

your understanding puts the murderous, jealous, genocidal, hateful, ridiculous "God" of the OT in the same shoes as the loving compassionate god of the NT.
kind of a stretch.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]I'm afraid to inform you that you (and that group which finds itself in agreement with you) are mistaken.
isn't humility supposed to be a trademark of the christian? how do you presume to know more than the majority of the scientific comunity? how can you be so sure? don't say that the bible says so because it is not logical to assume a book that de f the OT in the same shoes as the loving compassionate god of the NT.
kind of a stretch.[/b]

==your understanding puts the murderous, jealous, genocidal, hateful, ridiculous "God" of the OT in the same shoes as the loving compassionate god of the NT.
kind of a stretch.
====================================

I don't understand why people keep making this kind of charge about God in the Old Testament.

Maybe they don't read it. Maybe they didn't read the 150 some Psalms or the compassion shown by God in various books of the Old Testament.

Then I consider the charge of "genocide". In the Old Testament I see a number of instances where God judged a society. What I see is different levels of severity.

Unsevere
Lightly severe
Severe
Very Severe

I do not see one catagory only. I see different levels in the scope of God's judgments. And why not ?

Now here the thing - Why would God not want us to see that the wide scope of His judgment, the different levels of their severity ?

And if so, why would He not also have to reveal that in some case the severity of judgment would be the worst ?

I mean is Joshua the only book in the Old Testament ? No. You have the jugment of nations in Joshua and the conquest of Canaan. But you also have the mercy shown to Ninevah in the book of Jonah. And you have varying levels of severity in between these two.

I don't see why some skeptics can't see that God would want to outline for us a full scope of possible divine reactions. I think He is faithful to us to do so.

And while I may not like the extreme end of this spectrum, I am appreciative to know that it could exist in some extreme cases.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no he shall burn incense to an effigy of Steven Hawkins and chant scientific mantras!

Science Definition


The word science
comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. You can find out more about the scientific method here.

Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.

Just wanted to know.

Manny