When science contradicts the Bible

Originally posted by jaywill
Vistesd,

[b]+++++++++++++++++++++
Also, few today believe that the length of a day is determined by the revolution of the sun around the earth. All of the “up and down” metaphors can be nothing else when the earth is seen as spherical, rather than flat.

If such Biblical views are seen as simply (or even profoundly) metaphorical, why not simply acce ...[text shortened]... a kind of metaphorical way of speaking ?

Was there actually a very loud Big Bang?

No, and there is no rope in string theory. What's that got to do with the price of cheese?

Originally posted by whodey
This question is mainly for thos of faith. When science seems to contradict the Bible which selection below do you fall under?

1. When science contradicts the Bible, science is wrong.
2. When our interpretation of the scientific record contradicts the Bible, our interpretation of science needs to be updated.
3. When our interpretation of the words of th ...[text shortened]... t the knowable record of nature, then our interpretation of the word of God needs to be updated.

I'll go with the bronze age folklore every time. We've learned nothing in 3000 years. You'll be telling me that people can fly around the world next

Originally posted by vistesd
There are clear cases where scientific discoveries contradict a literal Biblical view. Just as a quick and trivial example, I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the sky is a dome separating the waters above it from those below (and the dry land as well). On the other hand, that may have been a poetic speculation on what seemed the mystery of the bl ...[text shortened]... scientific pursuits. Why not? My philosophy is informed by many things, and subject to change.

I agree in part. I am rereading a favorite book of mine called "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is part scientist and part theologen. In the book he says,

"Every major theological treatise that has withstood the test of time promulgates the need for an understanding of the Biblical text in a way that is compatible with both literal AND interpretative meanings."...."In recent times an unusual orientation has arisen among many who are eager to evaluate the relevance of the Bible to daily life. There is the misconception that an understanding of the text comes to one as a natural heritage, as if we are bequeathed it genetically along with the instinct to breathe or the ability to reason. The most simplistic meanings are assumed to be adequate and study of commentaries theron is considered superfluous. Now this presents an interesting inconsistency in how we evaluate information. The paleontologist shows that brontosaurus bones he has examined have a scientifically confirmed age of 80 million years and, an adherant to the theory of evolution, interprets these and other fossils to demonstrate a theory of evolution. But there is no dynamic pro-Darwiniian evidence in the fossil record. Neither the fossils nor the variety of life that surrounds us provides any PROOF of one species changing into another, or a development of complex life forms earlier, more simple forms. The incomplete data are analyzed and interpreted, and we now fill secure, based on these interpretations, that life did indeed start with a few simple morphologies and develop over millennis to the seemingly infinite variety of today's living forms. Similarly, the cosmologist interprets spectra of starlight to prove that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old and in a state of rapid expansion. But a literal interpretation of the star-filled sky, whether viewed by eye or by telescope, is that the sun and moon and planets move and all other celestial bodies occupy fixed, unchanging positions when further study dictates otherwise..."

His point is that all other endevours for the evaluation of information undergoes both interpretive and literal evaluations. However, when it comes to the Bible this must somehow change?

I believe that the truth behind science and theology remains absolute while our understanding of such absolute truths may change. There is truth out there and the harder one pursues scientific/theological truth the more likely they will come in coming close or actually finding such truth. I am in no way suggesting that "truth" is unknowable" rather, I am simply stating that the errors in finding truth reside within us, not within what we are attempting to study.

Now as for your speculation that the virgin birth is an unecessary doctrine within Christianity I would argue that the theology within Christianity teaches that all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God because of our sin nature.....except one. That one person is Christ who lived a sinless life and subsequently gave his life for all other sinners to die in their place. Christ could only live a sin free life if he were exempt from human sin nature that causes all to sin. This would only be possible if Christ were not concieved via human intervention and subsequently subject to human sin nature. Also if he were to ever sin, he would not be God in the flesh now would he? This theology is both literal and interprative just as those of science. The only question is, is it right? You be the judge.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I'll go with the bronze age folklore every time. We've learned nothing in 3000 years. You'll be telling me that people can fly around the world next

You probably ASSUME that I hold to the belief that the world is only thousands of years old and that I hold a literalist view only in the six days of creation story, however, you would be wrong. I, in fact, believe that the earth is billions of years old as science indicates. For the Biblical literalist there are but three options. The first option is to say that the paleontological findings are accurate and that rocks they have found to be billions of years old have been placed there at creation by the Creator etc. The second option is to say that the methods of paleiontologists are flawed. It is impossible to disprove the idea that patterns of radioactive decay have changed during the past few thousand years, however, the very concept of a fickleness in nature is contrary to modern evidence. Not only that there are a myriad of other evidences that point to the universe as being billions of years old other than carbon dating. This is just as problematic for the young earth creationist as it is to say that the earth is billions of years old. The third option is to say that a further study of the Biblical text is needed to see if literal interpretations are inaccurate. For example, in Genesis 2:4 it says, "And these are the generations of the creation of heaven and earth" So if we are talking literal days, what about literal generations? I fall into the later category of the three.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let’s take a central Christian doctrine: the Incarnation of Jesus as the Christ. Suppose that after being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, Mary subsequently had intimate marital relations with Joseph and bore the child Jesus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Vistesd,

You are now saying that Joseph did ...[text shortened]... b] did[/b] know her."

Eventually we each have to put our trust in someone. Don't we?[/b]

Jaywill,

This is going to be my last post (or at least I will be posting infrequently) for awhile—not because I don’t value the discussion and debate (I do), but because I need a break.

(1) Yes, I am speculating—speculating about how an oral story can develop and change by the time it is written down.

(2) Matthew was, in my view, a midrashist, weaving his own version of the story for theological, not historical/biographical, purposes. I do not view that as being illegitimate. I think nearly all scholars are agreed, for example, that his genealogy is a construct—which, among other things, is notable for including three women with interesting backgrounds (Tamar, Ruth and Bathsheeba), and for the play on the number 14.

Midrashic writings, and midrashic readings (which are aimed at opening up even remote possibilities in the text) are a traditional Jewish form that predates the 1st Century C.E.

(3) I am not a Biblical literalist/inerrantist. I actually think such an approach diminishes the profundity of the texts, as well as being totally outside traditional exegesis at the time the texts were composed—as well as being outside the traditional concepts of composing such texts themselves.

(4) Luke is not as specific about “marital relations” as is Matthew. Nor does he specify that they were not living together while betrothed—which was not, I believe an uncommon practice.

Further, there may be a clue in Matthew 1:24, where it says he took (or received: paralaben) her as his wife. That ordinarily meant having marital relations; hence 1:25 could mean that he had no further relations with her until after she gave birth.

There seems to be nothing in the text that prohibits the possibility that Joseph and Mary had relations while betrothed (but not living together). Matthew may well have been midrashically covering such a possible scandal—which may not have been a scandal if such relations were permitted during the betrothal period (I am not certain of that, but we ought not to reach back and impose our own cultural mores). That is certainly not the only possibility.

More likely, in my view, is that he was midrashically weaving a text from disparate oral traditions—as well as expanding them. Hence the genealogy going to Joseph, which has no bearing at all in a Jewish context (or early Jewish-Christian context) if Joseph was not the father. Hence, perhaps, Paul’s reference in Romans (written circa 58 C.E.) to Jesus’ being “made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.” (Matthew is generally dated circa 80-90 C.E.)

[Although Paul says “born of a woman” in Galatians 4:4, subsequent context—especially 4:29—indicates that this not does mean without a human father. See also Job 14:1, 15:14 and 25:4.]

Yes, again, I am speculating about possibilities—that’s all; I am not making a claim. And, as I said, I was not ruling out divine intervention in my speculations.

(5) The quote from Isaiah 7:14 (in Matthew 1:23) is from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Greek word translated as virgin is parthenos, which can mean maid, maiden, virgin or just unmarried girl. Alternative Greek words are—

The word in the Hebrew Scriptures is almah, which means maiden, young woman or young marriageable woman. The alternatives are b’tulah, which can mean a chaste maiden, a virgin or a bride; and na’ara, which means girl or maid (apparently younger than almah).

____________________________________

Be well.

Originally posted by whodey
Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is part scientist and part theologen.

And apparently not very good at either.

There are at least 7 verified intermediaries confirmed of animals between the whale and the land animal that it evolved from. Thus, the fossil record DOES show intermediary forms, and Darwinian evolution IS supported by the fossil record.

Originally posted by whodey
You probably ASSUME that I hold to the belief that the world is only thousands of years old and that I hold a literalist view only in the six days of creation story, however, you would be wrong. I, in fact, believe that the earth is billions of years old as science indicates. For the Biblical literalist there are but three options. The first option is to s ...[text shortened]... ng literal days, what about literal generations? I fall into the later category of the three.

You don't use C dating to determine the age of the planet. C dating is only good for ~60,000 years, nothing longer.

Although, you do, incidentally bring up a good point. If the world were 6,000 years old, then the age of a tree, or a wooden beam in a pub would represent a good proportion of that, perhaps with a mean of 8 or 9 %. If this was the case, and decay rates had changed, dendrochronology and C dating wouldn't match up, nor would isotope patterns in tree trunks have a nice gradient from the outside (youngest material) to the heart wood (oldest material).

Hmm, I never thought about that before.....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And apparently not very good at either.

There are at least 7 verified intermediaries confirmed of animals between the whale and the land animal that it evolved from. Thus, the fossil record DOES show intermediary forms, and Darwinian evolution IS supported by the fossil record.

It may be supported by the fossil record but it does not "prove" that evolutionary Darwinism is correct. That was all he was attempting to show. In fact, he does not bash evolution in the book, it was not what it was written for. He was merely saying that an interpretation of the data is just as vital as the supposide literal findings that are found such as your claimed intermediary forms that were found.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]You don't use C dating to determine the age of the planet. C dating is only good for ~60,000 years, nothing longer.

He does point this out in the book, however, one only needs to determain that the earth is older than 6,000 years to help disprove the young earth creationists theory and this can be done with C dating. What is more conclusive, however, is the age of the universe. He states,

"The age of the universe has been measured using a variety of independent technological systems, including radioacitve dating. Doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3 above zero" radiation background. The methods of these studies are totally unrelated. Therefore, an error that might have occurred in one would not appear in the others. Yet the data taken from these diverse studies present a strong and scientifically consistent arguement for a very old Earth and an even older universe."

Don't get me wrong, I still believe in the Genesis account of creation only it is one of an old earth theory.

Originally posted by whodey
Neither the fossils nor the variety of life that surrounds us provides any PROOF of one species changing into another,

As scottishinnz said, he is obviously not a particularly good scientist. There are a number of documented cases of one species completely changing into another new species. As for the actual changing process it is evident in every life form at all times. Only someone totally ignorant of biology would deny that the total gene pool in any given species is changing constantly.

Originally posted by whodey
That was all he was attempting to show.

So why does he tell outright lies in his attempts?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As scottishinnz said, he is obviously not a particularly good scientist. There are a number of documented cases of one species completely changing into another new species. As for the actual changing process it is evident in every life form at all times. Only someone totally ignorant of biology would deny that the total gene pool in any given species is changing constantly.

Having only 7 intermediaries and saying that you have proven Darwinian evolution are two completly different subjects. Granted, having intermediaries is evidence, however, it is not proof. If it is proof then why only 7? Also, did we observe these intermediaries chainging or did they come about differently? What is then needed is an interpretation of this data and that is what he is getting at. I cannot speak for the man or as to why he did not mention them, however, it would have made NO difference in making his point had he done so. After all, he was NOT attakcing the theory of evolution. If he had been attacking the theory of evolution then I would have expected him to have mentioned them. As for his credentials he is an applied physicist and theologian who recieved his degree from MIT.

Originally posted by rwingett
Man does not have an "inner need" to have a god. That's pure hogwash. Most people, as social creatures, have been externally conditioned to believe in a god. If you raised a child with no exposure to the god concept, he would grow up having absolutely no conception of god.

Speak for yourself, since this world is under rule of Satan whose goal
is to kill, steal, and destroy the man or woman without God in their
lives will get thrown about with every wind of doctrine. Doctrine does
not have have a 'god' in it to be called a doctrine as Webster points
out:

archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

Without God truth gets warped, reality altered, our fellow man hated.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
Having only 7 intermediaries and saying that you have proven Darwinian evolution are two completly different subjects. Granted, having intermediaries is evidence, however, it is not proof. If it is proof then why only 7? Also, did we observe these intermediaries chainging or did they come about differently? What is then needed is an interpretation of this ...[text shortened]... for his credentials he is an applied physicist and theologian who recieved his degree from MIT.

I ONLY mentioned the shift from land whale to sea whale. There are many other examples, which have been studied in real time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Speak for yourself, since this world is under rule of Satan whose goal
is to kill, steal, and destroy the man or woman without God in their
lives will get thrown about with every wind of doctrine. Doctrine does
not have have a 'god' in it to be called a doctrine as Webster points
out:

archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b ...[text shortened]... of strategies

Without God truth gets warped, reality altered, our fellow man hated.
Kelly

funny, all i heard was "BS BS BS POLEMIC PLOEMIC Polemic...."