Half-Life

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

This website is unbelieveable. I cannot believe how many things the Bible foretold and science didn't find out until way way way later. Do you guys still think the bible is not a reliable source for science?

Diogenes the Cynic

If you have some specific examples you'd like to discuss, please describe them. Otherwise I'm going to treat this thread as spam.

(And by offering examples, I do not mean cutting and pasting)

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

pharoah

Every one of those "proofs" are worthless, but feel free to pick what you think are the 10 best ones and we'll discuss them.

Godless Wonder

You got that much right.

Mountain Man

Of course it is unbelieveable - it should be!Someone there lied to you.Of course it isn't reliable for anything. It's not good source for science or morals.

Half-Life

The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]

# The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.

Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.


Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.


# Hydrothermal vents[4] are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.


I feel these are the two best ones.

Here's another.

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle� here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,� or “compass� (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians� of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Reanimator

Come back when you have an argument that we haven't refuted thousands of times before. I specifically remember refuting the Leviticus-blood thing myself, along with many other posters.

The Defenestrator

So losing a lot of blood is bad and rain comes from clouds- surely knowing that would be impossible without divine revelation!

Happy Wonderer

"circle" does not equal "sphere." Go to a desert sometime and look around -- the earth appears to be circular. The square earth supporters didn't get very far, despite the bible's references to the "four corners" of the earth.

hw

EricK

That's quite funny actually. The "two" best ones you chose, I thought were the worst when I read that page! I say "two" although you seem to highlight three (blood, clouds vents).

The blood quote is saying that blood is necessary for life. It doesn't take a genius to determine this - merely a sufficiently inquisitve individual with a sword. I understand there were many of them around in the Bronze Age. It doesn't talk about circulation at all, nor about nutrients, waste products or homeostasis.

The clouds one is even more ridiculous because who says that there is a "surprising amount of water that can be held in clouds". I mean, that's about as much of a scientific statement as "a giraffe has a surprisingly long neck". Possibly the ancients are expressing surprise at the following: Clouds are made of water, water falls down, clouds don't fall down. And they don't even come up with an explanation (unless you call "god does it" an explanation).

As for the vents, these mainly circulate water. To imply that they were the source of some of the water for the flood shows that the bible isn't correct about hydrothermal vents at all. On a related topic, to say that rainfall accounted for some of the water of the flood shows that isn't correct about the water cycle (although the website says mentions this one as well).

As for the shape of the earth, why doesn't it just say it if it means it. Even if Hebrew didn't have a word for sphere they certainly could have said "shaped like a melon" or something similar.

The same thing goes for all the other quotes really. If they meant it they would have said it clearly, not in some vague way which is open to almost any interpretation.