Science And The Bible

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Science And The Bible

Post #1

Post by DavidLeon »

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept as a philosophy would have an influence in on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle.

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?
I no longer post here

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #121

Post by DavidLeon »

Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmRight now I'm looking at my 10 pound, 2,059 page Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition, and nowhere under the entry for "fowl" does it say, or even imply, the word denotes anything but a bird.

And so what? Of the 59 bibles I checked for Leviticus 11;13 "birds" shows up 39 times whereas "fowl" shows up only 10 times. That's just about four times as many bibles that believe "birds" is the proper translation. So I can't bring myself to care that 17% of the Bibles use the term "fowl."
Thanks for the response, Miles. I'm not sure about the angle of your criticism. The tome before you tells you about the current use of the word fowl? It's etymology going back further than meaning a bird? Language changes, so the English word fowl meant, at one time, flyer. At another time it meant barn door winged animal, from a root meaning flyer and possibly egg. Also hunting, so chicken, turkey, pheasant, etc. Now it has a broader application.

If your criticism is that the writers of the Bible in it's original form didn't know the difference between a bat and a bird there are two possible reactions to that. The first is they had separate words for the two and the second is so what? If they thought both were flying creatures and left it at that what difference would it make? If someone from some period in the past writes that man can't fly or the fastest means of transportation is the horse and carriage is it worthy of criticism just because those things have changed in our own time?

Going on the assumption that the more translations render a word a specific way as being an indicator of accuracy is problematic due to tradition and the use of language of the source of the translation. If 300 years ago a translation is made when the word fowl meant something different than today that translation can affect translations for those 300 years after. So if your criticism is that the traditional translations of the Bible can be somewhat confusing, I would have to agree. Use of the words unicorn, hell and shambles in the KJV would be good examples of that.
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmNo, I've said the Bible says grasshoppers walk on only four legs, just as you've pointed out below.
I also pointed out that the same term used by the Bible, being exactly "goes on all fours," a term which, by the way, doesn't even reference specifically legs, refers to a likeness of a walking on all four legs, and is even today applied to two legged humans. Using the term in that way doesn't imply that a human has four legs.
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pm(BTW, locusts are a temporary form of nine species of grasshoppers)
So you use the term locust and grasshopper in order to distinguish the two.
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmDoesn't matter what you've said here because when walking, grasshoppers use all six legs, a well known fact, and the Bible says they don't, a well known mistake.
Where does it say that grasshoppers don't use all six legs?
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmBibles today say that rabbits or hares (both lagomorphs) chew the cud. Lagomorphs don't chew cud because they don't produce it.

Know what they chew? It's poop. Not cud. And if they can't produce cud they don't chew cud. Do they? *sigh* And just to note, bibles today should either not make the claim or make note that "hares chew cud" isn't true.
It doesn't matter whether it is, according to current science, true or not. You translate what the text says. The text was written long ago before the current scientific estimation on what exactly is chewing the cud. The quotes I gave, including that of a poet recording the observations he made on his own rabbits, indicate that at a time in the not so distant past, chewing the cud was applied to rabbits and poop.
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pm
DavidLeon wrote: Nowhere, as far as I know, does any translation of the Bible say the sun goes around the earth.
Sure it does.

Joshua 10:12-14
12 On that day the Lord gave Israel the victory against the Amorites. Joshua stood before all the Israelites and said to the Lord:

Sun, stop over Gibeon.
Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun did not move, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies. This story is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky. It did not move for a full day. 14 That had never happened before, and it has never happened again. That was the day the Lord obeyed a man. The Lord really was fighting for Israel!

A thing can't stop unless it's moving. And if the Sun moves, just where would it move and then stop at noon (middle of the sky) if it wasn't moving around the Earth?


.
Let me see if I understand you. Because I think you need to expand your understanding of the Bible in criticizing it. It seems to me you are saying that the Bible says the sun moves and so the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, is that correct? If you expand your understanding of the Bible you might see it more like a newspaper than a scientific paper. The Bible is like a newspaper and criticism is like a scientific paper. A newspaper reports what people say. What appears to them to be going on. A scientific paper shares your own original research work or reviews the research conducted by others.

So, the Bible says that serpents talk, an ass talks, the sun moves etc. but serpents and asses don't talk and the sun doesn't move. The Bible doesn't mean to imply that they do, only that this is what appears to Eve, Balaam, Joshua, etc.

Similar examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true other than those above, would be in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.

But even today with modern science it isn't considered inaccurate to say the sun rises and sets, or moves across the sky because that is what it appears to us to be doing even though we know it isn't doing that.
I no longer post here

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #122

Post by Miles »

DavidLeon wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:03 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmRight now I'm looking at my 10 pound, 2,059 page Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition, and nowhere under the entry for "fowl" does it say, or even imply, the word denotes anything but a bird.

And so what? Of the 59 bibles I checked for Leviticus 11;13 "birds" shows up 39 times whereas "fowl" shows up only 10 times. That's just about four times as many bibles that believe "birds" is the proper translation. So I can't bring myself to care that 17% of the Bibles use the term "fowl."
Thanks for the response, Miles. I'm not sure about the angle of your criticism. The tome before you tells you about the current use of the word fowl? It's etymology going back further than meaning a bird? Language changes, so the English word fowl meant, at one time, flyer. At another time it meant barn door winged animal, from a root meaning flyer and possibly egg. Also hunting, so chicken, turkey, pheasant, etc. Now it has a broader application.

If your criticism is that the writers of the Bible in it's original form didn't know the difference between a bat and a bird there are two possible reactions to that. The first is they had separate words for the two and the second is so what? If they thought both were flying creatures and left it at that what difference would it make? If someone from some period in the past writes that man can't fly or the fastest means of transportation is the horse and carriage is it worthy of criticism just because those things have changed in our own time?

Going on the assumption that the more translations render a word a specific way as being an indicator of accuracy is problematic due to tradition and the use of language of the source of the translation. If 300 years ago a translation is made when the word fowl meant something different than today that translation can affect translations for those 300 years after. So if your criticism is that the traditional translations of the Bible can be somewhat confusing, I would have to agree. Use of the words unicorn, hell and shambles in the KJV would be good examples of that.
I have no quarrel with the Bible and its ancient constructions and meanings, but am simply pointing out the fact that TODAY'S bibles are telling their readers that it's a fact* that bats are birds. As I said, if their publishers recognize this is an untruth at the very least they should make note of it, but I've yet to see any that do. What it unwinds to is that the publishers either don't care they spread misinformation or they're simply too ignorant to recognize the fact. In my estimation it's a toss up.



DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmNo, I've said the Bible says grasshoppers walk on only four legs, just as you've pointed out below.
I also pointed out that the same term used by the Bible, being exactly "goes on all fours," a term which, by the way, doesn't even reference specifically legs, refers to a likeness of a walking on all four legs, and is even today applied to two legged humans. Using the term in that way doesn't imply that a human has four legs.
Only for those who've flunked fourth grade English would it have to be more specific. Is that whom the Bible is written for, third graders?

DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmBibles today say that rabbits or hares (both lagomorphs) chew the cud. Lagomorphs don't chew cud because they don't produce it.

Know what they chew? It's poop. Not cud. And if they can't produce cud they don't chew cud. Do they? *sigh* And just to note, bibles today should either not make the claim or make note that "hares chew cud" isn't true.
It doesn't matter whether it is, according to current science, true or not. You translate what the text says. The text was written long ago before the current scientific estimation on what exactly is chewing the cud. The quotes I gave, including that of a poet recording the observations he made on his own rabbits, indicate that at a time in the not so distant past, chewing the cud was applied to rabbits and poop.
And as with bats and birds, Bibles TODAY continue to spread the error. How generous of them.

Student: "My science book at home says that only ruminants like cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, giraffes and camels chew their cud."
Teacher: "Well, your science book is wrong if it left out the rabbits and hares, because they too chew their cud."
Student: "Really! How do you know?"
Teacher: "Because the Bible says they do, and the bible is never wrong."
Student: "Never?"
Teacher: Here. It's right here in Leviticus 11:4-6

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Student: "Golly, Ms. Juniper Berry, it's a good thing you're here to save us from the godless lies of science.
Teacher: That's okay Johnny. I'm just doing my job to keep you well informed.

DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pm
DavidLeon wrote: Nowhere, as far as I know, does any translation of the Bible say the sun goes around the earth.
Sure it does.
Joshua 10:12-14
12 On that day the Lord gave Israel the victory against the Amorites. Joshua stood before all the Israelites and said to the Lord:

Sun, stop over Gibeon.
Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun did not move, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies. This story is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky. It did not move for a full day. 14 That had never happened before, and it has never happened again. That was the day the Lord obeyed a man. The Lord really was fighting for Israel!

A thing can't stop unless it's moving. And if the Sun moves, just where would it move and then stop at noon (middle of the sky) if it wasn't moving around the Earth?
Let me see if I understand you.
Nah, that's okay. I have a pretty good idea how your mind works, and one more example of strained apologetics can't impress me any more than it already has.

* A fact because that's how a lot of Christians take biblical scripture


Have a good day.


.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #123

Post by DavidLeon »

Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amI have no quarrel with the Bible and its ancient constructions and meanings, but am simply pointing out the fact that TODAY'S bibles are telling their readers that it's a fact* that bats are birds. As I said, if their publishers recognize this is an untruth at the very least they should make note of it, but I've yet to see any that do. What it unwinds to is that the publishers either don't care they spread misinformation or they're simply too ignorant to recognize the fact. In my estimation it's a toss up.
I agree. How about this: "And these are what you will loathe among the flying creatures. They should not be eaten. They are a loathsome thing: the eagle and the osprey [1] and the black vulture, and the red kite and the black kite according to its kind, [2] and every raven according to its kind, and the ostrich [3] and the owl [4] and the gull and the falcon according to its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the long-eared owl, and the swan [5] and the pelican and the vulture, and the stork, the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat. Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you.

"'Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have [6] leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust [7] according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper [8] according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you." - Leviticus 11:13-23 (NWT)

[1] Lit., "the breaker," a bird of prey.

[2] See Genesis 1:11 footnote, which reads: Lit., "according to its kind (genus)." Heb., lemi·noh′; Gr., ge′nos; Lat., ge′nus. The term "kind" here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it.

[3] Lit., "the daughter of the desert [hard, stony tract of land]"; or, "the daughter of greed."

[4] "Night owl," LXXVg (Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935)
; Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975).

[5] "Swan," Vg; LXX, (Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935)
; Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975) "purple-colored bird."

[6] "That have," LXXSyVg; M, (Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935); Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975; Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979; Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS) "what does not [have]." Compare vs 23.

[7] A locust in the fully developed, winged stage.

[8] A species of locust; possibly a leaper and not a flier.
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 am
DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:51 pmNo, I've said the Bible says grasshoppers walk on only four legs, just as you've pointed out below.
I also pointed out that the same term used by the Bible, being exactly "goes on all fours," a term which, by the way, doesn't even reference specifically legs, refers to a likeness of a walking on all four legs, and is even today applied to two legged humans. Using the term in that way doesn't imply that a human has four legs.
Only for those who've flunked fourth grade English would it have to be more specific. Is that whom the Bible is written for, third graders?
Why, you little . . . Doh! [looking nervously around for the atheist police] I mean . . . now Miles, aheh, if a fourth grader does a search on Google typing in "Humans walking" brings up "Humans walking on all fours" first, and "Human's walking upright" second. "Humans walking on all four legs" comes up fourth and "humans walking on the moon" comes up sixth. Either the Bible thumping fourth graders are smarter than you think or the indoctrination of science in the public schools isn't working very well.
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amAnd as with bats and birds, Bibles TODAY continue to spread the error. How generous of them.
The Bibles of today were written thousands of years ago and reflect the language of their time. Translations today generally are from or influenced by translations in the last 2-4 hundred years and reflect the language of their time. It is unfortunate that tradition is preferred over accuracy (2 Timothy 4:3-4), but research and a good study Bible like the one I quoted above can do a great deal of good.
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amStudent: "My science book at home says that only ruminants like cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, giraffes and camels chew their cud."
Teacher: "Well, your science book is wrong if it left out the rabbits and hares, because they too chew their cud."
Student: "Really! How do you know?"
Teacher: "Because the Bible says they do, and the bible is never wrong."
Student: "Never?"
Teacher: Here. It's right here in Leviticus 11:4-6

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Student: "Golly, Ms. Juniper Berry, it's a good thing you're here to save us from the godless lies of science.
Teacher: That's okay Johnny. I'm just doing my job to keep you well informed.
Wow. Maybe science should learn the Bible so it could more accurately dictate what the underpaid school teacher thrusts upon their students, but honestly, I don't think anyone really cares. Fortunately, because personally I think religion has done enough harm as it is and the last thing we need is public schools to add to the damage done.
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amNah, that's okay. I have a pretty good idea how your mind works, and one more example of strained apologetics can't impress me any more than it already has.
I rest my case.
I no longer post here

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #124

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Miles in post #117]
I've ignored your previous remarks because they're filled with simply too much misunderstanding to bother with. However, the remark above is simply to ignorant to let pass.
We are simply having a conversation about what we believe there is no reason to get rude. If do not know how to respond to a comment it, okay not to answer.

You make the point that bats deserve to be considered birds simply because one could classify them by their locomotion and skeletal (indo or exo skeleton). This is like asserting that green coloring crayons and watermelons could be placed in the same category because both are the same color and can be held in one's hand. How about classifying steam locomotives and skateboards in the same category because both have wheels and travel on the ground. Or the ocean and popsicles could be classified in the same category because both are principally made of water and are subject to evaporation? Sure they could, but it would be pretty of stupid wouldn't it.
Organizing anything can be as broad or as narrow as the person doing the classifying can wants it to be. We can have very broad categories like things with wheels and things without wheels. The Biblical days of creation classify the plant and animal kingdoms in very broad categories. Whales would have been created on day 5 because they live in the sea. Flying animals would have been made on day 5. The Bible is describing the animal kingdom in very broad terms. All of the plants were created on day three that is a very broad category. All land animals and insects were created on day 6. The Bible classifies every living thing into 4 major categories that my friend are 4 very broad categories.


EarthScienceguy wrote:
Miles wrote:
And where is the science that says the Sun goes around the Earth (same)
Where in the Bible does it say that the sun does not go around the Earth?
Are you truly suggesting that the Sun does go around the Earth? Really!!!
No, not at all, I just read your statement wrong because the Bible does not say that the sun goes around the Earth.
In any case, as I told DavidLeonin, in Joshua 10:13 it says "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
A thing can't stop unless it's moving. And if the Sun moves, just where would it move and then stop at noon (middle of the sky) if it wasn't moving around the Earth?
This is the best example you have? This does not say that the sun goes around the Earth. Where in Scripture does it specifically say that the sun goes around the earth? Do you have a passage that states that the Sun goes around the Earth?

But if you would like an answer to what you are trying to imply below is your answer.

People on the Earth today describe the sun as a setting in the west or rising in the east. Astronomical data describes gives us the time of the rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. Are you trying to say that astronomers today do not know that the Earth orbits the sun? How would anyone know that the earth stopped rotating? The only way anyone would have known that the Earth stopped rotating is the sun staying in the same spot in the sky and that is what the observer described.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #125

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #119]
Though I think the most prevalent criticism of the Bible is rooted in a clash of worldviews, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no clash between the Bible and Science. Creation, the global deluge, evolution and the supernatural are aspects of the Bible which clash with current science. Then there is also a separate category of criticism which may have more to do with interpretation than the Bible itself, that is theology rather than the Bible. The immortal soul, hell, spirit and metaphorical applications of celestial phenomenon mistaken for literal events. Though I might classify evolution as a belief I don't think that personal classification relevant because according to science it isn't.
I absolutely have no idea what it is you are trying to express.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #126

Post by Miles »

DavidLeon wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:53 am
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amI have no quarrel with the Bible and its ancient constructions and meanings, but am simply pointing out the fact that TODAY'S bibles are telling their readers that it's a fact* that bats are birds. As I said, if their publishers recognize this is an untruth at the very least they should make note of it, but I've yet to see any that do. What it unwinds to is that the publishers either don't care they spread misinformation or they're simply too ignorant to recognize the fact. In my estimation it's a toss up.
I agree. How about this: "And these are what you will loathe among the flying creatures. They should not be eaten. They are a loathsome thing: the eagle and the osprey [1] and the black vulture, and the red kite and the black kite according to its kind, [2] and every raven according to its kind, and the ostrich [3] and the owl [4] and the gull and the falcon according to its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the long-eared owl, and the swan [5] and the pelican and the vulture, and the stork, the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat. Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you.

"'Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have [6] leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust [7] according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper [8] according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you." - Leviticus 11:13-23 (NWT)

[1] Lit., "the breaker," a bird of prey.

[2] See Genesis 1:11 footnote, which reads: Lit., "according to its kind (genus)." Heb., lemi·noh′; Gr., ge′nos; Lat., ge′nus. The term "kind" here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it.

[3] Lit., "the daughter of the desert [hard, stony tract of land]"; or, "the daughter of greed."

[4] "Night owl," LXXVg (Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935)
; Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975).

[5] "Swan," Vg; LXX, (Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935)
; Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975) "purple-colored bird."

[6] "That have," LXXSyVg; M, (Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935); Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975; Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979; Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS) "what does not [have]." Compare vs 23.

[7] A locust in the fully developed, winged stage.
Not at all sure what you've done here, but just as an FYI: Locusts develop from full grown, otherwise unexceptional grasshoppers; however, when overcrowding occurs, and the temperature, humidity and food supply reach certain levels the grasshopper changes both physically and behaviorally, and takes on its locust form. But when they get done swarming and gorging themselves, and the weather elements change, they actually change back to their normal grasshopper form and behavior.
DavidLeon wrote: [8] A species of locust; possibly a leaper and not a flier.
Like all grasshoppers, locusts both walk, leap, and fly.


DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amAnd as with bats and birds, Bibles TODAY continue to spread the error. How generous of them.
The Bibles of today were written thousands of years ago and reflect the language of their time. Translations today generally are from or influenced by translations in the last 2-4 hundred years and reflect the language of their time. It is unfortunate that tradition is preferred over accuracy (2 Timothy 4:3-4), but research and a good study Bible like the one I quoted above can do a great deal of good.
Not as long as it says hares chew cud, as the NWT bible does.
DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:03 amStudent: "My science book at home says that only ruminants like cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, giraffes and camels chew their cud."
Teacher: "Well, your science book is wrong if it left out the rabbits and hares, because they too chew their cud."
Student: "Really! How do you know?"
Teacher: "Because the Bible says they do, and the bible is never wrong."
Student: "Never?"
Teacher: Here. It's right here in Leviticus 11:4-6

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Student: "Golly, Ms. Juniper Berry, it's a good thing you're here to save us from the godless lies of science.
Teacher: That's okay Johnny. I'm just doing my job to keep you well informed.
Wow. Maybe science should learn the Bible so it could more accurately dictate what the underpaid school teacher thrusts upon their students, but honestly, I don't think anyone really cares. Fortunately, because personally I think religion has done enough harm as it is and the last thing we need is public schools to add to the damage done.
Isn't science's responsibility, but that of teachers and, in this case, the bible.


.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #127

Post by DavidLeon »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:42 am [Replying to Miles in post #117]
Miles wrote:I've ignored your previous remarks because they're filled with simply too much misunderstanding to bother with. However, the remark above is simply to ignorant to let pass.
We are simply having a conversation about what we believe there is no reason to get rude. If do not know how to respond to a comment it, okay not to answer.
He can do that. He's an atheist. You have to pity them. The power that an atheist moderator has on a Christian forum is very important for a variety of reasons. First and foremost it gives them a sense of power over their perceived oppressors. If you have a complaint it makes them feel good to dismiss it. If their own kind makes an offense it makes them feel powerful to ignore it. You have to throw a bone to the teeth that gnash outside the gates where there is only destruction. Some people also think if you suck up to them they will convert or more importantly it will make you look civil. I don't agree with that. I say just throw 'em a bone and keep an eye on them. Strictly for academic purposes. It will teach you a lot.
I no longer post here

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #128

Post by DavidLeon »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:46 am [Replying to DavidLeon in post #119]
Though I think the most prevalent criticism of the Bible is rooted in a clash of worldviews, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no clash between the Bible and Science. Creation, the global deluge, evolution and the supernatural are aspects of the Bible which clash with current science. Then there is also a separate category of criticism which may have more to do with interpretation than the Bible itself, that is theology rather than the Bible. The immortal soul, hell, spirit and metaphorical applications of celestial phenomenon mistaken for literal events. Though I might classify evolution as a belief I don't think that personal classification relevant because according to science it isn't.
I absolutely have no idea what it is you are trying to express.
It's really very simple. The Bible teaches that a supernatural being created the heavens and earth and everything in it, including people. That this being brought about a global deluge. That clashes with science. The Bible also teaches that the soul is the blood and life of any breathing creature, that the spirit is an invisible force like wind, breath, mental inclination. Those teachings don't clash with science, but the influence of pagan teachings, primarily Greek philosophy was introduced into Jewish thinking with the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the political rise of Constantine the Great in 225 CE, transmogrified (distorted with humorous and or grotesque effect) the traditional Christian teachings. The immortal soul and hell for example. Those teachings, in contrast to the Bible's teachings, do clash with science.
I no longer post here

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #129

Post by DavidLeon »

Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:50 pmLike all grasshoppers, locusts both walk, leap, and fly.
On hatching, a locust emerges wingless as a nonflying nymph, which can be either solitary or gregarious. A nymph can also change between behavior phases before becoming a flying adult after 24 to 95 days. Locusts move through several phases before maturing into flying adults. (source)
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:50 pmNot as long as it says hares chew cud, as the NWT bible does.
I've explained this to you once. The Bible isn't a scientific manual. If it says that rabbits chew cud or the sun sets and rises or flying squirrels fly it is because people relate to those things not because they are scientific facts. People don't describe everything in scientifically accurate phrases. The process of the rabbits is close enough to chewing the cud that it is called chewing the cud though it differs somewhat than that of cows. Get over it. (source)
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:50 pmIsn't science's responsibility, but that of teachers and, in this case, the bible.
If those representing science want to criticize the Bible in the name of science, which they do, then it is their responsibility. If you ain't science then don't speak for science. If you are then have enough sense to know what you are talking about. Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name. Don't be overly critical and ideologically possessed.

[Edited to add: the above comment on representing science isn't a response to your argument on cud and insect legs, it is a response to the general public when criticizing the Bible in the name of science. ]
I no longer post here

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #130

Post by Miles »

DavidLeon wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:22 pm
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:50 pmLike all grasshoppers, locusts both walk, leap, and fly.
On hatching, a locust emerges wingless as a nonflying nymph, which can be either solitary or gregarious. A nymph can also change between behavior phases before becoming a flying adult after 24 to 95 days. Locusts move through several phases before maturing into flying adults. (source)
Yup, just like all other grasshoppers.
DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:50 pmNot as long as it says hares chew cud, as the NWT bible does.
I've explained this to you once. The Bible isn't a scientific manual. If it says that rabbits chew cud or the sun sets and rises or flying squirrels fly it is because people relate to those things not because they are scientific facts. People don't describe everything in scientifically accurate phrases. The process of the rabbits is close enough to chewing the cud that it is called chewing the cud though it differs somewhat than that of cows. Get over it. (source)
And as I've explained a couple of times now, it doesn't matter that the Bible isn't a scientific manual, but that far too many people take everything it says as truth. And in light of this today's bibles owe it to their readers to correct the error and set them straight. Of course that they don't is a typical Christian approach to biblical errors: "We don't care. Pass the offering plate."
DavidLeon wrote:
Miles wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:50 pmIsn't science's responsibility, but that of teachers and, in this case, the bible.
If those representing science want to criticize the Bible in the name of science, which they do, then it is their responsibility.
And they do, but to little effect. For the most part Christians don't care that they pass along misinformation as long as they Praise :thanks: Jesus!

DavidLeon wrote: If you ain't science then don't speak for science
"If you ain't science . . . ."? What kind of odd remark is that?

DavidLeon wrote:Don't try to criticize the Bible with science, it gives science a bad name.
Yeah, Kind of puts the Bible in a bad light, doesn't it.

DavidLeon wrote: Don't be overly critical and ideologically possessed.
In other words, don't be like Christians.


.

Post Reply