1213 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 3:45 am
POI wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 6:21 pm
...Assuming you took science courses in school, if/when you come across any parts which do not appear to align with any of the claim(s) in Genesis, how do you proceed? Do you just reject the scientific discovery, or other?
I proceed by looking, what is actually discovered and known and what is just imagination or scientific belief. I have not yet seen any real scientific discovery that would be against the Bible or Genesis.
POI wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 6:21 pmFurther, what do you think the author of Genesis would say regarding some later scientific discoveries not aligning with some the claim(s) from Genesis? Would he ask that we ignore those discoveries, or other?
I think he probably would first ask, what are the discoveries. Then he probably would see that all real discoveries support the Biblical story.
Astounding. "You have not seen" slam dunk evidence in front of your face. You even posted the combined resurrection texts but with the contradictions left out (so you knew what they were) and then denied you'd done it.
Never mind the mess of denial over the daylight before the sun or the attempt to evade the evidence (cetan sequence) for speciation, your denial and not seeing what you don't want to see is there for all to see.
But you aren't the only one,
not by a long shot.
The science is in the geological sequencers order of stratified evidence of animal (and plant) progress in complexity and radiometric dating. Even you don't deny the scientific claim that the world is not flat and fight the Genesis picture of a world that is flat with a dome over.
So the science says Genesis is wrong, and some Believers accept that and try to skip over it as 'Metaphorically true'. e.g 2nd pillar in #2 "Genesis is meant to be reliable, but in the form of parables, whereas only the righteous will be able to have insight" which when translated from Theist to English means "The Bible means whatever we want it to mean".
But as usual, it is not down to what the excuser can ignore, deny or wave away, but what the rational looker in (we have over 100 which is splendid) who will hopefully take the message outside where it counts, as It doesn't count for much in this this limited but valuable forum, will see as the better case. Does one accept the evidence that the earth evolved over geological ages and biological forms with it, or does one believe what Genesis says?
Take the flip -flop excuses where some apologists try to make the Bible fit the science, e.g divide the age of the universe by 7 and call each one a day [and ignore morning and evening] or leap on the Flat circle (1) and claim it means 'sphere' (which it doesn't, and proclaim 'science in the Bible'. That is, those who don't deny the science and maintain the sun was indeed created after the earth, like our pal 1213. Of course it isn't the only thing, (Bible apologists love to take points in isolation, though they appeal to 'cumulative evidence' when it suits them) because you have faults and problems all the way through from the sun standing still to Genetic modification by getting sheep to stare at a stick, and the same with the NT, demons causing illness and, even those who might say "Demons means viruses" get stuck with proving that viruses can be removed by prayer. So maybe that's why I haven't heard that one. But aside the flat earth debate - the pinnacle of the Temple means up in orbit (where one still couldn't see the kingdoms on the other side of the
dwr (globe [cue "?"
]) our pal trying to pull that one, as well, and Jesus referring to false history (Eden and Flood) we have have wrong history like no Passover release,and we don't hear that anymore. It's odd how the old arguments of my early days seem to have been sidelined in favor or even favour of the genesis - literalist debate.
which is where we came in.
(1)
chwug or similar pronunciations (2), meaning a scribed circle with compasses...and for 2,000 years the Hebrew - reading Bible experts ignored that) and I gotta say, I seem to be the only one pointing this out, or that John has no transfiguration or that the 'missing governorship' was actually filled by Varus. I sometimes wonder what the Bible debate has been about. I suspect the apologists have been able to control the debate all this time withe the irrelevant 'one angel or two' debate.
(2) the right pronunciation being a favourite misdirection. "You don't use the right hebrew diacritals, therefore we may dismiss everything you say" and the like. The pointless point being as useful a rhetorical tool as the Big Lie. Sorry to go on
but the rhetorical method is actually of more use to Bible apologetics than the factual data.