Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Although the Bible is not a science text book, did you know that the Bible is accurate when it touches on science?
texasescimo

Although the Bible is not a science text book, did you know that the Bible is accurate when it touches on science?



Click here for the article: Does Science Agree With the Bible?

Posted - December 21, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 22891
    no but now i do
      December 21, 2017 10:53 AM MST
    2

  • I've always felt that it you move away from speculation, opinion, and theory,  the Bible backs true science and that the reverse is true. True science backs the Bible in its accounts of cataclysmic and natural occurrences over time. The same has been proven true with Biblical accounts of cities, wars and political upheavals that were previously thought to be myths.
      December 21, 2017 10:54 AM MST
    0

  • For the most part, it does not have any glaring inaccuracies, and most other instances can be written off as metaphorical (such as speaking of "hearts" as being the seats of emotion; the Qur'an has many mentions of this as well, but no one takes these as serious biological statements). Cosmological statements in the Bible are not specific enough to argue firmly for only one interpretation; the Bible does not guarantee that the earth is round, but it doesn't guarantee that it is flat either.

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 21, 2017 2:25 PM MST
      December 21, 2017 11:36 AM MST
    2

  • 1305
    I'm not sure about that, it says the moon gives it's own light, it doesn't it reflects the light of the sun. Gen 1:16
      December 21, 2017 1:03 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    What translation says "the moon gives it's own light" or is that your interpretation of a luminary?

    lu·mi·nar·y
    ˈlo͞oməˌnerē/
    noun
     
    1. 1.
      a person who inspires or influences others, especially one prominent in a particular sphere.
      "one of the luminaries of child psychiatry"
      synonyms: leading light, guiding light, inspiration, role model, hero, heroine, leader, expert, master;More
       
         
    2. 2.
      an artificial light.



    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/luminarynoun, plural luminaries.
    1.
    a celestial body, as the sun or moon.
    2.
    a body, object, etc., that gives light.
    3.
    a person who has attained eminence in his or her field or is aninspiration to others:
    one of the luminaries in the field of medical science.
    adjective
    4.
    of, relating to, or characterized by light.


    Not sure if this is relevant to what you are saying but see if it helps?

    [Fourth “Day”
    20 “‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
    21 Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohrʹ, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohrʹ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.
    22 An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.
    23 Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.]
      December 21, 2017 1:49 PM MST
    0

  • 1305
    I've quoted the text.

    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also  KJV

    God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. NIV

    And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. ESV

    They all say that the moon gives light separately from the sun....

    Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

    Your using Green literal translation? That's got to be the least known.  luminary is a latin word, not greek or Hebrew.

    And using luminary instead of light, doesn't take away from the fact that it states the moon gives it's own luminary.

    When people try to make the bible fit todays knowledge it takes away it's poetry and the time in which these writings took place, ie when people didn't have electricity but were guided by the stars, why do that, the bible is full of dreams, and parables, it's wisdom wasn't literal, for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.  Take Orion for example, do you think the constellation Orion was named by God?  Because Orion is a Greek name, in Babylonia it was called Spia zi an an meaning The heavenly Shepherd, the shepherd of Anu.  In Egypt it was regarded as the god Sep, his consort was Sirius called Sopdet, also known as Osirius and Isis.




    Amos 5:8  [Seek him] that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD [is] his name:



    As on earth as it is in heaven.  Many don't know that this too is a star system...





    This post was edited by kjames at December 21, 2017 4:02 PM MST
      December 21, 2017 2:55 PM MST
    0

  • 2657
    You didn't quote the text you gave.

    Where does the moon get its light from?
      December 21, 2017 8:15 PM MST
    0

  • To us, the moon does give light upon the earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse (owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up” (Strong’s 0215). Taking this verse out of context can make it seem inaccurate, but when we take a step back and read Genesis 1:14-18 as a whole, we understand more about the purpose of this passage. Other than providing light, God created the sun and moon to mark the seasons, days, and years, which they do quite well. 

       Ultimately, the Bible doesn't say that the moon emits light. Only that it's  to give light upon the Earth—which it does by reflection. The real message to take from this passage is that God created two heavenly bodies that are constant reminders of His amazing power. This verse lets us mere humans know exactly what God intended: how the sun and moon came to be and why He created them. 
      December 22, 2017 7:41 AM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Thank you Hezekiah. I was hoping that kjames would see that the moon gets its light from the sun in as the moon reflects the light from the sun so referring to its light doesn't say that the moon gets it light on its own without the sun. 
      December 22, 2017 8:24 AM MST
    0

  • You're welcome and I liked your question. It's a good one.
      December 22, 2017 8:43 AM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Thank you Hezekiah. Got a few nice comments but also a few Ad Hominem type comments as usual. To bad some have closed minds to where they cannot look at any evidence that disagrees with their preconceived ideas. 
      December 22, 2017 8:48 AM MST
    1

  • There almost always has to be an attack for no good reason and it usually escalates into something personal. Not only are some of their minds closed, they're locked.
      December 22, 2017 8:57 AM MST
    1

  • 492

    NWT
    Gen 1:16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day+ and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars


    Your private and personal translation describes "the moon gives it's own light".
    Your very own New World Translation tells you that Jehovah created 2 individual great luminaries to give off their own light; one in the daytime, one in the night time. Any one can look up at the sky and say, "wow, that there ball in the sky is brighter on some nights than others".
    False science.

    If the Bible is accurate when it touches on science, Gen 1:16 would tells us, God went on to make one great luminary, our greater luminary for dominating the day+ and its reflection from the moon for lesser luminary for dominating the night.
    True science.

     

     

     

      December 24, 2017 1:16 PM MST
    0

  • Your evidence and citations are like asking the tobacco companies if tobacco is a bad choice or asking Pfizer if you are in need of Prozac.
      December 21, 2017 1:51 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Quote: "Your evidence and citations are like asking the tobacco companies if tobacco is a bad choice or asking Pfizer if you are in need of Prozac."
    Which statement in the article is wrong, unless you are suggesting that tobacco is good for you.

    (I hate to post the whole article as a comment but you were a bit vague.)
    Of which evidence and citation do you disagree with? 

    The Bible’s answer

    Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

    • The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

    • The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

    • The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

    • Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

    • The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

    • Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

    Are there scientific errors in the Bible?

    A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

    Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

    Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

    Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis.—Genesis 1:11, 16.

    Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up “the heavens,” was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth’s surface during the first “day,” or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third “day” of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5,12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:16.

    Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

    Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again.” However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words “sunrise” and “sunset,” yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

    Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

    Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

    Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (π), or about 3.1416.

    Fact: The measurements of “the Sea of cast metal” given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that “it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

      December 21, 2017 1:59 PM MST
    0

  • Says the Watchtower.    HMMMMMMMMM??????????????
    All your  "  Bible believers saying the Bible is science based"   " Facts"  are what is called spin.   Think critically.
      December 21, 2017 2:05 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Ad hominem?
    How about staying on topic and say what is wrong rather than just making it clear who you don't like?

    Start with the first if you like, you don't believe that the universe had a beginning? If I am not mistaken, most scientist used to believe it didn't. You don't believe it had a beginning? Is that your issue? 
      December 21, 2017 2:12 PM MST
    0

  • You're looking with blinders and aren't applying the  logical fallacy term  Ad hominem correctly.


    Your source is incredibly biased and therefore unreliable when it says the Bible is in agreement with science.   You're moving goal posts just as they are using spin to fit a predetermined desired outcome.  You're using logical fallacies,  not I. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 21, 2017 4:59 PM MST
      December 21, 2017 4:58 PM MST
    0

  • texasescimo is JW
    That means he follows the Jehovah's Witness translation from the Aramaic Bible, which differs in many instances from the King James and Catholic versions.
    JWs follow a particular set of teachings on how to interpret the Bible, which is by and large creationist and fairly literal, but which includes the idea that God's means of Creation was evolution. The time of evolution is compressed into an approximation of the Seven Days of Creation on the grounds that a day in the life of God is much longer than a day in the life of Earth and its creatures. The length of time of one of God's days is specified by the Elders, but does not agree with the time-line of evolution as laid out by geologists and all the other forms of science involved in carbon and radio dating of plant and animal evolution.
    JWs are encouraged by the brethren to bear witness and as much as possible try to draw others into their faith - generally through attempting to persuade through education in the ways they interpret the Bible and Gospels. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 21, 2017 10:40 PM MST
      December 21, 2017 7:00 PM MST
    1

  • 2657
    Not exactly correct. The NWT is translated from the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Pretty much everyone these days knows of the errors in the KJV. They had rules of translation imposed by the King as well as added verses of its own as well as from the textus receptus. I've done quite a bit of research on different translations.

    JW's let the Bible interpret the Bible and when JW's are told something, they check the scriptures.
    (Acts 17:11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
    (2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
    (Genesis 40:8) ... “Do not interpretations belong to God? ...”

    JW's do not believe in evolution as in one species (Categorizing species has changed over time) evolving in to another perhaps called macro-evolution? JW's do believe in variations within a species over time. For example, I think the dog, wolf, coyote and fox could have a common ancestor. Perhaps all in the cat family could have a common ancestor? But I don't think that a chigger, platypus and blue whale all have a common ancestor. 

    The length of time of creative days in Genesis are not specified by the Elders. They are not 12 hour days or 24 hour days but rather unspecified periods of time. Definition of Day in secular dictionaries as well as biblical dictionaries agrees with that. 
      December 21, 2017 8:34 PM MST
    1

  • Ah well, the JW women who visited me once a fortnight for tea and talk during the time I was caring for my mother, told it to me a bit differently... but they might have made mistakes in the JW theology. I know on one occasion I asked why Noah reacted so severely to his grandson accidentally seeing him naked, and they said they didn't know and had to go and ask their elders (the women were in their sixties). When they came back the answer was vague, "it had something to do with incest". It made absolutely no sense to me.
      December 21, 2017 10:48 PM MST
    0

  • 2657
    I don't think they would have told you ALL of the misinformation the way you remember it.

    When someone jumps from subject to subject and tries to cover too much, especially without taking the time to read it from the source, a little confusion could ensue. 

    The Bible doesn't exactly specify why Noah reacted the way he did but by reasoning on similar wording in other situations recorded in the Bible, one might get an idea although it cannot be concrete.
    Here is part of an article that touches on your latest assertion:
    [...These views, of necessity, are conjectural since the Biblical record does not give any details as to Canaan’s implication in the offense against Noah. Yet some implication seems definitely intended by the fact that, just before relating the case of Noah’s drunkenness, Canaan is abruptly introduced into the account (Ge 9:18) and, in describing Ham’s actions, the record refers to him as “Ham the father of Canaan.” (Ge 9:22) That the expression “saw his father’s nakedness” may indicate some abuse or perversion that involved Canaan, is a reasonable conclusion. For in most instances incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of ‘laying bare’ or ‘seeing the nakedness’ of another. (Le 18:6-19; 20:17) So, it is possible that Canaan had committed or attempted to commit some abuse on the unconscious Noah and that Ham, though having knowledge of this, failed either to prevent it or to take disciplinary action against the offender, and compounded the wrong by making known to his brothers Noah’s disgrace....]


    Here are some articles on evolution that should help clarify what JW's believe about evolution and creation:
    https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=evolution
      December 22, 2017 7:16 AM MST
    1

  • 2657
    I just ran in to an old thread but can't seem to comment there so I will post a link and comment here:
    https://answermug.com/forums/topic/685/how-many-people-were-involved-in-deciding-what-books-would-be-in

    Hello again Hartfire. Quote: "More recent versions of the Bible do not differ significantly. Except perhaps the one produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a new translation directly from the Koine (Alexandrian form of ancient) Greek, which purports to be more authentic, but which is in fact modified according to the fundamentalist theology of its founding patriarchs."
    Perhaps it was just translated more correctly and JW's have modified their teachings to be in line with the Bible. For example the Johannine Comma is not there and the erroneously translation of 'Hell' 'Church' 'Bishop' etc is not there.


    Not sure why anyone would have thought the Diatessaron should have been included in with the inspired scriptures when it was just a non-inspired work based on the four inspired gospels. 
    [...By about 170 C.E., the Syrian writer Tatian (c. 120-173 C.E.) combined the four canonical Gospels and produced, in Greek or Syriac, the work commonly called the Diatessaron, a Greek word meaning “through [the] four [Gospels].” Later, Ephraem the Syrian (c. 310-373 C.E.) produced a commentary on the Diatessaron, thus confirming that it was in general use among Syrian Christians.
    The Diatessaron is of great interest to us today. Why? In the 19th century, some scholars argued that the Gospels were written as late as the second century, between 130 C.E. and 170 C.E., and thus could not be authentic accounts of Jesus’ life. However, ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron that have come to light since then have proved that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were already in wide circulation by the middle of the second century. They must therefore have been written earlier. In addition, since Tatian, when compiling the Diatessaron, did not make use of any of the so-called apocryphal gospels in the way he did the four accepted Gospels, it is evident that the apocryphal gospels were not viewed as reliable or canonical....]
      December 22, 2017 11:58 AM MST
    0

  • I know all about the Watchtower cult.  Thank you Hartfire all the same.
      December 21, 2017 10:41 PM MST
    0