Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 310 (407093)
06-24-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by shiloh
06-24-2007 1:31 AM


Re: Except of course ...
Since man is a contingent being mortality was the result - seperation from the immortal life of God - hence the need for a Savior - the seed of the Woman Jesus Christ.
Sorry but that is simply not supported by the Bible at all. There is no mention of separation from God in the Genesis story, in fact God continues to talk with them, makes them clothes in fact.
They were put out of the Garden of Eden in the story, not for eating the forbidden fruit, but because God was afraid they would eat from the Tree of Life.
Do any of you even read the Bible?
As for the snake curse did you not read the earlier posts. Your take on this is funny.
As far as your other points those are unsubstantiated claims.
Gald you enjoyed it. It is a funny fable.
How are my claims unsubstantiated? I am only quoting what is literally in the story.
In the story there is nothing about separation from God, nothing to imply some future need for a messiah (and I also do not see Jesus as some blood sacrifice. That makes God really stupid if true.).
The stories of God interacting with man continue straight through the Bible. The idea of some separation between man and God based on the Garden of Eden story is simply nonsense and not supported at all by what the Bible actually says.
Read Genesis 3:
21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Note that all of those happened after the cursing and that there is NO indication of any "separation" from God.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 1:31 AM shiloh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 5:56 AM jar has replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 32 of 310 (407110)
06-24-2007 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
06-24-2007 1:43 AM


Re: Except of course ...
How is my statement not supported in the bible; mortality = "you shall surely die"
I did not say he was seperated in a total sense from God but from the eternal life that is in God.
I never said they were put out of the garden for eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God was not afraid of them eating the tree of life - it was actually His grace towards them that restricted
this access - this tree represented that eternal life of God - hence lest they "live forever." Read Romans 5 (although I doubt you will grasp the significance; esp. verses 12-21.)
There is a clear chang from before Adams disobedience and afterwards. If concepts like deception, disobedience, curses, nakedness, death, murder, sin, ect in Ch. 3-4 dont convince you that man is in a different state than previously and that their relation to God was not changed in some way - not for the better - then I think your decieved. Why was there a need for this person Called the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent.
As far as the snake goes the Bible was not trying to intimate that it was an animal called a snake but - the dragon that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan. Rev. 20:1-2. Since that is what it was trying say thats how I interpret it. Thats what it literally says not what you think it says.
I hope your not trying to argue over the semantics of the word seperation - come on! the concepts are clear from Scripture.
By the way sin is unbelief, rebellion, transgression, and pride - all found in the story - as well as you and everyone else.
See Is.591:2-3 "Behold the LORD's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; nor is His ear heavy that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have seperated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear. for your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips ahve spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perveristy."
The need for a Messiah and a blood sacrife are developed more precisly later in the book of genesis and throughout the OT. The idea that God would lovingly provide salvation in a just manner for sin is not stupid but gracious. You say you are a Christian - I have read your posts and you deny Christ and His sacrifice. Please dont take this term upon yourself if this is all stories with morals that are firmly planted in thin air - heck eat drink and be marry for tommorow you die. If I believed what you believed I would not waste my time on here or with reading this fabel - the bible. I know your not on here for my good as if to save me from literalism but for your own ego. What are you a preacher of what? your false understanding of the gospel; is that what you want me to convert to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 1:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 10:49 AM shiloh has not replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2007 8:01 PM shiloh has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 310 (407118)
06-24-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by shiloh
06-24-2007 12:32 AM


BWAHAHAHA!
There is no contradiction and the different versions can be reconciled in this way Judas hung himself (possibly on a tree branch over a ledge) and then later falling after a couple days of rot and hitting the ground a splitting open.
Yeah, I've heard this sort of thing before, and it really tells you something about literalists when they can say stuff like this with a straight face.
My favorite version, though, is the idea that Judas hung himself with his intestines.
-
This is what is beautiful about the bible it does not try to "get together and corrobate for the sake of establishing a false story"....
No, I guess what is beautiful about the Bible is that it is a bunch of different dudes independently writing down their own false stories.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 12:32 AM shiloh has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 310 (407119)
06-24-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Doddy
06-23-2007 7:33 PM


Oops. I'm not sure how I got that one wrong. Except maybe I was thinking of Acts as the sequel to Luke.
Thanks, Dod.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 06-23-2007 7:33 PM Doddy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 310 (407122)
06-24-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by shiloh
06-24-2007 5:56 AM


Re: Except of course ...
How is my statement not supported in the bible; mortality = "you shall surely die"
They didn't die.
I did not say he was seperated in a total sense from God but from the eternal life that is in God.
Sorry but that is not found anywhere in the Garden of Eden Story.
I never said they were put out of the garden for eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God was not afraid of them eating the tree of life - it was actually His grace towards them that restricted
this access - this tree represented that eternal life of God - hence lest they "live forever." Read Romans 5 (although I doubt you will grasp the significance; esp. verses 12-21.)
Yada-Yada. I'm sorry but we are talking about the Genesis Creation myths here. The author of Romans is looking at the same source material we are, and when you look at the source, that assertion is not supported.
You are also misrepresenting once again what is in the Bible. Once again, here is Genesis 3:22-24
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
There is nothing in there about God's Grace keeping them away from the Tree of Life or that the Tree of Life had some symbolic significance. It is not even a reasonable assumption based on the internal consistency of the myth.
The Tree of Knowledge in the Myth did just what it literally was supposed to do. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. When they ate from it they could finally make decisions on right or wrong.
There is nothing in the story to indicate that the Tree of Life was any different. When God says "and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" there is nothing to suggest that He does not mean literal immortality.
There is a clear chang from before Adams disobedience and afterwards. If concepts like deception, disobedience, curses, nakedness, death, murder, sin, ect in Ch. 3-4 dont convince you that man is in a different state than previously and that their relation to God was not changed in some way - not for the better - then I think your decieved. Why was there a need for this person Called the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent.
I'm sorry but the story doesn't support your assertion. All of the things you mentioned existed before they ate from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The only difference between before eating and after is that after eating they were aware of a moral sense. That is certainly not a Fall, but rather a rise.
And nothing in the Genesis Garden of Eden story even implies some need for "this person Called the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent."
As far as the snake goes the Bible was not trying to intimate that it was an animal called a snake but - the dragon that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan. Rev. 20:1-2. Since that is what it was trying say thats how I interpret it. Thats what it literally says not what you think it says.
I'm sorry but that is not what it literally says, it is an interpretation that YOU imposed.
Look, this thread is NOT about some fanciful theology, it is about "How does science disprove the Bible?"
My position is that Science does not disprove the Bible from a Theological perspective, but does disprove many of the things mentioned in the Bible on a factual basis.
There was never a Garden of Eden.
There was never a world-wide flood.
There was not some conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.
If there was an Exodus, it was nothing like what was described in the Bible.
The various creation myths are factually wrong and actually mutually exclusive.
That is this topic.
If you want to discuss the theology of the GOE myth, start a thread on it.
You say you are a Christian - I have read your posts and you deny Christ and His sacrifice. Please dont take this term upon yourself if this is all stories with morals that are firmly planted in thin air - heck eat drink and be marry for tommorow you die. If I believed what you believed I would not waste my time on here or with reading this fabel - the bible. I know your not on here for my good as if to save me from literalism but for your own ego. What are you a preacher of what? your false understanding of the gospel; is that what you want me to convert to.
Sheesh. The old NARC ploy. Get serious.
I don't want you to convert to anything.I am not even trying to "save you from literalism" since it is literally true that you do not read the Bible literally.
I assume you can show where I deny Christ or his sacrifice? If so, please link to the post. I am a preacher of the Gospel, and unfortunately, many Christians are clueless what the Gospel really is.
But that is off topic and irrelevant.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 5:56 AM shiloh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2007 12:55 PM jar has replied
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2007 6:49 AM jar has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 310 (407128)
06-24-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
06-24-2007 10:49 AM


Re: Except of course ...
I assume you can show where I deny Christ or his sacrifice?
I can't show you but I could swear that I've seen you type that it doesn't matter if Jesus even existed or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 10:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 310 (407132)
06-24-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2007 12:55 PM


Re: Except of course ...
I can't show you but I could swear that I've seen you type that it doesn't matter if Jesus even existed or not.
Of course I have said that. I happen to believe that Jesus actually existed but the message is valid even if He did not.
I have also said that the Sacrifice is GOD becoming man, simply man, to live among us with all of the limitations of being simply human.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2007 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2007 12:09 AM jar has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 310 (407134)
06-24-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dragoness
06-22-2007 11:20 PM


I think the Bible says X, whilst science points us to an answer of Y. Not necessarily does science say non-X or not X; it simply says Y and doesn't say X.
I guess one could look at it in the same manner that this book I have on the Renaissance doesn't disprove the existence of automobiles. The Renaissance and automobiles are two separate things. The Bible and science are two separate things.
Jon

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dragoness, posted 06-22-2007 11:20 PM Dragoness has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2007 6:05 PM Jon has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 310 (407200)
06-25-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
06-24-2007 1:22 PM


Re: Except of course ...
I can't show you but I could swear that I've seen you type that it doesn't matter if Jesus even existed or not.
Of course I have said that.
Well, I could see how someone could take that as denying Jesus, whether correctly or not.
Just sayin'....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 1:22 PM jar has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 310 (407984)
06-29-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dragoness
06-22-2007 11:20 PM


Ask your husband to read the following passage from Leviticus.
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Then ask him if he thinks bats are a kind of fowl.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dragoness, posted 06-22-2007 11:20 PM Dragoness has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 310 (407997)
06-29-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
06-24-2007 1:40 PM


Differences
The Bible and science are two separate things.
That is fine. Except that religion does continually insist on making claims, whether directly or more subtly, about the physical world.
Whether that be relating to the creation of the universe, the formation of life, the everlasting soul, the nature of morality or anything else that is most reliably explored by means of the scientific method.
Why, in modern times, is it felt necessary to include the views of a theologian in a debate regarding cloning and genetic engineering, the beginnings of the universe or the nature of artificial intelligence??
What possible expertise can a theologian bring to any of these topics?
Until the views of theologians regarding such questions have no more merit given to them than those of a chef, mechanic or taxi driver it is not true to say that science and religion have no common ground over which the two will come into conflict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 06-24-2007 1:40 PM Jon has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 310 (408093)
06-30-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-23-2007 2:32 AM


A Lesson From God
I have been reviewing some of your more recent posts and I see a disturbing trend of insulting people. IF The God whom you believe in is real, He surely would also be displeased with your condescending attitude towards others.
Take a time out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-23-2007 2:32 AM WS-JW has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 310 (408129)
06-30-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by shiloh
06-24-2007 5:56 AM


Re: Except of course ...
As far as the snake goes the Bible was not trying to intimate that it was an animal called a snake but - the dragon that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan. Rev. 20:1-2. Since that is what it was trying say thats how I interpret it. Thats what it literally says not what you think it says.
But that is not what Genesis literally says.
What Genesis literally says is "serpent". Genesis does not literally say "the dragon that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan".
And surely the curse which God puts on the snake makes it clear that it is a literal snake:
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
"
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 5:56 AM shiloh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by shiloh, posted 07-01-2007 2:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 310 (408130)
06-30-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dragoness
06-22-2007 11:20 PM


Dragoness, has your husband actually read the Bible, or studied it in depth at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dragoness, posted 06-22-2007 11:20 PM Dragoness has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 310 (408136)
06-30-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dragoness
06-22-2007 11:20 PM


Examples of instances where science DISPROOVES parts of the Bible. Are there any? If so, I would love to hear them and so would he. I say there is but can't cite examples, he says there isn't and never ever will be.
Well, scientists have proved that Genesis, if interpreted literally, is a pile of pants; but of course you can always interpret the Bible non-literally to make it consonant with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dragoness, posted 06-22-2007 11:20 PM Dragoness has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024