Was "Re: THE PROBLEM WITH THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE"

James

2008-02-28 03:06:30 UTC

Re: THE PROBLEM WITH THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE
Christians have tried in vain for thousands of years, to suppress reason and
science because reason and science are the enemies of religion. They persecuted
Copernicus and Galileo and wound up with egg on their face. They tried to
suppress the use of the lightning rod because they were "interfering" with God's
means of enacting judgement. But when the neighboring brothel (the one with the
lightning-rods installed) was untouched while the tallest structure in the town,
the Cross at the top of the church, was being "struck down by God" every other
thunderstorm that passed through, they quickly changed their minds -- God
approved lightning rods afterall!
The Bible is an ancient man-made document that reflects the ancient, and
therefore usually incorrect and backwards science of its day, so it shouldn't
surprise us to see all the places in the Bible where science most definitely
disagrees with the word of God, places like...

Sage,

Anyone can claim to be a 'Christian'; even you. But to be accepted by
Jesus and God as being genuine Christians, they must meet certain
Bible standards. So don't be so quick to label someone "Christian" who
claims the Bible says things that we know to be unscientific. That is
only their opinion.

I have always found the Bible and proven science to be in complete
agreement. But let's have a look at the ones you give below, to see if
they REALLY go against the Bible or not.

Revelation 7:1 and Isaiah 40:22
FAITH : The Earth has four corners and/or is a flat circular disc
FACT : The Earth is more like a sphere

Re 7:1 reads:

"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the
earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind
from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree." (NIV)

The book of Revelation is LOADED with metaphors, and that is the case
here. If those "four corners" were supposed to be literal, then that
same verse also says there were only "four winds of the earth" that
blew. Yet common experience shows there are many winds that blow on
the earth, not just four, and the writer here certainly knew that.
Thus the writer was speaking metaphorically. (if you want an
explanation of what those metaphors mean, just ask)

We do the same today when we use expressions such as "to the ends of
the earth" etc. Do we mean that the earth is flat or cubical and thus
has "ends"? Or do we not just mean something 'global'.

Why don't you criticize and correct scientific articles when they say
such things? For example, from a NASA web page promoting its "Passport
to Knowledge Project", it makes the following statement:

"Electronic field-trips via television, print and telecomputing take
students on adventures to the ends of the Earth, to the bottom of the
oceans and out into space." (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/antarctica/
passport.html)

Is NASA saying the earth has "ends", thus is flat or cubical? I am
sure you don't conclude they meant that literally, and neither should
you conclude the Bible is literal all the time. You have look at the
context, and other related verses etc, to determine literalness or
not.

But Bible critics usually do not do that. So in other words, if NASA
says something that if read literally, contradicts proven science,
Bible critics assume they are speaking metaphorically. But if the
Bible says it, critics assume it is automatically meant to be literal
and thus contradicting science. That is called bias, and has no place
in true scientific investigations.

Concerning Isaiah 40:22 it reads:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are
like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and
spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

The Hebrew word used here for "circle" is "hhug" which also has the
meaning of "sphere". Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the
globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth." (Moffatt).

And going along with that thought, notice Job 26:7,

"He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
nothing." (RSV)

So the Bible in its poetic style, describes the earth as a circular
sphere 'hanging' upon "nothing" (floating) in a "void" (space). Not a
bad descriptuion of the earth in space, for people who allegedly just
'made up the Bible', is it.

So in summary on those two verses above, there is no real credible
unbiased evidence that they contradict proven science.

Leviticus 11:6
FAITH : Rabbits chew cud
FACT : Rabbits do not chew the cud

Actually, they have a similar process of digestion, and thus the Bible
classified them closer to cud chewers than not, in that particular
Bible grouping there. This has been known for a long time. For
example:

"Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these
findings, wrote: "There seems to be no reason to doubt the
authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits
customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is
later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive
tract." (Awake!, April 22, 1951, pp. 27, 28.)

So in summary on that passage above, there is no real credible
unbiased evidence that it contradicts proven science.

Leviticus 11:13,19
FAITH : Bats are birds
FACT : Bats are not birds but mammals

Again, you have to look at the context. God was not classifying these
creatures for a zoological textbook, but rather was telling what
groups of life forms were "clean" and "unclean". Le 11:13-20,

"13 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 and the black vulture, 14 and the red kite and the black
kite according to its kind, 15 and every raven according to its kind,
16 and the ostrich and the owl and the gull and the falcon according
to its kind, 17 and the little owl and the cormorant and the long-
eared owl, 18 and the swan and the pelican and the vulture, 19 and the
stork, the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat. 20
Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome
thing to YOU." (NWT)

Notice very carefully in verse 13 that God was classifying the "flying
creatures" that were unclean. And unless I am mistaken, bats DO FLY.
Thus the context shows Le 20:19 as being a correct statement, given
that the grouping was "flying creatures".

So in summary on those passages above, there is no real credible
unbiased evidence that they contradict proven science.

Leviticus 11:21,23
FAITH : Some insects have four legs
FACT : No insects have four legs

True. The writer here obviously knew how many legs insects had, so
what did he mean by such a description? Notice this question that was
asked concerning that passage:

"Questions From Readers

$B!| (B Why does Leviticus 11:20-23 speak of insects as 'going on all
fours,' when they have six feet?--L. E., United States.

Leviticus 11:20, 21 reads: "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 leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the
earth."

It is unreasonable to think that the Bible writer did not know that
insects with wings have six legs. He speaks of these insects that 'go
on all fours' and then specifies certain ones in this category, and
the ones he mentions have six legs, two of these being legs for
leaping. A Jewish commentary gives this explanation on verses 20 and
23: "go upon all four. The phrase used here cannot be taken to mean
that the insects were possessed of only four legs. The words probably
refer to their method of locomotion, and signify, 'that move like
quadrupeds.' . . . 23. which have four feet. i.e. without the 'bending
legs.'"

There are winged insects, such as bees and flies and wasps, that walk
along like the quadrupeds that go on all four. Of these, there are
some with leaper legs that may be eaten. They literally have four feet
that they crawl with, the other two being for leaping. The Bible is
written in the colorful language of the common people, and we must
allow for picturesque or descriptive expressions that are not always
strictly literal. We sometimes speak of a man standing up on his hind
legs and fighting. We do not mean it to be taken literally, to imply
that he has forelegs and that he usually walks along on all four. We
are drawing the picture from quadrupeds that rear up on their hind
legs and paw or strike with their forelegs, as do horses or deer or
bear when fighting. In a similar way, descriptively and not literally,
the Bible refers to winged insects as going on all fours like
quadrupeds." (1/1/58 Watchtower)

So in summary on those passages above, there is no real credible
unbiased evidence that they contradict proven science.

Thus it looks like you have been misled on the meaning of those
verses. I suggest that you study the Bible in-depth yourself, instead
of relying upon biased opinions from critics.

Sincerely, James

**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads

***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"The illusion that we are separate from one another is an
optical delusion of our consciousness." -- Albert Einstein
=============================================================