Science is prooving the Bible - Page 4

l

quote:

---

Is it a desire to defend it or to understand it? 1:1 God created heaven & earth. End of story or opening line?
1:2 says the earth is a void, a deep above which God hovered? (1:3)Then He created light &

---

Your missing the point. He says FIRST EARTH and SECOND STARS.
Which is completely wrong according to science. Stop lying to yourselves by pretending science defends your book.

quote:

---

As I was trying to point out is the nature of the narative, especially those coming or being preseded by an oral tradition tend to use particular form to give continuity and flow.

---

" But some theories do seem to lead to similar conclusions as the bible?" These are either complete coincidence or purposely misreading the bible.

quote:

---

Firmament in the midst of the waters

---

So having shown the possible use as a literary device, I thought about it then gave this accounting according to physics which happens to coincedently give theoritically form the very strange arrangement of time?

quote:

---

Looking at your references was indicative (at least to me) that the earth & heaven spoken of, was not the same perception as that which exist today. Which is stated in the OT so it doesn't seem that unreasonable as science has shown evidence of extreme changes as well.

---

Yes, I am a little hard to understand but then so to is science?
Both text seek to teach the truth & both are just as easily misunderstood, as statements contain many levels of meaning to those of understanding.

Yeah!

here's an intersting link. http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/9/index.htm

main idea i saw was that our knowledge builds off of observation and speculation. if we are not observing something that is there, we can not speculate over it.

I am not sure what link is saying as my browser (plugin) didn't load? FireFox has trouble with Macromedia & other IE formats.
So I would have to point to Ion /Atom & Electron/ Electricity threads to relate the content to it as a starting point?
As stated the periodic table (& chemicalbonding itself) deals with the effect of negatively charge particles. Yet the nucleas contains both neutral & positvely charged particles. The one to one ratio of charged (+/-) particles indicates that some relationship exist between these particles but what relationship is defined?

it's a book by a man named Mark McCutcheon- The Final Theory, rethinking our scientific legacy.

i don't have too much info concerning atoms as of yet. High School Chem. class was right after lunch break... you could say i failed that class in "a BLAZE of glory".

oh, is attraction and repulsion the relationship you speak of?

What would happen if people were just given bibles instead of being told what they are, what would happen then?

What would the stories gore and worship sound like, what do they sound like to you.

i'm thinking if a group of people with no knowledge of semantics, (concerning the bible) when reading the many varrying stories, would come to a conclusion that it speaks of physical life (and how extremely fucked up it can be) and something it likes to refer to as spiritual life.

from there i think they would do the same thing people in history have done - focus on all the gore and negativity it's speaking against. But it is easy to do that when you skim the pages/

gotta read every line and cross reference them all too before you build organized religions off of it, especially ones that dictate the momentum of your government. in my very humble opinion ( ;

You could even stop and say, wow, this is just a book.....

Try that one on for size. Just for shits and giggles.

don't plenty do that now? i thought we were being hypothetical/

No, I'm not sure enough do, and hypothetical is fine and dandy but I'd like some progress in this world too thanks.

let's close the "book" on this chapter and start off on another page.

leftwood and myself, in attempts to hurl the human race past their present state of religious dillusion, offer up a new and previously unimmaginable approach on the Bible...

it's just a book

just written by people

that just had some ideas to relay

which just happen to envoke speculation

that need not be considered. no, nothing at all contextual

in fact... don't even consider the existence of the ink and paper

Sounds good to me, I never understood how the thread got started or what the significance of or even what was truely being debated?
Those who want to can keep the book, those who want to make science their bible so to speak may do so & i'll keep my native superstition (traditions) & spirituality.
But I have to admit it still bugs me. I guess I just don't like not understanding.
I will say that I see two views of creation which was given to Moses. the 1st part which deals with creation before man & the oral tradition of the ancient ancestors of modern man.
Science teaches the rules of man's physical existence, the bible teaches the rules of man's spiritual existence.

quote:

---

More white-man centered nonesense.

---

Um, how come the ancient scripture was in the Middle east?
How come Jesus was a Nazarene...?

Anyway, you cannot proove the unproovable...
IS carbon testing accurate?

And archeology has time and again showed the accuracy of scripture...so common sense would lead us to believe IFall else found thus far prooves scripture then according to reason, it is accurate.

AND quoting science which knows itself cannot proove the theories, then you take alot upon yourself with disbelief.

This is ok, as I am not God and cannot give you the gift of faith. Indeed a gift, because without it, one is lost in the end.,

I can pray for ya tho.