Science is prooving the Bible

Let me show you something, and altho small detail, very significant.

Genesis 1, 1
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;'

There is NO timeline, there is no additional instruction on the length of time it was created....but follow me further...

2 the earth was 'waste and void';

Waste could mean anything as well as void. Was God unhappy with the relative creatures he let live? Did he find no satisfaction in prehistoric beasts? Did he find no joy in his manlike creations? Did he then choose to begin again, and destroy all that was, and create all that is?

You have to admit...there is a missing link...and further note that the mankind of today, has remained the same as those in ancient times, since the bible began recording facts.

....'darkness covered the abyss, and the spirit of God was stirring above the waters.

Thus, was this formation what destroyed the prehistoric beasts??
Did he stir that age til all was gone?? Is this how he choose to make the new earth?


http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/word-03.html <~~Archealogical finds that support the bible.
That means that science supports the bible....

FYI, there have been no records pre~1800's showing weather formations...aside from the Biblical accounts.

The Bible shows us how the leaders lived in ancient times...and science prooves it true.

http://wlake.org/allteachers/pabasi...mia%20Notes.htm <~~Another site of interest.

http://www.2eden.net/canaan.htm <~~Cannanite as in the biblical times. IN FACT, THIS IS WHERE WE FIND THE EARLIEST BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS.


Aborigines ~~> http://www.stephen-knapp.com/archeo...ies_of_2003.htm

May I quote something here...about the earlier men...?

"HYDERABAD: In a new twist to the theory of evolution of modern man, researchers have found two tribes in India who could be the descendants of the biological Adam and Eve who are estimated to have lived in Africa over 100,000 years ago. "


Simply put...we do not know the time table of the ancient times, only that research is slowly prooving that the Bible correlates to the beginnings, and throughout history.
And in fact, the writings of the bible are being found in ancient civilizations....and in FACT proof the events did take place, and that the inspired word has been around since the beginnings of time.

Just a few stubborn folks, who refuse to believe anyone would create them....
That has to be hard to be unable to accept anyone loves you so much.

You have made several very good points in this thread and I also agree that there are still some very stubborn people out there that do not and actually can not believe in God our Heavenly Father.

I am glad that you made this thread and I hope to hear more soon.

More white-man centered nonesense.

"HYDERABAD: In a new twist to the theory of evolution of modern man, researchers have found two tribes in India who could be the descendants of the biological Adam and Eve who are estimated to have lived in Africa over 100,000 years ago."
What does this even mean? Suppose there was an Adam an Eve, then we are all descendants. Even the American tribe is a descendant of Adam and Eve, so I don't understand the point of that statement.

I find most disturbing that most of your conclusions are in fact questions.

Now let me say two things on the Bible :
- most of it is complete bull, it contradicts itself, it claims we should stone children to death for insignificant acts, it is sexist, it condones slavery. It is completely morally bankrupt.
- like most mythologies, many of its stories have factual origins. Moses did not part the waves of the Red Sea, but the Jews may indeed have walked across it as is sometimes possible. And it is of course very likely that a man named Jesus founded a very succesful religion 2000 years ago.

Oh and God did give a VERY CLEAR timeline of creation. According to the bible God created the Earth and then Light. This is contradiction with scientific evidence which says that the sun and stars came first and then the Earth.

God also supposedly "1:9
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."
Again science says the opposite. The early earth was too hot for liquid water, so according to science it is first land, then water.

And also note this blatant contradiction in the Bible :
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen.1:25-27)
Here God makes first man, then the animals.

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image."
Here God makes first the animals then man. (Gen.2:18-19)

So which is it? You cannot argue the Bible is true if its contradicts itself so obviously.

But more seriously I think you are of course allowed to believe the Bible is true, I think it might be true, I think you probably have good reasons to think that too. However, you have NO SCIENTIFIC REASONS. Science disagrees with the biblical account so much that to pretend that science proves the bible is simple malice or ignorance.

So I say, you might believe in the Bible for good reasons, but in no case can you pretend they are scientific.

Interesting point, Teen, so looked the quoted reference.
The bible I used stated it about the same way.
But I noted that stated is GOD created the animals from the dirt (dust) of the earth as HE did man. Then noting that Adam was created in Gen.1:25-27 the actions described were previous to those of Gen.2:18-19 as He then created Eve from the rib (DNA) of Adam.
Minor point

quote:

---

This is contradiction with scientific evidence which says that the sun and stars came first and then the Earth.

---

But the use of waters in creation may be representative of the plasma state which brings science into the same general time line except that the earth (planetary bodies) was created then light of the sun & stars? Not according to Gensis 1:3
But I have pointed this ( waters => plasma state) out to you before?

First of all, water is not plasma. No wishy washy interpretation of the bible is going to help you.

Secondly, that doesn't change the fact God claims first came Earth THEN light which is of course not true (scientifically, anyway)

Thirdly, that doesn't change the fact the order of creation is changed within the Bible. Is it animals first or humans?

Finally, I frankly hate these interpretations of the bible. You make the words mean whatever YOU want them too, and because YOU decide what it means, the book gives you no information.

quote:

---

First of all, water is not plasma. No wishy washy interpretation of the bible

---

Well granted it is a wishy washy interpetation meant to help others understand but then that may have been its' (the tale) purpose to begin with?
On the other hand we might needed to go to the original Hebrew to see the context & wording may have implied as the unconventional use of plural waters in some text?

quote:

---

Finally, I frankly hate these interpretations of the bible. You make the words mean whatever YOU want them too

---

Gen. 1:3 states light first so consider that you may be taking order out of context? (something of a general rule among biblical teachers give their students) Especially in requard to EVE's creation?
Of course you may be right? Afteer all GOD created the animals (male/female) before HE completed the creature man/woman?

That's exactly my point, God changes the order.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

This shows the relevant passages in which God gives 2 equally clear and mutually contradictory accounts of creation.

But anyway, the point is, science does not prove the bible, that is, unless you make the words mean whatever you want it to.

started a reply and the power (breaker?) went pop & came back on

quote:

---

Just because the bible may word some of its sentences in a manner that coincides with the current beliefs about the universe scientifically, that does not mean it is being proven by science.

---

Well, You have a valid point so let's look a little closer? Note that the line numbers were added later, in fact the language used little punctuation so we may see the nature of the days giving separations in some extent? Aquick reading of these lines would indeed seem to be ramblings of man, disconnected & redundent at best. {Darby's version}

quote:

---

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided between the light and the darkness. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day.

---

first the heavens (heavens => space or stars or planetary system?) & earth (earth => primorial earth?)

quote:

---

1:6 And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division between waters and waters. 1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so. 1:8 And God called the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a second day.

---

wait a minute the heavens were created the 1st day, now it is created again?

quote:

---

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry [land] appear. And it was so. 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit-trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth. And it was so. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning -- a third day.

---

whoa, 1:9 says the waters under the heaven is gathered together to form the earth but the earth was already created? 1:10 states these waters are gathered together to create dry earth & gathered the waters to form seas?

Putin!
It says "1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."
and
"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."
First earth THEN stars/sun/moon.

Genesis is the most absurd part of the bible, some of it may contain truth or wisdom but, damnit, Genesis is a mythology. Trying to defend I think requires a bad faith.

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 & (1:4-5) then divided the light into day (light) & night (darkness)? And there was an Evening & Morning --the first day.
Should I look upon this writing as a simply a tale to answer 'why?' for simple minded people? Then I would expect the need to introduce the concept of the unit 'days' as a period of darkness and of light. Well no I should say an evening & a morning; those periods of transition between full light and darkness?
But wait a minute, evening is the transition between day & night? Oh, ya those who interacted with the being called I Am, were said to glow or radiate afterward? Isn't it common to see an aura in drawings of those called saints, where did these ideas come from & are they somehow related? Because if the sun wasn't created yet then what is the source of light & I might even wonder if light => electro-magnetic radition; a continum of energy?
Seeing the world (universe) existing at the end of the Seven Days of Creation as what I percieve as the existance of today, then I would tend to look at those days (1 & 2 ) prior to the 3rd as an evolution of the earth (solar system)?

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.

Sorry din-din break

quote:

---

Stop lying to yourselves by pretending science defends your book.

---

Native Traditions are not something you learn from a book but rather an experience.
Seeking the spiritual experience & learning from spirit about life & self
(my role in life).

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 &

---

That's nice.

But we're talking about the bible and the false claim that science defends it.

quote:

---

defends your book. That's nice.

---

As tradition teaches the ghost road (Milky Way) as an extension of life (soul) & therefore the use of star children is commonly given as native names to other people (nations) during naming ceremony. My knowledge of science also extends the possible days as being levels of creation (existance) so I tend to see them as (coupling) action-reaction principle at each level. But this isn't directly related to the bible but to science at least in some degree.