• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven Days

Cavemonster said:
This is the second, very recent arrival who expressed this sentiment.
Click to expand...

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin isisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

Cavemonster said:
Just out of curiosity David, how did you find this forum?
Click to expand...

From here.
 
the PC apeman said:
Why "Seven Days" and not "Six Days"? What does the last resting bit tell us about cosmology?
Click to expand...

The seventh day, or the day of rest, was the period of time in which Jehovah was going to give man to fill and subdue the earth. There is speculation, although baseless in my opinion, that the seventh day was meant to be over in 1975 (JW). It is important because it was a "day" and Paul mentioned it continueing on thousands of years later.
 
Wow. I'm always impressed by the mental gymnastics used to reconcile the nonsense in Genesis with what we now know.

A thousand years ahead of science? That was when it was written, right? Since science advanced for 2000 years and the bible stagnated, by your logic DH, it is now 1000 years behind the science. Painfully obvious I'd say.
 
David Henson said:
You really think that I place that much import on current science over what the Bible says?
Click to expand...

This post says it all. It's clear from the quote above that there's no point in wasting any effort responding to you. Just another troll, folks.
 
David Henson said:
The seventh day, or the day of rest, was the period of time in which Jehovah was going to give man to fill and subdue the earth. There is speculation, although baseless in my opinion, that the seventh day was meant to be over in 1975 (JW). It is important because it was a "day" and Paul mentioned it continueing on thousands of years later.
Click to expand...
But what does it tell us about the scientific account of cosmology? What is the correlation we're to see between the story of the seventh day and what science has to say now?
 
PixyMisa said:
This is blatantly untrue.

Genesis 1:5

Vayikra Elohim la-or yom velachoshech kara laylah vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom echad.

God named the light 'Day,' and the darkness He named 'Night.' It was evening and it was morning, one day.

They could hardly have been more explicit that they were talking about a literal day. One evening, one morning (which is still how the Jewish day is made up).

The rest of your post is just a distortion of the text to fit a distortion of science; it's completely worthless.
Click to expand...

Am I correct in thinking that you support the idea that the Bible gives the creation account as taking place in a 144 hour period?

Here is the thing. Most scholars agree that Genesis 1:1, the creation of the heavens and the earth is, as I stated, complete, an indeterminate time before the first creative "day" began. The word day is used in the brief creation account in 3 different ways, including all six "days" as one "day."

William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies - "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens."

How do you explain this? From a quick reading of the creation account and an uninformed preconception that the Bible must be against science because the Bible, from time to time, deals with the supernatural which isn't testable by science and so science has nothing to offer regarding the supernatural?

That would be typical, but how do you explain the flaws I pointed out in that thinking?
 
I'm still trying to figure out. Who cares what irrelevant iron age nobodies have to say?
 
David Henson said:
...snip...

That would be typical, but how do you explain the flaws I pointed out in that thinking?
Click to expand...



The flaw is that you have created what is known as a "strawman" in other words made-up something and then try to argue against it even though it is not the argument that was made.
 
Let me sum that up:

The Bible is awesome because stuff it said was confirmed by science.

Except for the stuff it said that wasn't confirmed, but was actually contradicted by, science. In that case, the science is wrong.
 
David Henson said:
The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin isisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.
Click to expand...


Um, no. Galileo's problems were as much political as they were philosophical, the instigation of the Inquisition as well. To blame the Inquisition on Galileo's writings (which weren't unique to Galileo) is, well, weird.

The book by Dava Sobel called Galileo's Daughter gives a lot of personal background to Galileo's relationship with the Catholic Church.
 
dio said:
Wow. I'm always impressed by the mental gymnastics used to reconcile the nonsense in Genesis with what we now know.

A thousand years ahead of science? That was when it was written, right? Since science advanced for 2000 years and the bible stagnated, by your logic DH, it is now 1000 years behind the science. Painfully obvious I'd say.
Click to expand...

The skeptic's idea of the Bible is pretty much in line with the Dark Ages. Illustrations in Bibles and Bible dictionaries of a solid dome over the earth come from the thinking of those times, as well the misunderstanding of some Greek and Latin. Science and the Bible don't disagree nearly as much as you "think" they do.

I always get the same sort of knee-jerk reaction from uninformed atheists - what a threat it is to their dogmatic approach to the Bible! Never the twain shall meet cries the zealous.
 
Even if your interpretation matched what the authors of Genesis 1 intended, I don't see anything advanced about it, and it certainly doesn't reflect any impressive scientific knowledge.
 
David Henson said:
The skeptic's idea of the Bible is pretty much in line with the Dark Ages. Illustrations in Bibles and Bible dictionaries of a solid dome over the earth come from the thinking of those times, as well the misunderstanding of some Greek and Latin. Science and the Bible don't disagree nearly as much as you "think" they do.

I always get the same sort of knee-jerk reaction from uninformed atheists - what a threat it is to their dogmatic approach to the Bible! Never the twain shall meet cries the zealous.
Click to expand...
So? Why should anyone care what's written in a book of fantasy?
 
godless dave said:
Even if your interpretation matched what the authors of Genesis 1 intended, I don't see anything advanced about it, and it certainly doesn't reflect any impressive scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...

Why should you? Did I say that the Bible was a science textbook? The point in this thread is the same point of the one I did on the soul. That is to say that what you think the Bible says it doesn't.

What refutation do I have from the oppisition so far? Uninformed opinion. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me where the Bible says the universe was created in a litteral 144 hours.
 
David Henson said:
The skeptic's idea of the Bible is pretty much in line with the Dark Ages. Illustrations in Bibles and Bible dictionaries of a solid dome over the earth come from the thinking of those times, as well the misunderstanding of some Greek and Latin. Science and the Bible don't disagree nearly as much as you "think" they do.

I always get the same sort of knee-jerk reaction from uninformed atheists - what a threat it is to their dogmatic approach to the Bible! Never the twain shall meet cries the zealous.
Click to expand...

You seem to be throwing about labels quite willy-nilly, for example confusing "sceptic" with "atheist" and vice-a-versa, which is the type of knee-jerk reaction we do see from uninformed and ignorant religious believers from time to time.

I would suggest you forget about trying to apply labels to people and then attacking what you think those labels means and try to use reason and evidence to make your case, centuries of human endeavour has shown that such an approach can be very productive.

I asked you earlier ... can you just list the actual biblical verses that you think provide the currently accepted/consensus scientific view of the creation of the universe and the earth?...

Wouldn't answering that be a better way of trying to explain and perhaps persuade people that your understanding of the Bible is accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom