The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

[Ringtone]

 

[surada]

Its not either or.

 

[norwegen]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

 

[surada]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Do they? Perhaps its the larger question of whether the Bible is inerrant and history.

 

[Ringtone]

Its not either or.

Of course it's not, assuming that I understand what you mean by "It's not either or." The imperatives of science and theology (more at, contextually, the underlying metaphysics of reality) are not mutually exclusive at all. They're merely the stuff of a continual exposition of the same reality.

 

[surada]

Its not either or.

Of course it's not, assuming that what you mean by "It's not either or." The imperatives of science and theology (more at the underlying metaphysics of reality) are not mutually exclusive at all. They're merely the stuff of a continual exposition of the same reality.

Didn't you just post that earlier?

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

 

[norwegen]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

 

[Ringtone]

Its not either or.

Of course it's not, assuming that what you mean by "It's not either or." The imperatives of science and theology (more at the underlying metaphysics of reality) are not mutually exclusive at all. They're merely the stuff of a continual exposition of the same reality.

Didn't you just post that earlier?

Duplicate. I thought I was revising the original, but the format code does not allow one to use brackets enclosing the letter i without italicizing the whole that follows. I didn't know that until now. Recall, I was quoting him. I deleted the duplicate. Go back to the original.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

I didn't say that the Bible was a science text as such. I said that it entails claims of a scientific nature.

 

[norwegen]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The sun's creation four days after the earth's creation is not scientific in nature (Gen 1:14-19).

A new heaven and earth were created after Israel gained independence from Babylon (Is 65:17-18). Also after Christ conquered Judea. Not new planets; new creations.

 

[surada]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

I didn't say that the Bible was a science text as such. I said that it entails claims of a scientific nature.

Not really.. Its more poetry, letters, borrowed myths..

 

[Hollie]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

"over the waters".. so not steam, not ice?
"the Spirit of God was hovering".. likewise, not steam and not ice?
Were the waters deep yet formless and empty?
Did gravity keep the waters from hovering too?

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

The earth travels a determinable path around our sun. Our moon can be charted with accuracy. This would be impossible if everything was simply random. And this is what the Bible means. But I'm sure you already knew this.

 

[norwegen]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The Bible is Israel's history, not the earth's history.

The Bible is quite true from a subjective record. And that's the way to read it: from ancient Israel's perspective, not from a modern Evangelical Christian perspective.

Creation is covenant, not a big bang.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The Bible is Israel's history, not the earth's history.

The Bible is quite true from a subjective record. And that's the way to read it: from ancient Israel's perspective, not from a modern Evangelical Christian perspective.

Creation is covenant, not a big bang.

If a Christian doesn't see GOD working through the nation of Israel, then that Christian is lacking in his study of GOD's Word.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The earth travels a determinable path around our sun. Our moon can be charted with accuracy. This would be impossible if everything was simply random. And this is what the Bible means. But I'm sure you already knew this.

So when the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" but apparently no Sun yet else there'd be light, was the Sun then placed into a "determinable path around" the Earth such that the Earth just appears to be the Sun's bitch and not the other way round?