#1 Edited by TheSpiritStalker (2013 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh yeah I'm going there...your views. Or do they contradict each other?

#2 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

Why are you making multiple religion threads when there's already one big thread for it?

And the answer is no.

#3 Posted by _Zombie_ (10312 posts) - - Show Bio

The bible is a self-contradicting piece of crap as it is. It doesn't need science to do the job for it.

#4 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3484 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope. History might support some of it (very little) but science really really doesn't.

#5 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
Nah... Science Does Not Support The Bible. How Could It Really ? I Mean The Writers Of The Bible Lived Several Hundreds If Not Thousands Of Years Before Modern Science Came To Be. The Bible Is Not Teaching Science... Is Basically Teaching What They Understood At That Time As Reality And What God Wants From Man And What God Did With Man. NO Modern Science Though. 
#6 Posted by WarMachineMarkV (1214 posts) - - Show Bio

- If you hinge two laptops at an angle you can use them to support a bible

#7 Edited by Deadcool (6809 posts) - - Show Bio

... The Bible has NEVER been a scientific book, science is the use of a methodology to search answers, a scientific book is obsolete in months or years, the Bible doesn't gives answers (actually there are no answers in that book), it just helps you to live acording to the Christian religion, is a literary book.

#8 Posted by TheSpiritStalker (2013 posts) - - Show Bio

On some degree I believe there are facts or elements that science does support, an example:

"Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" The Book of Job is the first complete book in the BIble and was around Genesis time so thousands of years back. It states: "He stretcheth out the north [northern hemisphere] over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

According to

  • Greek Mythology - Atlas held the earth on his shoulders
  • Hindu Scriptures - Earth is held in place by eight gigantic elephants, all balanced on the back of turtle, which itself stands on the coils of a snake.
  • Ancient Norse - The earth was flat and was surrounded by an ocean which contained the Midgard Serpent

In our modern world which one does science support?

#9 Edited by TheSpiritStalker (2013 posts) - - Show Bio

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. Ancient Hindi and Buddhist scripture also did believe this. People of medieval times believed it. "...when He [God] set a compass [circle or round i.e. sphere or globe ] upon the face of the depth" Pr 8:27. This was written hundreds of years ago before it was actually discovered leading up to our time.

Jesus said our time was like Noah's time. In our time UFO (alien) sightings have been increasing this year. And the Bible tells us something happened in Noahs time which was the fusion of humans and fallen angels (extra-terrestial beings). This is also what caused the Flood because it turned man evil. Look at all the alien propaganda movies that have been coming out. The UN have already appointed someone to be an alien embassador. People report alien abductions and experiments being done on them.

#10 Posted by Enemybird (3138 posts) - - Show Bio

This is a really vague topic... science encompasses a lot of information... what were you referring to exactly?

#11 Posted by Lvenger (18329 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheSpiritStalker said:

On some degree I believe there are facts or elements that science does support, an example:

"Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" The Book of Job is the first complete book in the BIble and was around Genesis time so thousands of years back. It states: "He stretcheth out the north [northern hemisphere] over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

According to

  • Greek Mythology - Atlas held the earth on his shoulders
  • Hindu Scriptures - Earth is held in place by eight gigantic elephants, all balanced on the back of turtle, which itself stands on the coils of a snake.
  • Ancient Norse - The earth was flat and was surrounded by an ocean which contained the Midgard Serpent

In our modern world which one does science support?

@TheSpiritStalker said:

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. Ancient Hindi and Buddhist scripture also did believe this. People of medieval times believed it. "...when He [God] set a compass [circle or round i.e. sphere or globe ] upon the face of the depth" Pr 8:27. This was written hundreds of years ago before it was actually discovered leading up to our time.

Jesus said our time was like Noah's time. In our time UFO (alien) sightings have been increasing this year. And the Bible tells us something happened in Noahs time which was the fusion of humans and fallen angels (extra-terrestial beings). This is also what caused the Flood because it turned man evil. Look at all the alien propaganda movies that have been coming out. The UN have already appointed someone to be an alien embassador. People report alien abductions and experiments being done on them.

You're just nitpicking bits from the Bible to support your argument. The Bible was most likely written by various different authors, sometimes containing mythological stories such as in Genesis, other times containing poor messages that conflict with modern views like the quote that says two men must not lie together, implying that in God's eyes, homosexuality is wrong and on other occasions, containing some useful moral lessons from some people with good common sense at the time e.g love thy neighbour, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. There's no way the writer of the Bible actually knew that the Earth was suspended in orbit by gravity or that the world wasn't flat. He was probably making an assumption for the sake of writing a good story. So to answer your question no the Bible most definitely does not support science. And you seriously think that UFO sightings are the result of fallen angels and humans? Ha please don't make me laugh. UFO sightings are notoriously dubious enough without bringing God into it.

#12 Posted by TheBatman586 (6316 posts) - - Show Bio
#13 Posted by Enemybird (3138 posts) - - Show Bio
#14 Posted by _Hawk_ (2053 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

The bible is a self-contradicting piece of crap as it is. It doesn't need science to do the job for it.

I'll take that challenge.......Where?

#15 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Hawk_ said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

The bible is a self-contradicting piece of crap as it is. It doesn't need science to do the job for it.

I'll take that challenge.......Where?

well I didn't issue the challenge... but if you could explain why in Genesis 1, we have God creating Animals first and then Man and Woman together... then in Genesis 2, we have God creating Man ( Adam ) then he creates the Animals as help mates for Man... then God creates Woman ( Eve ) after he see's the animals don't really do it for Man... Explain why in the First Two Chapters of Genesis there is a different sequence of God creating things in terms of Man, Woman and Animals ? 
#16 Posted by _Hawk_ (2053 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn:Sure: Gen 1 is a poetic oral traditional story passed down from generation to generation, much like who Beowolf was until it was written down and recorded in Gen, by Moses (we think.) Where as Gen 2 is Moses retelling the story. As for "is it literal" since Moses wasn't there.....I won't go there then.

#17 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Hawk_ said:

@King Saturn:Sure: Gen 1 is a poetic oral traditional story passed down from generation to generation, much like who Beowolf was until it was written down and recorded in Gen, by Moses (we think.) Where as Gen 2 is Moses retelling the story. As for "is it literal" since Moses wasn't there.....I won't go there then.

It's still a Contradiction cause both accounts can't be right together... and I thought that was what was being discussed here... Contradictions in the Bible. 
#18 Posted by Thee_Champion (5642 posts) - - Show Bio

No they don't.

#19 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
@Olympian_Champion said:

No they don't.

are you responding to my Genesis Argument or the Original Question of the Thread ?
#20 Posted by _Hawk_ (2053 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn said:

@_Hawk_ said:

@King Saturn:Sure: Gen 1 is a poetic oral traditional story passed down from generation to generation, much like who Beowolf was until it was written down and recorded in Gen, by Moses (we think.) Where as Gen 2 is Moses retelling the story. As for "is it literal" since Moses wasn't there.....I won't go there then.

It's still a Contradiction cause both accounts can't be right together... and I thought that was what was being discussed here... Contradictions in the Bible.

To me it's not a contradiction at all....... It's like if I quoted you a poem and then told you something. To ancient Hebrews it would be like reading Psalms and Numbers....one is a poem/song the other is instruction.

#21 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Hawk_ said:

@King Saturn said:

@_Hawk_ said:

@King Saturn:Sure: Gen 1 is a poetic oral traditional story passed down from generation to generation, much like who Beowolf was until it was written down and recorded in Gen, by Moses (we think.) Where as Gen 2 is Moses retelling the story. As for "is it literal" since Moses wasn't there.....I won't go there then.

It's still a Contradiction cause both accounts can't be right together... and I thought that was what was being discussed here... Contradictions in the Bible.

To me it's not a contradiction at all....... It's like if I quoted you a poem and then told you something. To ancient Hebrews it would be like reading Psalms and Numbers....one is a poem/song the other is instruction.

both accounts are attempting to give you insight to essentially the same thing ( God creating things, in this case Man, Woman, Animals )... whether it be Poem or Instruction... the concepts of the writings should be compatible... but they are not so much... the first account gives both Man and Woman the spotlight of being created together as they are given dominion of the animals God has made... the second account speaks of Man being created then the Animals come and later the Woman is created... I mean we aint expecting word for word perfection but they have to be more compatible than this...  
#22 Posted by TheSpiritStalker (2013 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn said:

@_Hawk_ said:

@King Saturn said:

@_Hawk_ said:

@King Saturn:Sure: Gen 1 is a poetic oral traditional story passed down from generation to generation, much like who Beowolf was until it was written down and recorded in Gen, by Moses (we think.) Where as Gen 2 is Moses retelling the story. As for "is it literal" since Moses wasn't there.....I won't go there then.

It's still a Contradiction cause both accounts can't be right together... and I thought that was what was being discussed here... Contradictions in the Bible.

To me it's not a contradiction at all....... It's like if I quoted you a poem and then told you something. To ancient Hebrews it would be like reading Psalms and Numbers....one is a poem/song the other is instruction.

both accounts are attempting to give you insight to essentially the same thing ( God creating things, in this case Man, Woman, Animals )... whether it be Poem or Instruction... the concepts of the writings should be compatible... but they are not so much... the first account gives both Man and Woman the spotlight of being created together as they are given dominion of the animals God has made... the second account speaks of Man being created then the Animals come and later the Woman is created... I mean we aint expecting word for word perfection but they have to be more compatible than this...

could it have a non-linear narration?

#23 Posted by _Hawk_ (2053 posts) - - Show Bio

Also Gen 2 does not give us a time line. I see a lot of "out of the ground God formed." Doesn't really say if this was before or after Adam....just that he formed it.

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the LORD God had (past tense) formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Not was made) . So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

#24 Edited by _Zombie_ (10312 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn said:

@_Hawk_ said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

The bible is a self-contradicting piece of crap as it is. It doesn't need science to do the job for it.

I'll take that challenge.......Where?

well I didn't issue the challenge... but if you could explain why in Genesis 1, we have God creating Animals first and then Man and Woman together... then in Genesis 2, we have God creating Man ( Adam ) then he creates the Animals as help mates for Man... then God creates Woman ( Eve ) after he see's the animals don't really do it for Man... Explain why in the First Two Chapters of Genesis there is a different sequence of God creating things in terms of Man, Woman and Animals ?

Or one could point to the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment. It says it pretty clearly that you're not supposed to kill, yet it condones stoning sinners to death, does it not?

Also on an unrelated side-note, I'd like to clarify now before accusations are thrown at me: I am not anti-Christianity, nor anti-religion. I'm Christian of sorts myself. I just have a very bitter opinion of organized religion, and I don't see the Bible as necessary. Now, my original statement was satirical and of course exaggerated, but I do believe that the Bible isn't exactly all that great.

#25 Edited by The Man of Yesteryear (5502 posts) - - Show Bio

Great, another religious thread on Comic Vine...actually, I suppose if you don't know much and wanna talk about it, this is the perfect place. Most of us would get blasted away at a forum full of people who knew what they were talking about. Here you can be king of the bums.

#26 Posted by _Hawk_ (2053 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Man of Yesteryear said:

Great, another religious thread on Comic Vine...actually, I suppose if you don't know much and wanna talk about it, this is the perfect place. Most of us wold get blasted away at a forum full of people who knew what they were talking about. Here you can be king of the bums.

<---- has a degree in Theology thank you.

We just don't discuss theological topic here, it's more root issues.

#27 Posted by _Hawk_ (2053 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@King Saturn said:

@_Hawk_ said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

The bible is a self-contradicting piece of crap as it is. It doesn't need science to do the job for it.

I'll take that challenge.......Where?

well I didn't issue the challenge... but if you could explain why in Genesis 1, we have God creating Animals first and then Man and Woman together... then in Genesis 2, we have God creating Man ( Adam ) then he creates the Animals as help mates for Man... then God creates Woman ( Eve ) after he see's the animals don't really do it for Man... Explain why in the First Two Chapters of Genesis there is a different sequence of God creating things in terms of Man, Woman and Animals ?

Or one could point to the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment. It says it pretty clearly that you're not supposed to kill, yet it condones stoning sinners to death, does it not?

Also on an unrelated side-note, I'd like to clarify now before accusations are thrown at me: I am not anti-Christianity, nor anti-religion. I'm Christian of sorts myself. I just have a very bitter opinion of organized religion, and I don't see the Bible as necessary. Now, my original statement was satirical and of course exaggerated, but I do believe that the Bible isn't exactly all that great.

'thou shalt not kill' - pretty well estblished that this is better translated murder.

#28 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Hawk_ said:

Also Gen 2 does not give us a time line. I see a lot of "out of the ground God formed." Doesn't really say if this was before or after Adam....just that he formed it.

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the LORD God had (past tense) formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Not was made) . So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

you must be reading from a different translation... there is no past tense of God forming animals beforehand in the Genesis 2 account at that point from the KJV and that is what I stick with and have stuck with for 16 years of my life now.  
 
18 - And the Lord God said, It is not good for Man should be alone, I Will Make an Help Meet for Him  ( God gives the declaration that it's not good for Man to be alone, Then he decides to make a Help Meet for him. It's At This Point That The Animals Are Created ) 
 
19 - And out of the Ground the Lord God formed every beast of the Field and every fowl of the Air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatsoever he called every creature that was the name thereof.   
 
that's how it reads in the KJV, there is no past tense and Eve is later created in this account after Adam sees that the Animals aren't the type of help he needs... 
#29 Posted by Thee_Champion (5642 posts) - - Show Bio

@King Saturn: The original question of the thread.

I agree with you that there's a contradiction.

#30 Posted by majestic99 (8638 posts) - - Show Bio

Science and religion, ugliness and beauty, short and tall, skinny and fat, peace and war, can one really be known without the other?No, they are interdependent dichotomies.

#31 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7544 posts) - - Show Bio

No it does not.

And remember, Man wrote the Bible, Man changed the Bible thousands of time to fit and support their laws. God didn't write the Bible. But the Bible is indeed a good Book to base how you live your life on. Maybe more New testament, less Old.

#32 Edited by majestic99 (8638 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes and No at the same time. It's just a matter of perspective.

#33 Posted by Cozy_Da_Djed_Eye (9950 posts) - - Show Bio

The bible says black people were cursed because of Ham and that is why they have black skin. Science says the very first human beings ever were black people.

#34 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3484 posts) - - Show Bio
@CozyDaPrynce said:

The bible says black people were cursed because of Ham and that is why they have black skin. Science says the very first human beings ever were black people.

Oh goodness. When I first read this, I thought you meant they were cursed because they ATE HAM. Wow, was I confused.
#35 Posted by Cozy_Da_Djed_Eye (9950 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kal'smahboi:Ha, nah I was talkin about Ham, the son of Noah who violated him when he was drunk. Apparently Black people were cursed to have black skin because of him.

#36 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3484 posts) - - Show Bio
@CozyDaPrynce said:

@Kal'smahboi:Ha, nah I was talkin about Ham, the son of Noah who violated him when he was drunk. Apparently Black people were cursed to have black skin because of him.

Yeah, I've heard that, too. But I apparently completely forgot when "BLACK PEOPLE GOT PUNISHED FOR EATING PORK?" popped in my head. Almost like that version better.
 
Anyway, half of the stuff in the bible is allegorical and the rest is made up :)
#37 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3484 posts) - - Show Bio
@majestic99 said:

Science and religion, ugliness and beauty, short and tall, skinny and fat, peace and war, can one really be known without the other? No, they are interdependent dichotomies.

I really disagree.
#38 Posted by King Saturn (223816 posts) - - Show Bio
@CozyDaPrynce said:

@Kal'smahboi:Ha, nah I was talkin about Ham, the son of Noah who violated him when he was drunk. Apparently Black people were cursed to have black skin because of him.

I have read this before... some people say that was mistranslated though. IDK
#39 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4157 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

Or one could point to the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment. It says it pretty clearly that you're not supposed to kill, yet it condones stoning sinners to death, does it not?

Also on an unrelated side-note, I'd like to clarify now before accusations are thrown at me: I am not anti-Christianity, nor anti-religion. I'm Christian of sorts myself. I just have a very bitter opinion of organized religion, and I don't see the Bible as necessary. Now, my original statement was satirical and of course exaggerated, but I do believe that the Bible isn't exactly all that great.

Actually the "Ten Commandments" aren't just the laws of God, there are actually a lot of sub-laws, or bylaws that go along with them. Taking "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as an example, there are entries in the Old Testament that expands on that, like it is okay to kill in self defense, during war, or if you accidentally kill someone you aren't condemned to hell. So you have to take a look at the whole and not just the commandments them selves. But the Ten Commandments do seem to be the bed rock of God's Laws and the Covenant the Jews have with God.

Also as was pointed out earlier, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is probably a mistranslation or the word Kill in ancient Hebrew probably has multiple meanings. I am sure if someone was going to kill you or someone in your family God wouldn't punish you for killing your attacker.

#40 Posted by jeanlucpicard (1845 posts) - - Show Bio

Some people just like to point out certain details to win their argument. I shall hold my tongue. It's kind of funny how much people don't know.

#41 Posted by joshmightbe (24604 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheSpiritStalker said:

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. Ancient Hindi and Buddhist scripture also did believe this. People of medieval times believed it. "...when He [God] set a compass [circle or round i.e. sphere or globe ] upon the face of the depth" Pr 8:27. This was written hundreds of years ago before it was actually discovered leading up to our time.

Jesus said our time was like Noah's time. In our time UFO (alien) sightings have been increasing this year. And the Bible tells us something happened in Noahs time which was the fusion of humans and fallen angels (extra-terrestial beings). This is also what caused the Flood because it turned man evil. Look at all the alien propaganda movies that have been coming out. The UN have already appointed someone to be an alien embassador. People report alien abductions and experiments being done on them.

Actually the round Earth theory was developed in Ancient Greece, Yes there were some cultures that believed the Earth was flat but it was far from being the common belief despite what some may have you think.

Online