This is post is part of a series of replies. If you landed here first, please see the intro post here.
Ron wrote: I know of no scientific law the refutes the Bible.
The whole idea of scientific “law” is a fallacy. For instance, the “law” of gravity is merely a very well-founded theory which has not been disproven.
By referring to gravitational theory as “law,” one is thereby placing our current understanding of the mechanisms behind that which we refer to as gravity into the realm of absolutes. By calling it “law,” we are saying that X absolutely causes Y, which could actually be incorrect. What we do know is that Y occurs, and X seems to affect it. However, it’s possible that someday we will discover that Z really affects it, and that both X and Y are merely affected by the cause of Z.
That said, there is much evidence to suggest that many stories which are told in the Bible either didn’t happen, or didn’t happen when/how the stories say they did. Contrary to what some creationists with important-sounding titles may claim, there was no global flood, no one inhabited Jericho at the time when Joshua is said to have conquered it, and dinosaurs did pre-date humans by millions of years. Further, the few sentences which Christian apologists use as “proof” that Jesus even existed were refuted as forgeries hundreds of years ago.
Are you doubting Jesus existed? If so, that puts you way outside the realm of even most athiests. Sure they disagree that He was God, but no one credible seriously doubts His exsistance.
You missed my question/statement. I know of no scientific law (as is currently understood) that contradicts the Bible.
As an aside, I’d love to see this evidence of your posts. That could be a huge aside. Do you have a blog of your own? If so, I’d be happy to link to it.
And speaking of gravity and evolution (or in this case the big bang). Where did gravity come from? (No need to chase that rabbit if you don’t want to.)
Ron wrote: Elsa, many did believe it was just a circle. It’s even possible Isaiah may have thought so (although there’s no evidence to support that). That’s not my point. My point was that it turns out scripture was right.
How so? By basically calling the world a disc?
I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said, scripture is still not wrong.
Ron wrote: I should note here that Isaiah was inspired by the Holy Spirit when those words were written. Therefore, I see no problem with Isaiah not fully comprehending the science behind what he wrote.
So why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write, It is he that sitteth upon the ball of the earth? Surely people had worked with “balls” of clay back then before they shaped it into pottery.
* I’ll ask him 😉 Seriously, I do not know.
Ron wrote: Incidentally the “flat earth” people are nuts.
This we can agree on, lol. But why would “God” allow his creation to be described as an immovable disc or flat square that rests on pillars, with a dome-shaped firmament separating the earth from the heavens, when the real nature of our universe is so much more awe-inspiring?
I don’t know anyone who hears the phrase “the four corners of the earth” and therefore concludes the earth is a flat square. But this is getting a little foolish. Particularity, when you are so opposed to even the concept of God that you type “God” in quotes or refer to Him as “The God character” (see next post). It’s offensive. I’m sure your point here is not to offend, so I’ll continue. But really – I think we are chasing rabbits.