Does Science Disprove the Bible or Back it up?

[BroRando]

Scientists are among the most intelligible people on earth, or at least, they would like us to think they are.  One must consider the source, that a significant number of scientists are atheists, denying the possibility of a higher intelligence.  Imagine this scenario, youÂ’re a scientist who studied our universe for countless years.  Then a Bible Student comes to your House and shows you one simple scripture.  “He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;” (Job 26:7)  That one simple scripture proves a higher intelligence does it not?  If you think that Scientists will suddenly acknowledge that the Bible is a Book of truths and knowledge, then think again.  There is a huge monetary motive for rejecting the Bible.  If these things are already explained, then there is not such a huge call to fund Billions of dollars for Educational Programs, and what about their position?  Job security is a huge motivation in itself.

Here’s another: “He wraps up the waters in his clouds, So that the clouds do not burst under their weight;” (Job 26:8)  Simple isn’t it? The findings in Science is actually backing up the Bible. 

At one time, our earth in its infancy didn’t rotate.  How do I know this?  Deductive Reasoning from Scripture.  “After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. ?God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.” (Genesis 1:4-5)  This is when the earth first began to rotate on its axis to cause a division of Day and Night.  Really good Science!   

Fractal Patterns, Golden Angles, and the Fibonacci numbers are Repeated Intelligent Patterns/Designs that are expressions of a Highly Intelligent Designer, Jehovah God.

 

[AlanF]

Brother Rando wrote:

Quote

Scientists are among the most intelligible people on earth,

I think you mean "intelligent", no?

Quote

or at least, they would like us to think they are.  One must consider the source, that a significant number of scientists are atheists,

Well actually, an awful lot of these atheistic scientists started off with a firm belief in a higher intelligence, having been taught to believe in such from infancy. Later in life, after various experiences, they gave up such belief and said, "Show me the evidence, and I'll believe in a god."

Quote

denying the possibility of a higher intelligence.

A common misperception. Most atheists don't deny that some kind of "higher intelligence" exists, but merely that they have not seen any evidence for one. Big difference between saying "I deny ..." and "I don't see evidence for ..."

And what of the many scientists who are theists? Why do you ignore their views?

Quote

Imagine this scenario, you’re a scientist who studied our universe for countless years.

Most scientists live for about 80 years.

Quote

Then a Bible Student comes to your House and shows you one simple scripture.  “He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;” (Job 26:7)  That one simple scripture proves a higher intelligence does it not?

Nope. It merely sounds like it does to those who don't know the facts.

Job 26:11 says, "The very pillars of heaven shake". Does that mean heaven is suspended by literal pillars?

Job 9:6 says, "He shakes the earth out of its place, So that its pillars tremble." Is the earth supported by literal pillars?

Psalm 75:3 says, "When the earth and all its inhabitants were dissolved, It was I who kept its pillars firm." 1 Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, And he hath set the world upon them." (ASV) Does the earth rest on literal pillars?

If you agree that the earth and the heavens do not rest on literal pillars, then how can you and the Watch Tower Society argue or even imply that Job 26:7 refers literally to "outer space"?

The fact is that the concepts mentioned in the original Hebrew of Job 26:7 are extremely poorly understood, and so making any conclusions at all about what the passage meant to its author or its Hebrew readers is probably wrong. We don't know if the referenced concepts are literal or figurative, or the product of ancient mythologies.

A careful analysis of Job 26:7 is instructive.

The reference to "the northern sky" probably means "the heavens", but what are "the heavens"? Does it mean the literal blue sky we perceive above us? Does it include what we see in the sky, such as the sun, moon, stars and various transient phenomena? Does it really mean "outer space" in the modern sense, which would include the physical bodies of the sun, moon, stars, etc.? The most one can justifiably say is that it means "whatever we see in the sky", and that it has nothing to do with "outer space".

The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, on The Book of Job (P. R. Ackroyd, et al, commentary by Norman C. Habel, Cambridge University Press, 1975, p. 135-137) quotes Job 26:7 as:

<< God spreads the canopy of the sky over chaos and suspends earth in the void. >>

It states:

<< 7. canopy of the sky translates a Hebrew term meaning 'North' in its cosmic sense. The 'spreading' out of the 'North' is equivalent to pitching the heavens as a cosmic tent in which God reigns and appears in celestial splendour (cp. on 9:8; Pss. 104:2; 144:5; Isa. 40:22). . . The cosmic tent or canopy of heaven is pitched over the primordial chaos upon which the earth is founded. The pitching of heaven and the founding of earth are recurring traditions which are coupled to express the establishment of the basic structures of the universe (Isa. 42:5; 45:11-12; 48:12-13; 51:13, 16). The earth is usually portrayed as having its foundations fixed in the chaos water. This verse describes that act as 'suspending earth' in a formless void (cp. Gen. 1:2). There is no reason to believe that the author of Job espoused a modern cosmology which viewed the earth as floating in space (cp. verse 11 and 38:4-7). >>

The next phrase in Job 26:7 is extremely problematic. While the recent NWT uses the phrase "empty space", the original NWT used "the empty place". Why the switch? I'd guess that the reason is that "empty space" is more in line with the Watch Tower's traditional claim that Job 26:7 is describing the physical configuration of the earth and outer space. But that is translating Bible words to fit a preconceived tradition -- which is not exactly honest.

Again we find that the original Hebrew concept here translated as "the empty place" is not well understood. Exactly the same Hebrew word, "tehom", is used in many places in the OT, such as in Genesis 1:2 where the NWT translates it as "the watery deep". What tehom ought to be translated as is therefore a very subjective opinion of the translators.

The NWT translates tehom into the phrases "the empty place" or "empty space", which to the naive sounds an awful lot like a reference to the modern notion of "outer space", but it has nothing to do with "outer space". Rather, as the NWT's translation of Genesis 1:2 indicates, it means something like "the watery deep". Other translations and various Bible commentaries variously use "chaos", "deep", "deep water", "deep [primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth]", "watery depths", "deep sea", "ocean", "roaring ocean", "ocean depths", "abyss", etc. In other words, tehom basically denotes "the primeval waters in the creation accounts of the ancient Near East" (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. XV, Botterweck, Ringgren, Fabry, Eerdmans, 2006, p. 575). This reference states that the significance of these primeval waters "indicates a mythological dimension. Behind all the various cosmogonies stands the shared notion that the world was created from water and that the earth from its first beginnings was surrounded on all sides by water." This reference further states (p. 577):

<< Meaning. The religio-historical evidence makes it unlikely that in the OT tehom denotes primarily a "natural phenomenon." Despite all the differences between the ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies and the ideas of the OT, tehom represents both the cosmic waters surrounding the earth and the primeval waters. Tromp has summarized its meaning quite accurately: "Hebrew tehom is a vigorous and often grim word, which never entirely renounced its mythical past. A primordial strength pervades tehom throughout. It stands for: a) the primeval ocean; b) the waters round the earth after creation, which continually threaten the cosmos; c) these waters as a source of blessing for the earth. >>

TDOT further states (p. 578):

<< Creation. The various meanings of tehom in the OT are still best explained through their place and function in the texts having to do with creation. According to Ps. 104, in the beginning the tehom covered the earth "like a garment," and its waters stood "above the mountains" (v. 6). . . Gen. 1:2 is the passage most often discussed in connection with tehom. Here tehom is among the elements that characterize the state of the world before creation, a state defined initially (v. 2aa) as tohu wabohu. That P, like Ps. 104, is drawing on traditional ideas is indisputable. The analogous association of "darkness," "deep," "wind," and "water" in various ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies suggests the same conclusion. Here tehom is the primeval deep covered with darkness . . . For P the mythical dimension resides only in the use of tehom for the unrestrained, chaotic waters prior to creation, which then appear as mayim and, by virtue of God's command, are assigned their appropriate place in the world (vv. 6,9). >>

And further (pp. 578-579):

<< The need to restrain the primeval waters in the context of creation is also mentioned in Ps. 33:7 and Prov. 8:27-29. According to Prov. 8:22, wisdom was the first of God's works of creation. This statement is amplified in v. 24 by a clause saying that wisdom was brought forth "when there were as yet no depths" . . . Wisdom was present when Yahweh "established the heavens, ... when he drew a circle on the surface of the deep . . . The passage reflects the notion, influenced by Babylonian cosmogony, that the earth is a disk surrounded and bounded by the primeval ocean, with the dome of the heavens fixed above. >>

For the usage of tehom in Genesis 1:2, the NWT With References (1984, p. 15, ftn. 2) states:

<< “Watery deep.” Or, “surging waters; water canopy.” Heb., tehohm´; LXX, “the abyss”; Vg, “the great abyss.” See 1:2 ftn, “Deep.” According to 1:7 these must have been “the waters that should be above the expanse.” Compare 6:17 ftn, “Deluge.” >>

Interestingly, the NWT With References has several cross references on tehom for Gen. 1:2, but none for Job 26:7. And Watch Tower literature contains many discussions of the phrase "hanging on nothing", but none of "stretches out the north over the empty place." Obviously the Watch Tower Society is unwilling to commit itself to any explanation of the latter.

For tehom in Job 26:7, other Bible translations use "empty place", "empty space", "emptiness", "chaos", "void", "desolation", etc.

So at this point, given the above information, we can validly translate the first part of Job 26:7 in various ways, since the meaning of the original Hebrew words is so poorly known. Several possibilities are:

He stretches out the sky over the void.
He stretches out the sky over the watery deep.
He stretches out the heavens over chaos.
He stretches out the sky over the deep primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth.
He stretches out the heavens over the ocean.
He stretches out the sky over the abyss.
He stretches out the heavens over the empty place.
He stretches out the heavens over empty space.
He spreads the canopy of the sky over chaos.

Clearly, then, none of these expressions describe literal reality, but are metaphors that vaguely refer to some Hebrew conception of reality that we have no clear descriptions of.

However, we do have some indications of what the Hebrew Bible writers viewed as reality, in various Bible passages that strongly hint at their view of the shape of the earth and its place in creation. As mentioned above by TDOT, the Hebrew conception was essentially the Babylonian one, "that the earth is a disk surrounded and bounded by the primeval ocean, with the dome of the heavens fixed above." This is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22:

<< There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. >>

Here, "the circle of the earth" describes something like a pizza pie, and the heavens are stretched over it like a tent. This earth sits in the middle of the primeval waters 'below' and 'above' the earth, as described in Genesis 1 and in 2 Peter 3:5: "long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God." Here are two pictures of the concept:

https://www.google.com/search?q=babylonian+cosmology&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CXPGwyOrDqyuIjj3tEaGOrHzCnCqUbzFaoqvb59qnp_1LB3-02UfFDU9Z3NSEZVoZnTClrzNOb138ZfLeYJXB9ee8wCoSCfe0RoY6sfMKESlJidqKpJe7KhIJcKpRvMVqiq8RCiny_10_1JQn4qEglvn2qen8sHfxEYHh8_1JATrMSoSCbTZR8UNT1ncEXWWqegbMrNrKhIJ1IRlWhmdMKURlYVDofIpNoEqEgmvM05vXfxl8hGt0y87931WUioSCd5glcH157zAESwqnReK53B3&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9sdnX_dXZAhUE-GMKHR8bDkwQ9C96BAgAEBw&biw=1421&bih=963&dpr=1#imgrc=u7F8mGM5V2bydM:

https://www.google.com/search?q=babylonian+cosmology&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=c8bDI6sOrK62RM%3A%2C6vh4r652mzqmGM%2C_&usg=__llVuSU30UXrHj-ve390VUzK1TOQ%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3iNS1_dXZAhUE8mMKHTWzAeYQ9QEIQDAF#imgrc=c8bDI6sOrK62RM:

Consistent with that picture, we have Daniel 4:10-22, which describes Nebuchadnezzar's God-given dream vision of a great tree growing in the center of the earth "whose top reached the heavens and was visible to all the earth." Such a tree could be visible from the whole earth only if the earth were shaped like a pizza pie -- not a globe. Obviously, Daniel's Hebrew readers would have no trouble picturing Daniel's description if it were consistent with their existing mental picture of the earth.

Then we have the picture in Matthew 4:8, where the Devil took Jesus "along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world." The picture is obviously that from the top of a sufficiently high mountain (and presumably with telescopic vision) one could see everything in the world.

Now of course, one might argue that these word pictures do not represent reality, and they surely do not. But the fact that various Bible writers used such pictures to say something to their readers means that those readers had a pretty good picture of the earth's shape in their minds, consistent with the word pictures the writers painted. Why else would the writers paint those pictures?

Getting back to Job 26:7: in view of the above information, it's easy to see that the phrase "He stretches out the northern sky over empty space" is at best a metaphor, and no more represents a picture of reality than does the phrase "pillars of the earth".

The final phrase of Job 26:7 is:

<< Suspending the earth upon nothing. >>

Once again, to a naive person who knows nothing of the overall Hebrew cultural and linguistic contexts, as described above, this sounds extremely suggestive of a remarkably modern and accurate picture of the earth floating in the vacuum of outer space. But as stated above by The Cambridge Bible Commentary:

<< The earth is usually portrayed as having its foundations fixed in the chaos water. This verse describes that act as 'suspending earth' in a formless void (cp. Gen. 1:2). There is no reason to believe that the author of Job espoused a modern cosmology which viewed the earth as floating in space (cp. verse 11 and 38:4-7). >>

Most Bible translations translate the Hebrew word beliymah (Strong's 1099; literally "not any thing", "nothing whatsoever") as "nothing". A good description of this word (and the only one I can find in Watch Tower literature) is from What Is the Purpose of Life? How Can You Find It? (1993), pp. 11-12:

<< 9 How the earth is held in space. In ancient times when the Bible was being written, there was much speculation about how the earth was held in space. Some believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher and scientist of the fourth century B.C.E., taught that the earth could never hang in empty space. Instead, he taught that the heavenly bodies were fixed to the surface of solid, transparent spheres, with each sphere nested within another sphere. Supposedly the earth was on the innermost sphere, and the outermost sphere held the stars.

10 Yet, rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at the time of its writing, the Bible simply stated (in about the year 1473 B.C.E.): “[God is] hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for “nothing” used here means “not any thing,” and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: “Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery.” >>

Of course, the last two sentences ignore most of the above considerations, and are merely the opinions of the writers.

The Interpreter's Bible (Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, New York, 1956, p. 1094) gives another take on this, in line with the information quoted above:

<< he stretcheth out the north over the void.... and hangeth the earth upon nothing (cf. the parallelism between void and nothingness in Isa. 40:17, 23). This amounts to a poetic description of creatio ex nihilo. The northern regions of the earth are connected in a special way with the sojourn of the gods.... Possibly the north designates here the Stella Polaris on which the constellations appear to circumambulate. Although the poet's cosmogony is geocentric, he fully understands that the earth rests upon nothing and receives its stability only from the will of the almighty Creator. >>

So this reference describes Job 26:7 as saying that God's power -- not any thing -- is what 'suspends' the earth (whatever shape one thinks of it as having) in the nothingness, or void, of the "primeval waters" that that still surround the earth, per 2 Peter 3:5.

Once again, nothing whatsoever justifies the claim that Job 26:7 describes a spherical earth suspended somehow in outer space. That claim is a product of bias-confirmation -- eisegesis -- reading far more into a Bible passage than the text or context justifies, based mainly on prejudices.

 

Quote

If you think that Scientists will suddenly acknowledge that the Bible is a Book of truths and knowledge, then think again.

Well you have a serious problem here, because you have in no way shown that.

Quote

There is a huge monetary motive for rejecting the Bible.

Nonsense.

Quote

If these things are already explained, then there is not such a huge call to fund Billions of dollars for Educational Programs, and what about their position?  Job security is a huge motivation in itself.

Already explained by dubious claims such as you've made about Job 26:7? Hardly. You obviously know little of how science is practiced, or of science itself.

Quote

Here’s another: “He wraps up the waters in his clouds, So that the clouds do not burst under their weight;” (Job 26:8)  Simple isn’t it? The findings in Science is actually backing up the Bible.

LOL! The fact that clouds don't burst under their weight is a scientific statement, eh? Hardly. You can look at the sky and see that for yourself. You can see for yourself that clouds contain water, merely by looking at a downpour in the distance, where rain is obviously dropping from a cloud to the ground. The Bible writer shows no knowledge that clouds are made of water -- they're not like waterskins containing water, that can burst.

Quote

At one time, our earth in its infancy didn’t rotate.

Science shows that the earth gradually accumulated from dust and rocks and such circling the infant sun in the early solar system, so it almost certainly rotated from its earliest beginnings as a planetesimal.

Quote

How do I know this?  Deductive Reasoning from Scripture.

Very dangerous.

Quote

“After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.” (Genesis 1:4-5)  This is when the earth first began to rotate on its axis to cause a division of Day and Night.  Really good Science!

How do you know that God didn't just magically make the light turn on and off? Kind of like how he magically made the heavenly vapor canopy -- the "waters above the expanse" -- defy gravity and stay in place for thousands of years.

Quote

Fractal Patterns, Golden Angles, and the Fibonacci numbers are Repeated Intelligent Patterns/Designs that are expressions of a Highly Intelligent Designer, Jehovah God.

Not really. Those things are just the natural workings of a universe where very simple basic patterns and actions, repeatedly applied, result in complex patterns. Kind of like how the Mandelbrot set works.

Quote

More articles about Science and the Bible.

All of these articles show gross ignorance of science and contain really bad arguments.

As for the "science" in Genesis, there really isn't much. The various events that supposedly happened during the creative days are hopelessly out of order compared to the geological record. Noah's Flood is pure myth and there is no actual evidence that it happened. Etc. etc. etc.

AlanF

[BroRando]

Intelligible is the word I chose for several reasons.  Without going into an in depth explanation, feel free to look up its' definition.  You may have a deeper appreciation for the context of my Biblical Explanations. Thank you.

[AlanF]

5 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

Intelligible is the word I chose for several reasons.  Without going into an in depth explanation, feel free to look up its' definition.  You may have a deeper appreciation for the context of my Biblical Explanations. Thank you.

Your reply says virtually nothing. I get the impression that you're not a native English speaker. No competent English speaker would use "intelligible" the way you have. How about giving your reasons for using it?

Your source gives this definition:

"capable of being understood or comprehended"

That "scientists are among the most intelligible people on earth" in that sense is so obvious that it does not need to be said. What was your point?

AlanF

[Matthew9969]

I like the poetry of Psalm 19:1

[BroRando]

It certainly puts things into perspective.  Intelligent Design requires and an Intelligent Designer.  "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)   Jehovah's fingerprints are all over the Universe and the Universe continues to expand even today.  

 

[AlanF]

Brother Rando said:

Quote

It certainly puts things into perspective.

What? That pretty things in the sky prove God?

More convincing is that supremely dangerous things in the sky disprove God -- supernovae, gamma ray bursters, CMEs (coronal mass ejections) from the sun, etc. All of these, and many more dangerous creations, can wipe out life on earth.

What about things on earth such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, landslides, etc.? Do these things prove or disprove God?

Quote

Intelligent Design requires and an Intelligent Designer.

That depends on what one means by "Intelligent Design". If one could prove that there exists an Intelligent Creator, then he would be an Intelligent Designer, and whatever he made could be called the product of Intelligent Design. But much of science shows that there is no need to postulate such a Designer, because science has shown how a great many things have come to be through the operation of basic, universal physical laws. Of course, science has much to learn. Nevertheless, much of what theists have traditionally claimed to be designed merely displays the illusion of design. See, for example, the article "Adaptation" (Scientific American, Richard Lewontin, September 1978, p. 213; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju752x5vHYAhVC-mMKHbJhBG0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdynamics.org%2F~altenber%2FLIBRARY%2FREPRINTS%2FLewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZNdeinrKEjSk8hpWf9RcZ ) which discusses why evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain "the design of life".

We no longer claim that lightning and thunder prove there is a God. We know how the solar system formed from a primordial cloud of gas and dust. We know that, however life arose on the earth, it has existed for at least 3.5 billion years and that life has undergone more or less continuous evolution since its beginning. The Theory of Evolution, the fossil record, and genetics have shown this. Many theists believe that a Supreme Creator used evolution, or something very like evolution, to create all life. But evolution does not require a Creator.

You posted a video that shows pretty patterns in nature -- hardly evidence of a God. What these patterns show, rather, is that logarithmic growth is common in nature. In the case of the nautilus, after the critter adds a new chamber, it grows a bit, and then adds another new chamber bigger than the earlier one by the same percentage that it grew. The process repeats. Nothing magic or supernatural about that.

Quote

Jehovah's fingerprints are all over the Universe

Like the asteroid strike and massive volcanism that wiped out the dinosaurs and 70% of life on earth 65 million years ago?

Quote

and the Universe continues to expand even today.

And?

AlanF

[BroRando]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

More convincing is that supremely dangerous things in the sky disprove God -- supernovae, gamma ray bursters, CMEs (coronal mass ejections) from the sun, etc. All of these, and many more dangerous creations, can wipe out life on earth.

"The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it." (Psalm 37:29)

"Hope in Jehovah and follow his way, And he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked are done away with, you will see it." (Psalm 37:34)

"The God of gods, Jehovah, has spoken; He summons the earth From the rising of the sun until its setting." (Psalm 50:1)

"May his name endure forever, And may it prosper as long as the sun. May people obtain a blessing for themselves by means of him; May all nations pronounce him happy.  May Jehovah God be praised, Israel’s God,  Who alone does wonderful things.  May his glorious name be praised forever, And may his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen." (Psalm 72:17-1)

"He made his sanctuary as enduring as the heavens, Like the earth that he has established forever." (Psalm 78:69)

"He has established the earth on its foundations; It will not be moved from its place forever and ever." (Psalm 104:5)

Yes, there is a time when the wicked perceive the end of the earth, but actually they are perceiving the end of wickedness. "Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation.  People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Luke 21:25-26)  

"After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands." (Rev 7:9)

"In response one of the elders said to me: “These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?” (Rev 7:13)

"So right away I said to him: “My lord, you are the one who knows.” And he said to me: “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14) But do you really understand what you are reading?   Is there a Creator?

 

 

[AlanF]

Brother Rando again avoided addressing any specifics in my posts. Rather, he merely quoted some scriptures that make specific or vague prophecies about the earth lasting forever.

Quote

 

:: More convincing is that supremely dangerous things in the sky disprove God -- supernovae, gamma ray bursters, CMEs (coronal mass ejections) from the sun, etc. All of these, and many more dangerous creations, can wipe out life on earth.

"The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it." (Psalm 37:29)

. . .

 

The problem with such prophecies is that the Bible records a number of very specific prophecies that were never fulfilled -- false prophicies. Such specific false prophecies are sound evidence that the vague prophecies Brother Rando quoted are just feel-good speculations by various Bible writers.

What false prophecies are recorded in the Bible? There are quite a few. Two of my favorites are:

(1) False Prophecies by Ezekiel about the Fall of Tyre

Tyre was founded early in the 3rd millennium BCE, and apparently was an island city early on. Eventually it incorporated the city that was onshore close to it, and it became a dual city. From about 586-573 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, beseiged the city but failed to take it (historical records are unclear about the fate of the mainland part of the city). In 332 BCE, Alexander the Great conquered the island city and killed most of its inhabitants. It has been inhabited more or less continuously ever since, and was a major supplier of purple dye in Roman times, including the 1st century CE. Today it's a city in Syria and, at least until the present turmoil, had well over 100,000 inhabitants. See the following websites for historical details:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tyre.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre%2C_Lebanon

Ezekiel prophesied the complete destruction of Tyre, to happen soon after Jerusalem's destruction, followed by its everlasting desolation. Ezekiel chapters 26 through 28 contain the complete text, of which we'll look at a few passages:

<< Ezekiel 26:1-14, 19-21; NIV

A Prophecy Against Tyre

1 In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,' 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.

7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

19 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD." >>

The first bolded passage above (vs. 2) indicates that Ezekiel wrote shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. Clearly, he expected that Nebuchadnezzar would visit the same fate upon nearby Tyre. This is not exactly a difficult prediction. The second bolded passage (vs. 3) indicates Ezekiel's intent that Tyre would soon be beseiged.

The third and fourth bolded passages (vss. 5, 7) clearly state that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, would ravage Tyre -- in particular, the island part of the city: "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets."

The third bolded passage is where the prophecy begins to break down. Indeed, shortly after Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in 587 BCE, he beseiged Tyre, and obviously attacked both the mainland and island parts of the city, but failed to take the island city. Ezekiel actually admits later that the prophecy was wrong, in Ezekiel 29:17-18:

<< 17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. >>

Hence, we see a false prophecy from Ezekiel. It matters not that Alexander the Great took the island city some 240 years later; Ezekiel's prophecy clearly stated that Nebuchadnezzar would take the island city.

Ezekiel continues with the false prophecies in verses 14, 19, 21: "you will never be rebuilt; when I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited; you will be no more." Yet the Bible states that Jesus preached in Tyre: Matthew 11:21, 22; 15:21; Mark 7:24, 31; that Jesus' disciples preached in Tyre: Acts 21:3, 7; and that it was certainly inhabited: Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17, 10:13, 14; Acts 12:20. And of course, Tyre has been a bustling city for most of the past 2,500 years.

Isaiah 23 also contains the false prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and then be desolate for 70 years, and then be rebuilt. Not only is this inconsistent with Ezekiel's prophecy, but nothing remotely like that occurred until Tyre was temporarily destroyed by Alexander the Great around 332 BCE. And it was rebuilt far sooner than 70 years later.

 

(2) False prophecy by Ezekiel that Egypt would be in a state of complete desolation for 40 years

In the 10th year of Ezekiel's captivity to Babylon (587 BCE) he prophesied that Egypt would soon be conquered by Babylon and depopulated and made desolate for 40 years. Again let's take a look at some relevant Bible passages:

<< Ezekiel 29:1-20; NIV

A Prophecy Against Egypt

1 In the tenth year, in the tenth month on the twelfth day, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt. 3 Speak to him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, "The Nile is mine; I made it for myself." 4 But I will put hooks in your jaws and make the fish of your streams stick to your scales. I will pull you out from among your streams, with all the fish sticking to your scales.

5 I will leave you in the desert, you and all the fish of your streams. You will fall on the open field and not be gathered or picked up. I will give you as food to the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air.

6 Then all who live in Egypt will know that I am the LORD. " 'You have been a staff of reed for the house of Israel. 7 When they grasped you with their hands, you splintered and you tore open their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you broke and their backs were wrenched.

8 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. 9  Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD. " 'Because you said, "The Nile is mine; I made it," 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. 11 No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.

13 " 'Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the nations where they were scattered. 14 I will bring them back from captivity and return them to Upper Egypt, the land of their ancestry. There they will be a lowly kingdom. 15 It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations. 16 Egypt will no longer be a source of confidence for the people of Israel but will be a reminder of their sin in turning to her for help. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.' " >>

Next, Ezekiel admits that his prophecy against Tyre was unfulfilled, and makes a new prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would sack Egypt rather than Tyre as a reward:

17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD. >>

While there is good historical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did attack and plunder Egypt under its king Amasis in 567 BCE, there is also good historical evidence that Egypt remained inhabited and fully functioning for some time under Amasis (ca. 570-526 BCE), because in about 548 BCE he formed an alliance with the Babylonians, Croesus of Lydia, and Sparta against the Persians under Cyrus the Great. Thus, Egypt was never desolate and uninhabited for 40 years, and we have another failed prophecy from Ezekiel.

There are lots of links one can find with Google on the above historical information. Various books on Egyptian history (Breasted, Grimal, Oxford History, etc.) contain plenty of evidence about the reign of Amasis and various events in it.

For a more comprehensive list of failed Bible prophecies, see:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

Obviously, even one failed prophecy shows that the Bible is unreliable when predicting the future. So quoting the Bible along the lines of "the earth will last forever" is tilting after windmills.

And of course, the fact that the Bible has so much wrong in its description of the history of life -- Genesis 1 and 2, Noah's Flood, etc. -- is further proof that it is unreliable.

 

Quote

But do you really understand what you are reading?   Is there a Creator?

This video is basically a rehash of William Paley's "blind watchmaker" argument (aka "the teleological argument"), which in turn rehashes the arguments of earlier apologists. But this argument was debunked by philosopher David Hume as early as 1740, later by Charles Darwin, and more recently by Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker". Paley's argument falls flat for several reasons, not least of which it makes a false comparison between human-constructed, inanimate objects like watches, and animate, self-reproducing objects like cats. We immediately recognize manufactured objects because we've seen many examples, but we have no experience with manufactured, self-reproducing animate objects.

For an extended discussion, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

AlanF

[BroRando]

What's interesting is your expression of 'faith' in theorists such as Mr. Dawkins. Blind Faith indeed. Common descent and the survivorship of the fittest are still theories and not facts.  Adolf Hitler applied Dawkins theory to his regime by murdering off what he perceived as weak. For a theory to become a fact, successful and provable experiments would need to be provided. For instance, the Big Bang Theory would need to repeated and proved to be a fact.  Not just stating it has a fact in schools in order to brainwash young minds.  Not one single successful experiment as ever been presensented. Same with Evolution, it still remains a theory.  Yet it would take Blind Faith to believe in something that can never be duplicated.  You made a statement about Laws in space. Do you think Laws just come about or did someone govern them? 

Before you spew off about the earth being created in six days, it wasn't.  Christendom is plagued with false propaganda spewing lies and half truths to mislead the many. (Rev 16:13-14)   The earth already existed BEFORE the six creative days even began has Christendom blindly points too. The truth of the matter is that, "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2) Scientist think they can marvel at finding water in space or on other planets?  Of course there's water!  

Scientist do agree on one thing though, whether they are atheist or have various faiths. They all agree that the Universe didn't always exist but at one time 'came about'.  That's right... they all are in agreement that the universe had a Beginning.  "Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old."

"Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed." (Psalm 139:16) 

Brother Rando

PS... Claiming the dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid is a false flag that the earth was also destroyed. The earth is still here isn't it?  

 

[AlanF]

Brother Rando wrote:

Quote

What's interesting is your expression of 'faith' in theorists such as Mr. Dawkins. Blind Faith indeed. Common descent and the survivorship of the fittest are still theories and not facts.  Adolf Hitler applied Dawkins theory to his regime by murdering off what he perceived as weak. For a theory to become a fact, successful and provable experiments would need to be provided. For instance, the Big Bang Theory would need to repeated and proved to be a fact.  Not just stating it has a fact in schools in order to brainwash young minds.  Not one single successful experiment as ever been presensented. Same with Evolution, it still remains a theory.  Yet it would take Blind Faith to believe in something that can never be duplicated.  You made a statement about Laws in space. Do you think Laws just come about or did someone govern them?

Wow. I've never seen such an excellent compendium of popular misconceptions and stereotypical nonsense all in one paragraph before. It's a perfect illustration of one of my favorite quotes, from a 1969 book by ex-JW Alan Rogerson ("Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses," p. 116, Constable, London):

<< A long acquaintance with the literature of the Witnesses leads one to the conclusion that they live in the intellectual 'twilight zone.' That is, most of their members, even their leaders, are not well educated and not very intelligent. Whenever their literature strays onto the fields of philosophy, academic theology, science or any severe mental discipline their ideas at best mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical. >>

I expressed no "faith" in anyone, and certainly not in Richard Dawkins. Having done much research on my own in science literature, I merely cite scientists like him to support what I've learned is good, solid science.

You have no idea what a scientific "theory" is, obviously. A scientific theory, like the Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and so forth, are not merely hypotheses and guesses -- which is what "theory" means in popular parlance -- but a comprehensive series of tested explanations that organize a large set of data into a coherent whole.

Hitler, far from applying "Dawkins theory to his regime" (presumbably you mean Darwin's theory), actually rejected Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. What Hitler did was use the concept of eugenics as a justification for killing millions of people, but eugenics is something that Darwin never mentioned. Rather, others misapplied Darwin's ideas and later used that misapplication to justify their ideas of eugenics, which had been around long before Darwin. You're simply borrowing false claims from popular creationist and other Christian apologist literature.

Historical facts are about happened in the past, and can never be demonstrated by repeated experiments -- another popular creationist false argument. Historical facts are determined by the weight of historical material, including written material, archaeological findings, etc. Historical theories are falsified or supported by posing hypotheses, making predictions about what will be found in other historical material, and comparing those predictions with new material.

The Big Bang theory is such a historical model, since it cannot be repeated. There is a great deal of physical and historical evidence in favor of it, but it's still a model, although the best model anyone has yet come up with. And of course, most new scientific discoveries tend to confirm it, rather than disconfirm it.

Evolution remains one of the best-tested Theories of all time. A gigantic amount of evidence exists in favor of it, and there is no demonstrated scientific evidence against it. Sure, creationists throw many stones at the Theory, but their attacks are always based on religious considerations or what Dawkins calls "The Argument from Personal Incredulity" -- "I can't believe it's true, so it isn't." The fossil record and genetics together provide extremely strong evidence that life evolved over the last 3.5 billion years or so. Of course, that evolution might have been caused in some way by some super or supernatural intelligence, but however that intelligence acted is indistinguishable from evolution by natural selection.

You say that "it would take Blind Faith to believe in something that can never be duplicated." Apply that to your belief in your God.

You also continue to ignore the fact that no historical events can be duplicated, so by your reasoning, historical narratives are all false -- including the Bible. Of course, all you can manage to say about this problem amounts to special pleading.

You asked, "Do you think Laws just come about or did someone govern them?" Again this reflects a popular misunderstanding of science, and shows that you're unfamiliar with the fact that what we call natural laws are merely descriptions of how things behave. The argument that the laws of the universe imply a lawgiver seems reasonable on the surface, but ultimately stems from a misunderstanding of what "natural law" really means. Mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell discussed problems with this argument some years ago ("Why I Am Not a Christian," pp. 7-8, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1957).

<< . . . there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do [in quantum mechanics], you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which way you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that. . . >>

So in view of the above facts, your "ideas at best mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical."

Quote

Before you spew off about the earth being created in six days, it wasn't.

I'm perfectly well aware of JW teaching on this. The latest official teaching is that plant life was created beginning about 34,000 years ago, sea life and all flying creatures beginning about 20,000 years ago, all land creatures beginning about 13,000 years ago, and man about 6,000 years ago. This latest teaching on the length of the creative days is stated in the January 1, 1987 Watchtower (p. 30):

<< A study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. >>

Quote

Christendom is plagued with false propaganda spewing lies and half truths to mislead the many. (Rev 16:13-14)   The earth already existed BEFORE the six creative days even began has Christendom blindly points too. The truth of the matter is that, "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)

The creation of the heavens and the earth occurred on Day One, according to Exodus:

<< For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and he began to rest on the seventh day. >> -- Exodus 20:11

<< . . . for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested. >> -- Exodus 31:17

Obviously, in view of Exodus 20 and 31, "the beginning" of Genesis 1 is to be understood as part of the first creative day. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 both describe what happened on Day One, beginning 48,000 years ago according to the above-quoted 1987 Watchtower.

Quote

Scientist think they can marvel at finding water in space or on other planets?  Of course there's water!

Another misconception: no scientist "marvels" at that -- it has been known for well over a hundred years. And it was not a surprise.

Where do you get all these nutty ideas?

Quote

Scientist do agree on one thing though, whether they are atheist or have various faiths. They all agree that the Universe didn't always exist but at one time 'came about'.  That's right... they all are in agreement that the universe had a Beginning.  "Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old."

So?

Quote

"Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed." (Psalm 139:16)

That scripture applies to mankind, not the universe. Are you just babbling now?

Quote

PS... Claiming the dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid is a false flag that the earth was also destroyed. The earth is still here isn't it?   

I have no clue what you're trying to say. Did I say the earth was destroyed? No. Did I say the earth will be destroyed? No. I said that the universe is extremely dangerous for life.

AlanF

[BroRando]

I have no clue what you're trying to say. Did I say the earth was destroyed? No. Did I say the earth will be destroyed? No. I said that the universe is extremely dangerous for life.

You were being deceptive to lead the reader that the earth will be destroyed and that your faith is in man-made theories fall short of the glory of Jehovah. Atheistism is a man-made religion that teaches theories and lies as facts and truth.  Gravity didn't come about from an explosion nor can you provide one successful conclusion.  Gravity is a law that was set in motion. When added to our system of things, the earth began to rotate. "After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day." (Genesis 1:4-5)

If you can't comprehend the simplest of things, how can I even share the deep things of God with you?  It would be like turning on a light for a blind person, one who is dying. Is It Unscientific to Believe in God?