World Scientists Unite

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Really the only part of the Bible scientists can have any contention with is Genesis...the rest has to do with history, God's Laws, Eternal Life and that sort of thing. Stuff science should really have no interest in (except paranormalists).

Read Genesis. Look at the way the Life, The Universe, Everything was put together...quite a bit like what Big Bang/Evolutionists would like to believe.

Not really - the "miracles" are also basic flouting of scientific laws if taken literally. Water into wine = transmutation. Loaves + bread feeding thousands = violation of the conservation of mass. Parting of the Red Sea? Won't even BEGIN to list the scientific principles that goes against. Etc., etc., etc...

Really, a huge amount of the Bible is just not possible within the principles of science IF it is taken literally. Directionally, notationally, morally, etc. - many parts of the Bible have great things to teach and understand. If you remember that the basic education of many of the intended followers was NOT the greatest, and that large chunks of the Bible were passed orally for up to a generation or two before being committed to paper, it seems understandable that it would not be a literal account, but more of a parable. A parable that has now been translated upon translations...

Future Shock

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Really the only part of the Bible scientists can have any contention with is Genesis...the rest has to do with history, God's Laws, Eternal Life and that sort of thing. Stuff science should really have no interest in (except paranormalists).

Read Genesis. Look at the way the Life, The Universe, Everything was put together...quite a bit like what Big Bang/Evolutionists would like to believe.

Not really - the "miracles" are also basic flouting of scientific laws if taken literally. Water into wine = transmutation. Loaves + bread feeding thousands = violation of the conservation of mass. Parting of the Red Sea? Won't even BEGIN to list the scientific principles that goes against. Etc., etc., etc...

Really, a huge amount of the Bible is just not possible within the principles of science IF it is taken literally. Directionally, notationally, morally, etc. - many parts of the Bible have great things to teach and understand. If you remember that the basic education of many of the intended followers was NOT the greatest, and that large chunks of the Bible were passed orally for up to a generation or two before being committed to paper, it seems understandable that it would not be a literal account, but more of a parable. A parable that has now been translated upon translations...

Future Shock

Actually what you list is a small percentage of the actual text. But those are the parts you take on faith.

As Sam Kinison says "Jesus the Miracle Caterer"

 

[dahunan]

I have always thought of the Bible as the violent book (the one Jewish people follow) and as the New Testament as a book about Peace - this is why Jesus was killed.. he wanted Peace

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Actually what you list is a small percentage of the actual text. But those are the parts you take on faith.

No, I don't recommend anyone take them on literal faith, and neither does my most recent religious leader, a very well known Episcopal minister in NY. He preaches faith in the Lord, faith in Jesus...but not literal faith in all the literal words of the Bible. The two are very different...

Future Shock