EDIT: Changed topic title

EDIT: My questions came from watching the first hour of this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mvx8kW33OU&t=0s

What do you make of the following scientific claims found in the Bible?

Hydrological Cycle
Ecclesiastes 1:7 7All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

Did the people of the day know how all this worked? I was told they had no idea why the seas did not fill up, but more or less maintained their level even though the rains and rivers fell into them. I readily admit I have no evidence they did not know.

Dinosaurs described
Job 40:15-24
15“Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. 16Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. 17He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.

19“He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! 20For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. 21Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh. 22For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. 23Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. 24Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?

I highlight the parts that seem to refer to a huge beast, strong and powerful. It sounds like a sauropod. Clearly not a hippo, or rhino, or elephant due to the large cedar like tail, and it cannot be a crocodile because the behemoth eats grass; I’m not sure if they do that.

Light Can Be Divided
Job 38:34
24What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

Isaac Newton studied light and discovered it was made up of seven different colours. Science confirmed this 400 years ago but the Bible is talking about it 4000 years ago. If it isn't, what might the verses be referring to?

The Jet Streams
Ecclesiastes 1:6 6The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns

At a time when it was thought the winds blew straight, the Bible declares the wind goes to the south then turns again to the north, the winds whirl about continually and returns again to its circuit. The jet stream circuit wasn’t discovered until the early 1940s

Light Can Be Sent and Manifested in Speech
Job 38:35 35 Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’?

The Bible is saying you can use electricity to send messages and lightning also generates radio waves. This one is particularly impressive because I cannot think of what else it might mean

I am a Christian, but please believe me when I say I am only looking for information here because I am studying this topic concerning Science and the Bible.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks all.

There was no science of the sort to which you are making reference when the texts of the bible were written. You are applying a modern interpretation using stuff you know that the authors of those texts did not. You can, of course, make any interpretation that suits your fancy. What you need to do is give up trying to pass your very personal interpretations on to other folks more or less at random and in-the-blind. If it's not a personal interpretation (and it isn't, it's cribbing from creationist tracts) then go ask those folks. I'm not interested in dissuading you from your own interpretation, but so far, it looks like typical Christian ignorance.

There is more.

John 1:1 In the beginning was RNA, and RNA was with God, and RNA was God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Cito di Pense wrote:There was no science of the sort to which you are making reference when the texts of the bible were written. You are applying a modern interpretation using stuff you know that the authors of those texts did not. You can, of course, make any interpretation that suits your fancy. What you need to do is give up trying to pass your very personal interpretations on to other folks more or less at random and in-the-blind. If it's not a personal interpretation (and it isn't, it's cribbing from creationist tracts) then go ask those folks. I'm not interested in dissuading you from your own interpretation, but so far, it looks like typical Christian ignorance.

Fair enough Cito. It may be my ignorance but I have no axe to grind, I'm just looking for differering views

tuco wrote:There is more.

John 1:1 In the beginning was RNA, and RNA was with God, and RNA was God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

I'm not sure if you are serious

Whether or not I was being serious is irrelevant to the topic Since and the Bible.

Seriously, Passer? Your mind is incapable to interpret those words in any other way? Maybe you’ve had an imagination failure. Four hours of vigorous exercise followed by 6 cans of Special BrewTM should spark something before breakfast.

If not, let me know and we can tweak the regimen and dosage to suit.

I don't have a problem with the above not being what the video says they are about. I am merely hoping for some other interpretation to them that's all. I suppose I was hoping that there would be a standard reply to them.

That's a good example how these things are taken out of context

Passer wrote:

Light Can Be Sent and Manifested in Speech
Job 38:35 35 Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’?

The Bible is saying you can use electricity to send messages and lightning also generates radio waves. This one is particularly impressive because I cannot think of what else it might mean

Then you don't seem to have read the context. Job was nasty to God, questioned God's sense of justice, so Job gets a dressing down by God. In the whole chapter, God tells Job how great and powerful he (God) is and how tiny and powerless Job is. He lists all the things that he (God) is supposedly able to do, how he is in control of all nature. The meaning of the sentence is simple "Hey Job, I (God) command lightning. And you don't. So shut up and swallow all the shit I rain unto you."

The usual suspects have been peddling apologetics of this sort for a long time ... it's a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Which operates as follows:

Step 1: Pick a scientific discovery or recent historical event;

Step 2: Find a passage in mythology that can be coupled thereto, however tenuously, and regardless of the semantic and conceptual contortions required to do this;

Step 3: Use the entirely synthetic construction in Step 2, as purportedly constituting "evidence" that the mythology in question supposedly commented on this matter several centuries beforehand.

Passer wrote:I don't have a problem with the above not being what the video says they are about. I am merely hoping for some other interpretation to them that's all. I suppose I was hoping that there would be a standard reply to them.

Really? You want somebody to interpret bible verses for you? You want somebody to interpret bible verses in a secular vein? Why? It's as if you're claiming you can't re-interpret them from inside your Christian cocoon, but that's just lazy.

Yes, you recognise there are ex-Christians, here, but the reason they're 'ex' is not simply because they interpreted bible verses and found them wanting. I never had an interpretation of bible verses that I had to jimmy, and regard it as a primitive non-scientific look at the world (at best) and (at worst) just a bunch of incoherence collected and slapped together at a later date by a scripture committee.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:I don't have a problem with the above not being what the video says they are about. I am merely hoping for some other interpretation to them that's all. I suppose I was hoping that there would be a standard reply to them.

Really? You want somebody to interpret bible verses for you? You want somebody to interpret bible verses in a secular vein? Why? It's as if you're claiming you can't re-interpret them from inside your Christian cocoon, but that's just lazy.

I just cannot find an alternative interpretation for them. I don't think that is lazy, that's just not being able to figure something out. It might be me being dense on my part (wouldn't be the first), but not lazy. I could google it, but it is my experience that google is sometimes way too random with these things and was hoping I could get a direct route to a few good explanations here.

Passer wrote:...
I just cannot find an alternative interpretation for them. I don't think that is lazy, that's just not being able to figure something out. It might be me being dense on my part (wouldn't be the first), but not lazy. I could google it, but it is my experience that google is sometimes way too random with these things and was hoping I could get a direct route to a few good explanations here.

Ok, I'll play...
The first question in the Job 38:34 snippet could be re-phrased as, "Where can I see a rainbow, or similar atmospheric effect?"

The second question is overly vague and an answer probably depends on the relative locations of land and open water.

Passer wrote:EDIT: Changed topic title

EDIT: My questions came from watching the first hour of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mvx8kW33OU&t=0s

What do you make of the following scientific claims found in the Bible?

FIFY.

Passer wrote:
Hydrological Cycle
Ecclesiastes 1:7 7All streams run to the sea,

Already false.
Some streams run to lakes, for example.

Passer wrote:
but the sea is not full;

When is a sea full? What does that even mean?

Passer wrote: to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

More nonsense.
Water circulates via evaporation and rain and not all of that rain comes from the same source that it deposits its water in.

Passer wrote:
Did the people of the day know how all this worked?

As evidenced by the fact that the above spiel is nonsense. No, they did not.

Passer wrote: I was told they had no idea why the seas did not fill up,

Again, what does that mean?

Passer wrote: but more or less maintained their level even though the rains and rivers fell into them. I readily admit I have no evidence they did not know.

Where does rainwater come from Passer?

Passer wrote:
Dinosaurs described
Job 40:15-24
15“Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. 16Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. 17He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.

19“He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! 20For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. 21Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh. 22For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. 23Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. 24Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?

I highlight the parts that seem to refer to a huge beast, strong and powerful.

Which applies to anything from olifants and mammoths to oxen and rhinos.
Also, afaik no animal has bones of bronze or iron.

Passer wrote:
It sounds like a sauropod.

It does not.

Passer wrote: Clearly not a hippo, or rhino, or elephant due to the large cedar like tail,

That's not what the text says Passer. It says it can stiffen it's tale like a cedar.

Passer wrote: and it cannot be a crocodile because the behemoth eats grass; I’m not sure if they do that.

It can be a plethora of other big herbivores, both extant and extinct.

Passer wrote:
Light Can Be Divided
Job 38:34
24What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

Isaac Newton studied light and discovered it was made up of seven different colours. Science confirmed this 400 years ago but the Bible is talking about it 4000 years ago.

Again, that's not what the text says. It asks a question about the place where light is distributed, not scattered into different parts of the colour spectrum.
The text is also wrong about the wind. East is a relative concept.

Passer wrote: If it isn't, what might the verses be referring to?

See above. This is not meant as a personal attack, but it seems to me that you are either not reading the text you're quoting carefully or your uunderstanding of English is either lacking or incongruous.

Passer wrote:
The Jet Streams
Ecclesiastes 1:6 6The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns

Once again, relative concepts. South from where? Around to the north of what?

Passer wrote:
At a time when it was thought the winds blew straight,

Nonsense.

Passer wrote:the Bible declares the wind goes to the south then turns again to the north,

Which is also nonsense,

Passer wrote: the winds whirl about continually and returns again to its circuit. The jet stream circuit wasn’t discovered until the early 1940s

The biblical text is not describing jet streams it's asserting that wind is a phenomenon that is the result of circular system wherein wind itself circulates. Which is false.

Passer wrote:
Light Can Be Sent and Manifested in Speech
Job 38:35 35 Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’?

The Bible is saying you can use electricity to send messages and lightning also generates radio waves.

This text isn't describing radio waves.

Passer wrote:
This one is particularly impressive because I cannot think of what else it might mean

That's an appeal to personal ignorance.

Passer wrote:
I am a Christian, but please believe me when I say I am only looking for information here because I am studying this topic concerning Science and the Bible.

Well, science is a noun not a name or title, hence it shouldn't be capitalised.

Hydrological Cycle
Ecclesiastes 1:7 7All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

They certainly knew that water evaporates/soaks through. All steams run to the sea, well, the one who wrote it probably seen 5 streams like that in her/his life and was told stories, thus wrote all. Some people do the same mistake, generalization, till this day. What is to interpret here? This? to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. Makes sense, innit? Where does it evaporate/soaks through to? To the place where the stream flow again.

Now of course, it also make sense we if for example assume .. aliens.

Passer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:I don't have a problem with the above not being what the video says they are about. I am merely hoping for some other interpretation to them that's all. I suppose I was hoping that there would be a standard reply to them.

Really? You want somebody to interpret bible verses for you? You want somebody to interpret bible verses in a secular vein? Why? It's as if you're claiming you can't re-interpret them from inside your Christian cocoon, but that's just lazy.

I just cannot find an alternative interpretation for them. I don't think that is lazy, that's just not being able to figure something out.

What is lazy is that you then assume your interpetation is correct.

Passer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:I don't have a problem with the above not being what the video says they are about. I am merely hoping for some other interpretation to them that's all. I suppose I was hoping that there would be a standard reply to them.

Really? You want somebody to interpret bible verses for you? You want somebody to interpret bible verses in a secular vein? Why? It's as if you're claiming you can't re-interpret them from inside your Christian cocoon, but that's just lazy.

I just cannot find an alternative interpretation for them. I don't think that is lazy, that's just not being able to figure something out. It might be me being dense on my part (wouldn't be the first), but not lazy. I could google it, but it is my experience that google is sometimes way too random with these things and was hoping I could get a direct route to a few good explanations here.

I doubt you 'cannot find' an 'alternate explanation'. You quit too soon. Interpretation is work you should be doing for yourself.

Why should you assume there's a more authoritative (or at least cogent) 'explanation' than google provides, just by asking a random question in an anonymous internet forum whose main function is entertainment? This place isn't a brain trust. I think you're just bored and looking for any kind of conversation. Well, you got it. Your question is bumped down a notch to insipid trolling in my book.

@Thomas

Thanks for replying Thomas.

I've never said what my interpretations are or if I believe the ones given above. I was just asking for alternatives to the ones given in the video I linked. The interpretation is from the author of the video. I tend to think they are worth invesitgating that's all.

"Already false. Some streams run to lakes, for example."

That may be, I don't know, so I'll take your word for it. But it doesn't have any impact on the fact that some rivers do run to the sea and my questioning concerning that.

"When is a sea full? What does that even mean?"

I believe it means the level of the sea does not rise when water flows into it.

"Also, afaik no animal has bones of bronze or iron."

I think the author is just using poetic language there. Similar to "he runs like the wind."

"This text isn't describing radio waves."

I know. I was just saying lightning can carry radio waves. The verse does mention lightning though.

"That's an appeal to personal ignorance."

Granted. But I am not trying to be ignorant, nor am I implying because I don't know, it must be true.

I expect a god to be a better teacher than the best there ever was. But apparently other people are better at phrasing things than the god. God should have hired those people as ghost writers.

Bert
Ghost writers, how appropriate

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:I don't have a problem with the above not being what the video says they are about. I am merely hoping for some other interpretation to them that's all. I suppose I was hoping that there would be a standard reply to them.

Really? You want somebody to interpret bible verses for you? You want somebody to interpret bible verses in a secular vein? Why? It's as if you're claiming you can't re-interpret them from inside your Christian cocoon, but that's just lazy.

I just cannot find an alternative interpretation for them. I don't think that is lazy, that's just not being able to figure something out. It might be me being dense on my part (wouldn't be the first), but not lazy. I could google it, but it is my experience that google is sometimes way too random with these things and was hoping I could get a direct route to a few good explanations here.

I doubt you 'cannot find' an 'alternate explanation'. You quit too soon. Interpretation is work you should be doing for yourself.

Why should you assume there's a more authoritative (or at least cogent) 'explanation' than google provides, just by asking a random question in an anonymous internet forum whose main function is entertainment? This place isn't a brain trust. I think you're just bored and looking for any kind of conversation. Well, you got it. Your question is bumped down a notch to insipid trolling in my book.

I assure you I am not trolling. They are genuine questions I am asking.