Is the Bible a Science book?!

polar-bear-wallpaper-in-northern-lights-1920x1080

Many YECs (Young Earth Creationists) take he Bible to be the ultimate science book, as in they use the Bible as a science book, which is where they get a lot of their main science beliefs. for example, they believe the Earth & Universe are roughly 6,000-10,000 years old based on the LITERAL reading of the Bible, using just the English language (generally. Some also use the Hebrew language, but we’ll talk about that later).  This is where they really miss stuff. YECs, in my opinion, miss the point of the Bible. It isn’t meant to be a science book at all! it’s meant to show the history/relationship between God and Man, and it also is the Book of Salvation, as Old Earth Creationists like to call it. As an OEC, Old Earth Creationist, I believe God has given 2 revelations:

  1. The Book of Salvation – or the Holy Bible, which should be used as a model and a manual for how we should live our life in Jesus Christ.
  2. The “book” of Nature – basically Nature. This is what Modern Science/Scientists ARE STUDYING! They look at the results and base their interpretations on those act. (Honestly, athiest scientists are biased sometimes by leaving God out of the interpretation, and they make mistakes too… we are all human, nobody is perfect)

Ever recall that time David wrote a psalm about praising God for red blood cells, or the moon to keep the earth’s tides from going awol? I don’t! even Jesus didn’t reveal much science knowledge when He was here on Earth! In the Bible times, God used what they know to teach them. Like “days”, in Genesis. They didn’t understand billions of years, they may have understood a very long period of time, but not to the extent we do today.  The modern calendar wasn’t perfected till after Jesus, and before that it was a bit different so every thing was changed. so they couldn’t have had years like we do.  secondly, Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest seed.

    1. Mark 4:31 “It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth”

This indicates Jesus was using Knowledge of that time to explain things. The smallest seeds are produced by certain orchids, if i recall correctly. so the Bible does not seem to be the most scientifically accurate. It does, however, give science stuff; like when it says “the Earth hangeth upon nothing” or something like that…that’s true!

So, the Bible isn’t the Science book some Christians make it out to be. It does indeed provide some answers, but as a general Science book…not really. Besides, if it was, it would be 10x or more the size it is now! With all the discoveries up till now and the future too! that would be a huge book! Another point i’d like to point out and this may just be my opinion, but if you look at ancient civilizations like the ancient egyptians, ancient Israelites, etc; they aren’t really science centered or anything like that, yes there was some probably, but generally, people were more concerned about religion and gods/goddessses. So, God probably didn’t use science to bring people to Christ as much as He does today. Unlike today where many people WANT or NEED scientific proof of God, which is what Old Earth Creationism aims to do, is use science and the Bible to show they are compatible and aren’t at war with each other! I just think God gave us science to discover His glorious creation and how beautiful it is, especially space, my goodness the Nebulas are absolutely beautiful, better looking than I am XD. Anyways, I hope this has helped you all, have great day or night or week or weekend…oh you get the point 😀

 

Advertisements

What about Evolution?

maxresdefaultDoes Evolution fit the Bible?  Well, this is  debatable topic. I definitely don’t see a HUGE problem with Evolution fitting the Bible. It’s about interpretation. Before we go any further, I’d like to discuss interpretation first. Interpretations are MAN-MADE and they are almost never perfect. So, maybe every interpretation of the bible is wrong, who knows (other than God).  We need to examine Scripture and scientific evidence. I will go over scriptural and scientific evidence for Evolution.

Common myths/misconceptions about Evolution:

  1. this is used WAY to much, but it’s false. this is the false Idea that we evolved from monkeys/other other primates today. This is false. The Darwinian Evolutionary view is that apes,chimanzees, monkeys, Humans, and other primates all have a common ancestor. But Humans did not come from today’s primates at all.
  2. Evolution means there is no god or it goes against the Christian God. False!! Even though it may seem like God would be against Animal death, Animal death is not evil at all. by our terms it’s evil, but that doesn’t make it evil. We might hate to see a shark kill a fish, but it’s not evil because it is simply getting food.

Scriptural Evidence

Genesis:

  1. Many phrases like “let the earth bring forth…” and “let the waters bring forth…” may indicate that Life evolved from single cell organisms that lived in the ocean. Remember, Life in the Ocean came first, and then life on earth developed. Why not the other way around? well, because this is ordered this way, it may support the theory that land Life evolved from sea life.
  2. when the bible says in Genesis 1:20-21 “20 Then God said, “Let the waters be full of living things. Let birds fly above the earth in the open space of the heavens.” 21 God made the big animals that live in the sea, and every living thing that moves through the waters by its kind, and every winged bird after its kind. And God saw that it was good.” when it says “after its kind” seems to indicate that evolution could’ve been the method God used since it basically says God made the species after their kind, for example, a fox, a dog, and a dingo could’ve been created after a wolf and they are all 1 kind.

Death before Sin

I went over this in a previous post about the possibility of death before sin. Now, I’m mainly talking about soulless creatures, not humans (which there may have been hUman death) Now, was there a possibility for death before the fall of man? Absolutely! many think that animals became carnivores we developed after the fall. But, that isn’t biblically possible. Many of you were probably  taught in sunday school how in The Garden of Eden Everything was perfect and the lamb was dwelling with the wolf…um, that wasn’t said in Genesis anyway. Now, I believe that the animals didn’t kill Adam and Eve because humanity was given dominion over them and God put them in a special place for Adam and Eve. So God could’ve commanded the animals to not attack Adam and Eve, but to fight other animals. I will provide scientific explanation alongside biblical proof that animals never changed from just herbivore to carnivore after the Fall.

  1. God finished Creating after 6 “days” (not literal days). and rested the 7th day. there are other verse in the bible indicating that we are currently in the 7th day  (Hebrews 4:1–11, Psalm 95:7-11). If the Animals transformed into carnivores after the Fall, then God would have to recreate the whole animals with a new digestive system to support the digesting of meat with new chemicals and stuff and new features such as sharp teeth and claws.
  2. Job: 30:39-41, Job 39:29-30, Psalm 104:21 would all seem to indicate that God brings animals prey which is killing animals. so, if death is Bad, God brought evil!! Not my God!! Animal death isn’t evil to God, but Human death is since we are made in his image.
  3. Death in the Bible generally talks about Human death, and even then, they generally talk about spiritual death. But animals death isn’t mention a lot.

Scientific evidence, from scripture, for death before the Fall of man

As, I’ve stated before, God would have had to recreate animals to account for the dramatic change in their diet, from just plants to animals. Animals before wouldn’t have gotten the nutrients from the meat on other animals and would die. Which is why the theory that God remade the animals after the Fall, false. Also, Animals before the Fall, were probably carnivores, some of them actually. Like I just said, animals would’ve had to been specially wired to produce the protein and nutrients from meat on their own, like photosynthesis, but for animals. Which is highly unlikely.

Many people confuse the lamb with the Wolf in the Garden of Eden thing from various verses like Isaiah 11:1-6 and Revelation 20:1-4.  Genesis NEVER states that the Wolf was laying down with the Lamb in the Garden. It didn’t even state that the world was perfect, as in without death. It says “good” and “very good”…but that doesn’t imply a deathless world, it just means that in God’s eyes, it was Good, or as in the creation of Humans, “very good”. Not deathless!

Conclusion

From evidence presented, it’s logical to say that Evolution could very well be the method God used. The Bible never says animals death is sinful, in fact, the Bible uses it to help people, as in sacrifices. so there is no reason that Evolution of animals is heresy and not Biblical.

Soucres:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/death-before-the-fall/

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-continuation-of-creation-day-seven

Bible Gateway for bible verses

Death before the Fall?

Was there Animal death before sin?

Was there ANY death in the Garden of Eden or before the Fall of Man? (Genesis 1-3) Well, plants seemed to have died because Animals and humans (adam and eve) ate them, so what about Animals? We all can clearly see that Humans did not die before the Fall of man, at least spiritually because God was talking about spiritual death when He told Adam and Eve
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17 KJV).
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, did they die that day? No. either “day” meant as a longer period of time (like saying “In the day of Jesus”) or it was just spiritual. Think of it, Heaven was already created because Satan had already fallen and was the serpent.So, death, physically, isn’t bad because if Adam and Eve died, they would’ve gone to heaven. God hates murder, and spiritual death, but does the Bible say He actually hated physical death itself? If we died before the Fall, we’d end up in Heaven so either way, we’d be with God. but that brings me to animals. Often, The bible says god provided carnivores with prey to eat, and God allowed animals to die throughout the old testament, so if physical death is evil, then God brought Evil!! I don’t believe God would bring evil upon the earth. It is our doing and Satan’s doing. My view as an old earth creationist, I believe physical death had occured before the fall of man, at least animal death. Read the Articles in the sources at the bottom. It has a lot of info about why death could’ve and probably happened before the Fall of Man. Not spiritual death, but physical.
For more info on “death before the Fall” Go here:

Soft Tissues in Dino bones?!

Do Soft Tissues in Dinosaurs mean Young Earth?

tyrannosaurus-rex-skeleton-model_635
Recently, Scientists have discovered soft tissues and red blood cells in Dinosaurs. Many Young Earth Creationists have used this as extreme evidence for a younger earth. Which  doesn’t necessarily prove a young earth but it is good evidence for it. Soft tissue and red blood cells can be preserved over time if under good conditions. From the website, Reasons to Believe, Dr. Hugh Ross stated:

Tissue inside a tooth or a horn, where that tooth or horn is quickly buried by mud or volcanic ash, will be effectively cut off from bacteria and oxygen. Thus, it is not at all surprising that soft tissue evidence inside the tooth and horn was preserved for tens of millions of years.

So, basically, the soft tissues and cells are cut off from chemicals and elements that will accelerate the decay rate.

There is actually an article from “Live science” which helps explain the soft tissues and red blood cells. It actually involves Iron and formaldehyde:

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.
After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
“The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

This is what the tissues in the Dinosaur bones are actually from. The Iron radicals act like Formaldehyde, and the proteins and cell membranes tie knots. This is what has preserved the the “soft” stuff in the bone over the vast amount of time.

The original papers documented about the bone, actually, did not indicate the presence of soft tissue and red blood cells. The article from Reasons to Believe lists excerpts from the original papers that state the facts about the soft tissues and red blood cells.

Another RTB (Reasons to Believe) article stated that:
However, since no molecular studies have yet been done with the tissue, it is uncertain if it contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by mineralization or some other chemical process.7 Therefore, it is very possible that the objects are not intact blood vessels and cells but blood vessel and cell remnants—the degradation products of vessels and cells that have undergone chemical transformation.

From all this evidence and facts, we can conclude that just because the dinosaur bones have soft tissue, does not automatically make the Earth young. IT seems as though this             (natural )preservative has kept the soft tissues of dinosaur bones there over millions of years.

Sources:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/dinosaur-blood

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html