Talk:Science Confirms the Bible

	This Biblical scientific foreknowledge related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Biblical scientists

To some extent the Bible (and other ancient texts can be described as 'all aspects of human life can be found herein': this will include (or give evidence of knowing - metal smelting, cloth dyeing, navigating by the stars etc) some information that falls into the category of 'practical science and 'based methods and logical deduction' ('moving water will remove the dirt on your hands which will just float around in still water'), and some recording of 'strange phenomena observed.' Sometimes the interpretation will differ from present views - a theological overlay to reinforce health and safety measures (God forbids you to eat those animals likely to carry diseases) and 'interpreting events according to current theories and dismissing evidence which appears anomalous (Africa, crossing the equator and the position of the sun). Science will conform with the Bible/ancient texts 'merely because' it is only necessary to describe things once (Euclidian geometry).

And, from a more modern period “What the deuce is it to me?” [Sherlock Holmes] interrupted impatiently; “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.” 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From some 'humour magazine' from a long while ago 'Ask enough scientists/psychiatrists etc and you can find 10 who will support your argument. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Job and Enoch

Should it not be pointed out that any claims that Job is supposed to be metaphorical fly in the face of the description of all creation in Enoch, which echoes the same description (immobile disc earth resting on pillars, hemispherical sky with doors to allow stuff through, etc) as a literal truth? King Skeleton (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Which language in Job are you speaking of? Some of it is cited by creationists as if it were somehow literal, some of it is stretched to make it say what they want. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Water

A strange bit of asininity is the article's assertion that there is a limited amount of H2O on Earth. Water is constantly being consumed and produced by various chemical reactions. High school chemistry, yo.^{— Unsigned, by: 69.140.166.249 / talk / contribs}

Ummm, yes. And if it's both produced and consumed, what is the net result? High school chemistry, yo.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Math and Wissenschaft defeated

https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/5vhigx/bibel_und_wissenschaft/de24pd5/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention of the Water Cycle

Hullo,
Could anyone please dispute Job 26:8

He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind

• It speaks of the three stages of the Water Cycle.
• Dating is controversial, there is opinion to lend towards 7BCE- 2BCE and opinion to suggest older "a close analysis suggests that the foreign words and foreign-looking forms are literary affectations designed to lend authenticity to the book's distant setting (12th century BCE) --Job Composition
• The first published thinker to assert that rainfall alone was sufficient for the maintenance of rivers was Bernard Palissy (1580 CE), who is often credited as the "discoverer" of the modern theory of the water cycle. Palissy's theories were not tested scientifically until 1674, in a study commonly attributed to Pierre Perrault. Even then, these beliefs were not accepted in mainstream science until the early nineteenth century. History of hydrologic cycle

--meekGeek

@Meekgeek Which exact version of the Bible are you using as the source of that quote? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Meekgeek After using a search engine to look for the source of your quote I found that you're citing the Berean Study Bible (BSB). Then I compared the quoted section with other versions of the Bible and came up with a collective version that can be summed up as "God gathers water together and pours it down on mankind, and that's how rain works." Conclusion: the Bible is only mentioning the water cycle if you squint and read the quoted section, otherwise if you read it in context it just says that god pours water from the clouds down onto humans. TL;DR No, the Bible is not talking about the water cycle. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)