Us why we're here.

What is quite interesting in this discussion is that you have allowed me to guide the line in the direction of whether or not the moon gives off its own light. Which can neither be proven or disproven by anyone in this forum. However the only reason that this point is important, is because God calls it the lesser light. Now since He is the one who Created it out of nowhere, I would say that His word is more valuable than yours or mine. What is really at issue here is the truth of God and His scripture. If you do not believe that He created the World and all that is in and around it...well then , I guess you will be blown around by every line of thought,( much like we just went thru ....for this very reason.) This moonlight thread was deliberate to prove a point. Scientific discussion and argument is worthless if there is not a base of truth to work from. GOD'S WORD IS THAT BASE OF TRUTH
 
So God is right and science is wrong, and since God says the moon generates its own light, it does, despite the fact that we've never seen it do so.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kohael <PC> @ Dec. 08 2002,4:17)]So God is right and science is wrong, and since God says the moon generates its own light, it does, despite the fact that we've never seen it do so.
Click to expand...
Correction....Science is wrong when it conflicts with GOD. By the Way. Certainly you have not seen everything you believe in. People had never seen an atom until the last generation. Does that mean that atoms did not exist?........Cotton candy is a soft confection that is made from sugar that is heated and spun into slim threads that look like a mass of cotton. It was invented in 1897 by William Morrison and John C. Wharton, candymakers from Nashville, Tennessee. I believe the Earth existed before 1897. Just a hunch
 
The moon does not make its own light. That would be like saying the earth made its own light, or this rock in my hand makes light.
 
The question is....why are you all so anti-faith when in reality - faith is the only thing that can save you. Why would you want to get mired down in the light of the silvery moon? The only reason that there is a moon or sun is to light our way to the cross. You see, everything that was given to us was given not to be the object of our worship, but rather to point us to GOD. Science says certain things are true today that they deny tomorrow. God is the same forever. Why is that so hard to accept?
 
dwgpreach, the moon reflects the light of the sun.  It isn't heresy to believe that.  The reason it's the second brightest light in the sky is because it reflects, and does not produce its own light.  And, frankly, you have failed to provide any shred of proof other than "It's true because I believe it!"  And?  What else?  Back yourself up!  And don't talk about how science didn't think things were possible.  Man has walked the moon.  For the moon to produce *any* amount of light would require combustion, and man could not walk on the surface, much less even get close enough to land on the moon.  Rejecting science simply because it doesn't line up with what you believe is a really cruddy way of doing things.  Reminds me of those who rejected the idea that the earth rotates around the sun because their faith taught them that the sun rotated around the earth. I happen to believe 100% in the inerency of the Bible and that God is always right, and Jesus Christ is my Savior. I'm also a scientist and when it comes to things like hard science, I'm all about backing up what I say. And if what I say can't be backed up, I need to take a good, hard look at if what I'm saying is correct.
 
<hands around little badges marked "Zoogrunt in 2004">

Exactly. Ex-freaking-actly.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kohael <PC> @ Dec. 08 2002,3:50)]
Click to expand...
(Kohael <PC>) So the moon does, in fact, generate it's own light?

(Me) To think that the Scriptures teach as much is to follow an untrustworthy method of hermeneutics -- namely, the "it says whatever makes it sound the most absurd" view used by 95% of atheists claiming to have found contradictions in the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria,
John Roberson
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tonytiger @ Dec. 05 2002,2:23)]
Click to expand...
(Tonytiger) It makes about as much sense as anything in that book. God could have messed up, humans mess up all the time and as you say, we are in his image.

And as for genesis you cant beleive everything in that book. It says that God made night and day before he made the sun and stars, we now know that that is completely impossible because night and day only exist because of the sun.

(Me) To say that an a posteriori claim ("night and day exist because of the sun") is necessary ("only") requires it to be definitional; in other words, "night and day" would have to, by definition, require the sun. It would then become a vacuous truism. However, why should you think that the words 'night' and 'day' must follow this definition in Biblical usage (esp. Gen. 1)? Otherwise, there are any number (infinite?) of possibilities that could account for night and day. For a crackpot example, God could have used the Cosmic Aardvark before the sun. God (given that He is omnipotent) could even cause light and darkness without the sun, if He so chose. Thus, your argument is unsubstantiated unless you can certainly prove that the terms 'night' and 'day' used in Genesis 1 require the existence of the sun.
 
(Tonytiger) I am not arguing the case of science versus religion.

(Me) Ironically, you later indicate that accepting the Bible is "strange" because it opposes science.  You contradict yourself.


(Tonytiger) But... one path must be true science or religion, and its up to the person to chose which path they take.  

Whats top risk with christianity? sanity.
Basing your life on a book written by unknown people thousands of years ago with very little historical evidence to go on would normally be considered strange.

(Me) You can make all the arbitrary, unsupported assertions you want.  But we're waiting for facts and evidence.  Any scholars of the Classics will tell you that the Bible has an almost perfect (99.5%+) preservation rate (see any of Princeton scholar Bruce Metzger's landmark works), which is extremely higher than anything else from its era (the best you're looking at is probably 20% corruption, generally worse).

You can make claims showing that you haven't examined the facts all day, but that will never amount to a serious or cogent attack on Christianity.  Of course, I could make harsher claims against you, and even support them.

For instance, go to your local college's philosophy professors, and ask them about atheism.  Talk to them about the problem of induction (which makes atheistic science arbitrary and absurd), the epistemologies of math and logic (which removes the ever-vaunted deductive arguments from atheism), and on and on we go.  Put plainly, the atheist cannot account for any reasoning, truth, or knowledge in his fundamental view of reality.

For instance, all of science must assume the general uniformity of nature.  As an example, that seeing x follow y 100 times (like a ball falling after I drop it) probably means that the same will occur, ceteris parabus, on try 101.  By Hume's yet unresolved arguments, the atheist cannot provide any reason to think that 101 will reflect the previous 100.  For why should we think that the future should mirror the past (or different parts of nature mirror other parts)?  We might say, "Experience."  After all, in the past we've seen that the future mirrored the past.  Yet this begs-the-question.  We're basically saying this:
1. In the past, the future has mirrored the past
2. The future mirrors the past
-----------------------
Therefore, in the future, the future will mirror the past

Thus, as Hume argues, the atheist has no basic for induction, thus no basis for science.  The Christian, of course, sees that the Bible indicates that God has created nature in a generally uniform way and sustains it as such.  Thus, he can easily accept the uniformity of nature.  I could go on and on, pointing out that math, logic, morality, etc. can work only in the Christian worldview (though some views solve different pieces of the puzzle, no view solves all the puzzles except for Christianity).  Thus, not only is one being arbitrary by faith in secular science above Christ, it is literally impossible to be consistently rational and reject Christ.  If only Christians can be truly rational, we stand alone on the battlefield.  Our opponents are truly unarmed.

I could also point out the arbitrary nature and absolute agnosticism inherent in the philosophy of science.  For a more tangible example, note that the Galilean system (with other New Science advocates) was not nearly as effective in any area (predicting the location of planets, for instance) as the Ptolemaic system for literally centuries after it was first accepted.  Note many of Kuhn's recent works, such as "On the Nature of Scientific Revolutions," which clearly show the arbitrary nature of deciding which scientific theory to accept.  On a more abstract level, there really is no reason to postulate forces like gravity any more than little invisible, intangible gremlins that move everything.  It comes back to one's metaphysics, and the atheist's metaphysic is arbitrary and broken.  The atheist says his view is most scientifically supported, but his views on science presuppose his atheism (thus, atheism is true, he says, because atheism is true).

The unbeliever requires Christ not only for eternal salvation, but also for intellectual salvation.  He cannot reason consistently and reject Christ.  Thus, the contrary is truly impossible.


Soli Deo Gloria,
John Roberson
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tonytiger @ Dec. 08 2002,3:40)]
Click to expand...
(Tonytiger) Back again, this post sure is popular.

Who's to say the bible isnt out dated??
Rumour has it that it was up dated throughout the centuries.

(Me) Since when does rumor define truth?


(Tonytiger) The moon reflects, it does not shine.

(Me) Agreed.
 
It would appear to me that in many instances God violates the universal uniformity (In the recently mentioned 'water into wine' incident, for example)

Therefore, you can say, "The universe obeys natural laws unless God breaks them.", or am I not correct here?
 
But those laws where made by man who can not even begin to comprehand the universe.

*sorry about spelling its 741 in the morning still not cohearant
 
We can, and have, begun to comprehend the universe. An Atheist says that Science provides the fundamental basis of existence - and that Science is an evolving system of complex rules. Deduction says that the rules can be made simpler and simpler - as we grow closer and closer to a Grand Unified Theory. But what that theory is, we don't yet know.

Christianity says that you start with the Theory known, and that the universe should be inferred from the single theory.

Yet we both live in the same universe, so who's right? They people who start with the questions or the people who start with the answers?

Because of the nature of Christianity it is not susceptible to deductive reasoning - you have to accept that and move on. Your beliefs proceed from an answer, not from a question. That's the nature of FAITH, isn't it?

I, personally, don't believe the bible holds up under scrutiny. I also believe that Christian's have a vested interest in proving their bible correct, and that the findings of Christian scholars must be viewed in a suspicious light for that reason. How can I trust the findings of an authority that has predetermined the answer?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kohael <PC> @ Dec. 09 2002,7:40)]
Click to expand...
I apologize; the title of Kuhn's book uses the word 'Structure' rather than 'Nature.'

(Kohael<PC>) It would appear to me that in many instances God violates the universal uniformity (In the recently mentioned 'water into wine' incident, for example)

Therefore, you can say, "The universe obeys natural laws unless God breaks them.", or am I not correct here?

(Me) This is an objection atheist philosopher Michael Martin offered in his Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God. The key point to remember here is that we require only revelation and comprehension sufficient for proper interaction with our world. In other words, we don't have to understand everything exhaustively in order to have sufficient knowledge for all our needs. Thus, though God generally governs the universe in certain ways, "miracles" (though keep in mind that defining 'miracle,' given that Bible's teachings on God's creation and maintenance of the universe, is a difficult task if one wants to sustain much of its classical meaning and use) do not constitute enough "non-uniformity" to disallow scientific endeavors or day-to-day life. For instance, I generally think that my car will start when I turn the key. However, what if it is in disrepair? Well, in that case, I know that the usual way of doing things was contradicted by a somewhat external defeater. Even though there are this irregularities, as they are exceptions, I am still able to have sufficient knowledge in order to drive my car, live my life, etc.



(LionOfJudah) But those laws where made by man who can not even begin to comprehand the universe.

(Me) This is a good point to bring out. Formulating the Law of Gravity, for instance, is simply our way of understanding, explaining, and conceptualizing (however redundant that may be) our interactions with and experience of the universe, and it with itself. However, to think that there are forces outside of God governing all things is a metaphysical position erroneously spurred on in the Enlightenment era, and led to an eventually seeming dichotomy between religion and science. Viewing the universe as autonomous from God hits a slippery slope -- we then start seeing MAN as autonomous from God (libertarian freewill), ultimately running into heresies like Pelagianism and atheistic, Nietzschean apostasy, etc. God becomes an unnecessary element in our metaphysic when we run down this unScriptural path. As modern philosophy shows, of course, removing God from one's metaphysics (&c.) removes ALL knowledge, just as the Scriptures teach.


(LionOfJudah) *sorry about spelling its 741 in the morning still not cohearant

(Me) One's content is far more important than one's spelling, assuming communication is essentially unhindered
smile.gif



(Mr_Eon) We can, and have, begun to comprehend the universe. An Atheist says that Science provides the fundamental basis of existence - and that Science is an evolving system of complex rules. Deduction says that the rules can be made simpler and simpler - as we grow closer and closer to a Grand Unified Theory. But what that theory is, we don't yet know.

Christianity says that you start with the Theory known, and that the universe should be inferred from the single theory.

Yet we both live in the same universe, so who's right? They people who start with the questions or the people who start with the answers?

(Me) In actuality, all men know God, as His existence and eternal attributes are clearly made known through all of creation (Romans 1). Yet, as Paul indicates, they deceive themselves, exchanging the truth for a lie, and live in self-deception. They know God, but will not admit it. This is why they can have knowledge -- they know God, though they deny Him. Just as a person denying the existence of air must using it to make such a statement, so must the "atheist" be held up by God's strong arms in order to slap His face. The atheist claims to start from himself and find knowledge -- a foolish task. The Christian must humbly submit to God, starting from God and gaining knowledge on the grounds of faith, as the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge (Prov 1:7).


(Mr_Eon) Because of the nature of Christianity it is not susceptible to deductive reasoning - you have to accept that and move on. Your beliefs proceed from an answer, not from a question. That's the nature of FAITH, isn't it?

(Me) Paul certainly seemed to think that Christian faith was not opposed to reason, as the book of Acts records that he would repeatedly _reason_ for the faith on evangelistic trips. An Enlightenment-driven dichotomy between faith and reason is anti-Biblical. The key is ultimacy: God or man? Do we think God's thoughts after Him, or do we find God by our own autonomous thoughts?


(Mr_Eon) I, personally, don't believe the bible holds up under scrutiny. I also believe that Christian's have a vested interest in proving their bible correct, and that the findings of Christian scholars must be viewed in a suspicious light for that reason. How can I trust the findings of an authority that has predetermined the answer?

(Me) Then you'd better stop listening to _anyone_ espousing a position. Proposing this kind of methodology will get you nowhere; though it may call into suspect, does the vindication of one's position make his scholarship necessarily poor? Certainly not -- for one example, epistemologists Alvin Plantinga and Bill Alston are considered top-notch, though they are Christians and have Christian conclusions (Plantinga's final analysis of justification is using a reliable cognitive process in the way in which God intended it to be used). Metzger, a professor at Princeton University, is considered one of the best scholars on the Biblical manuscripts in the world, and he's a Christian. Examine the facts for yourself rather than immediately assuming that an opposing argument is poor.

Finally, look for the foundations upon which you stand. You say that Christianity does not hold up under scrutiny, but from what platform do you say as much? I've already called into question a non-Christians grounds for accepting something as vital and foundational as induction -- something that you not only use every day, but also something to which you must appeal if you want to make a case against Christianity. Deductive reasoning, like math and logic, falls in the same fashion, as does ethics (ad infinitum). One opposing Christianity must be asked the following questions: 1) Have you non-dogmatically examined the evidence and its implications? and 2) Do you have any grounds for examining any evidence at all? I am convinced that the Christian alone can answer both of those questions affirmatively.


Soli Deo Gloria,
John Roberson
 
Before attempting any kind of response to your argument, I'd like to know where you are drawing your conclusion that God has created nature in a uniform manner.
 
If there were such a thing as a single unifying Divinity, creator and sustainer of all, I would have to believe that his argument would be a lot clearer. This is, after all, the creator of language and comprehension! And yet there are dozens of major religions, THREE of which claim him for a divinity. Within Christianity itself there are at least 75 divisions, cults and splinter groups.

Why all the confusion? Why all the cloak and dagger guerrila philosophy? Why were there at least 12 saints in the time of Jesus - and not one around now? Why is his plan based entirely around self-aggrandisement? Why eternal ####ation over destruction - a solution that even the basest despot knows is more merciful?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Yeah science can't recreate those miracles. The bible is historically accurate and has many of it's references proven in archeology. Written by man, yes, but inspired by God. it has many checks and balances to keep it accurate.

Science and bible do not get along. For starters, according to the Bible, the earth is thousands of years old, not millions. Also if you choose to believe science and that you're related to ameobas be my guest. However if you die and realize there's an afterlife you'll be shocked. What's there to lose in believing in a creator? dignity?
Click to expand...
Ha and the writers of the bible also thought the world was flat. Do you sill believe that? Probably. Have you killed any homosexuals lately? Have you told your mom to bring you food and to bring it now? I think not. Times have changed. Science is accurate. There's a lot to lose in believing in a creator, time. I'd rather spend my life learning about a lot of thing rather than stick to a story book. It's a relic and therefore should be treated as one. It's inconsistent and irrational. I lead a great life with out your bible. I have a great wife, wonderful family, great job, all with out a single prayer or belief in your god or your jesus.
 
Actually the bible states that the world is round it's the people that don't listen.

here are many instances of the bible and "science" going hand in hand

Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured."
The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.

Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."
The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.

Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."

Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.

Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."
The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.

Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"
The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn' t discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12).

Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").

Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?"
Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."

Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking):
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares. (Job 40:15-24).

This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
It had its strength in its hips.
Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
It had very strong bones.
Its habitat was among the trees.
Drank massive amounts of water.
His nose pierced through snares.
Then Scripture says, " . . . He that made him can make his sword approach to him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.

Psalm 8:8: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."
What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea." Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.

Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."
When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana's Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.

Amos 9:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name."
The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth.

Job 38:12, 14, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."
Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.

Psalm 19:4-6: "In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."
Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.

Job 38:22 (written 3,500 years ago). God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?"
It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure."

Genesis 2:1 (after creation): "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
The Hebrew word used here is the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" -- once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. It states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. There is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.

Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment." The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn't discovered by science until comparatively recently.
Genesis 17:12: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.

Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.

Isaiah 40:12 (written 2,800 years ago): "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . ."
We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.

Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place . . ."

Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north.

Isaiah 40:22 (written 2,800 years ago): "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."
Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain.

http://www.raycomfort.com/various/science/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top