From Newsgroup: alt.bible
On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 21:20:49 -0800, Samuel Spade <
sam@spade.invalid>
wrote:
James wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 20:52:36 -0800, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote: >>
James wrote:
(snip)
James! You're just reposting your last post.
When you are dealing with the Bible, many times a Scripture can apply
to many subjects. So repetition is common.
You weren't just being repetitious, you reposted the whole post except
for a few added comments at the bottom.
When an answer is solid truth, I will likely repeat it.
I was trying to get you to say why you think there's no life beyond
earth?
So why do you think there's no life beyond earth?
If blind, deaf, and dumb evolution was real, then life should all
over the universe, and even in our back yard. High tech science has
been employed to try to find it in just about all the places we have
explored. So far it's the Bible A+, and evolution F-.
Do you accept the bible as an authoratative textbook of settled science? >> >>
Yes. for example the earth is round:
Ok. Remember you said that.
Now finally here's some new content...
-- New King James
Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its
inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like
a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The word "circle" there comes from the Hebrew word "hhug". Which
according to Davidson's Concordance means also "sphere".
Then why is it translated "circle" instead of "sphere"? Some
translations call it the horizon, which is probably what the author
meant. But not "sphere".
Because the first definition of the Hebrew word is "circle".
That's not a reason. It's so translated because the author was talking
about the horizon being circular, which it generally is. It was >metaphorical, it wasn't trying to say the earth is spherical.
They looked at the moon and the sun, and they are both fully circular.
So they didn't mean a partial circle, your attempt to deride the
circular statement. And if a religious reference work says "hhug" can
mean sphere, that is something to keep in mind. I settle with the
circle statement.
Someone in aa has posted a long list of OT and NT references to a flat
earth,
The Bible is loaded full of symbolism. Even today we may imply a flat
earth, but know otherwise. This was taken from an old NASA web page
that is no longer up:
"Electronic field-trips via television, print and telecomputing take
students on adventures to the ends of the Earth, to the bottom of the
oceans and out into space."
(http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/antarctica/passport.html)
That's obvious metaphor, and it's from advertising, not from an
authoratative scientific paper.
NASA is not authoritative? That's news to me.
So how do we tell the biblical "symbolism" from the authoratative
textbook of settled science parts?
Basically, look at the context, and closely related subjects.
geocentric cosmology. Seeing the whole earth from a mountain,
earth is fixed and immovable, & so on,
Notice:
"-- New American with Apocrypha
Luke 4:5 Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the
world in a single instant."
The Bible says Satan has certain powers. Obviously this was a vision
of some kind.
No, it wasn't about a vision. It describes Satan tempting Jesus to
worship him.
Then how did Satan show Jesus all the governments of the world
instantaneously?
Sorry, it wasn't a dream, or a manifestation, but had to be a vision.
In visions anything can happen.
Back then concerning the earth:
The Egyptians said it was supported by pillars.
The Greeks by Atlas.
In India by elephants.
Early mythology. The greeks knew better, see comment above.
But the Bible predates the Greeks. They could have even got from the
Bible in the first place.
The Bible:
-- New King James
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the
earth on nothing.
So to combine them: We have a spherical earth floating in a void in
space. Sound familiar?
Getting warmer, but what does the north (or northern skies) have to do
with anything?
The Bible uses the word "north" for several things. For example, it
can mean "left". When you are facing sunrise, north is left. In this
example, it means the northern sky.
No, north means north. Especially if you are writing an authoratative >textbook of settled science.
Which is not what the Bible is. But since it claims to be from God, it
contains all truths.
And what does "over empty space" mean? There's no "over" in space. Not
convincing as scientific insight.
There should be "over" in space. What about when a probe flies over a
planet?
Then it's not "over empty space".
It depends on how tricky you get with the word "empty". We now know
that 'empty' space really contains various forms of energy of one kind
and another. So you are still "over" some matter."
It's not proper science at all. You are trying to have it both ways, >claiming the bible is scientific when it's right and that it's
"symbolism" when it's wrong.
The Bible isn't wrong scientifically. I still waiting for science to
catch up with the Bible. Where do you say the Bible is wrong?
And what about that firmament?
When Genesis says it divides the waters from the waters, at first
there was waters on the earth's surface, and also a water canopy
surrounding the planet, much like Venus. But Venus has basically
carbon dioxide clouds, whereas the earth had thick water vapor clouds.
When God separated the waters from the waters, he created an
ATMOSPHERE. That is what the "firmament" is. My best translation
doesn't say the King James "firmament", but an "expanse". (Gen 1:6-8;
NWT)
Firmament is just another biblical concept that makes no sense given
what we know today.
You mean given the THEORIES we have today.
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. Genesis 1:1.
Scientists agree it had a beginning with the Big Bang.
The BB is incompatible with Genesis, like all of modern cosmology.
I was not focusing on the activities of the Big Bang, just that it
shows the universe had a starting point, a beginning, as the Big Bang
testifies to. But that is as far as it goes with the Bible. True Bible
followers don't believe in the Big Bang. (that's another subject)
You're saying, IOW, Genesis is proven right because the BB agrees the >universe had a beginning, but BB theory is proven wrong because it
diverges from Genesis from there.
It would be really impressive if Genesis explained the cosmic microwave >background.
It also doesn't mention black holes either. There is a million things
that religious book don't go into. Rather it focuses on how to get our
sins forgiven and have a chance for eternal life.
- New King James
1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of
the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from
another star in glory.
Scientists now know that there are blue stars, yellow ones, white
dwarfs, neutron stars, and others.-
Simple observation you can see at night. No science there. But we do
know now that the sun is also a star, and planets are not.
Yes, planets reflect light, whereas stars generate light. But that is
not a bad description of stars for farmers and shepherds in
non-scientific nomenclature.
But wait... you quoted that as an authoratative textbook of settled
science.
Yes, I believe it tells the truth. Now it's just a not-bad symbolic
description for farmers and
shepherds in non-scientific nomenclature?
Can't be both at once.
Yes it can. When it touches on some science, what it says is true.
Centuries before naturalists were aware of migration, Jeremiah wrote
(seventh century B.C.E.) "The stork in the sky knows the time to
migrate, the dove and the swift and the wryneck know the season of
return."-Jeremiah 8:7, The New English Bible.
Ditto. That's just the author waxing poetic.
That's being literal, and discussing migration thousands of years
before Ornithologists came on the scene.
You didn't quote the whole verse. The context is warning people not to
turn from God.
If you want to change subjects you can do that. I like to stick to the
subject at hand, which sometimes involves partial Scriptures.
We have the example of Jesus, who at times quoted part of verses that
supported his statement.
Even in the iron age, people could see that birds migrate at a certain
time. It's allegory, not a scientific revelation.
Migrations are not allegory. They are real biological happenings.
A thousand years before Christ, Solomon wrote in figurative language
about the circulation of the blood. (Ecclesiastes 12:6) Medical
science did not understand it until the 15th century C.E.
Nothing about blood there.
It's all about the human body in non-technical terms:
-- Living Bible
Ecclesiastes 12:6 Yes, remember your Creator now while you are young,
before the silver cord of life snaps, and the gold bowl is broken, and
the pitcher is broken at the fountain, and the wheel is broken at the
cistern;
These are all things of the body that can kill you.
Since the writer didn't explain those terms, this is the best details.
The silver cord can be the spinal cord. If it snaps, you are usually
dead. The Golden bowl is your brain. It lies in a bowl-like structure,
and if it is cracked open, bye, bye.
The pitcher broke at the fountain can be the heart. It receives the
flow of blood and sends it out again for circulation throughout the
body. The wheel at the cistern is the circulation of the blood. If the
circulation stops, so do you.
This is a reach. The author was clearly not thinking of blood or spinal >cords. No medical information here.
You are guessing on that. If what they represent is true, then the
writer was obviously thinking of those things. You don't like it,
because it doesn't use 21st century technical science words.
The Mosaic Law (16th century B.C.E.) reflected awareness of disease
germs thousands of years before Pasteur.-Leviticus, chapters 13, 14.
No it didn't.
The way it's worded doesn't say that knew there was germs, but were
aware something physical was going on.
Well as far a medical knowledge way back yonder,, the Egyptians used
feces to cover certain wounds as a healing agent. Blood letting was
also common with non-Israelite nations. (the disease was in the blood)
It only prescribed hygiene. Like women being outcast
when they had their period.
Notice this explanation:
"The reproductive organs were made to pass on perfect human life.
However, because of the inherited effects of sin, imperfect and sinful
life was thus passed on to offspring. The temporary periods of
'uncleanness' associated with childbirth, menstruation and seminal
emissions called this hereditary sinfulness to mind. (Leviticus
15:16-24; Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12". (from JW literature)
Menstruation is natural. The uncleanness is in the eye of the ignorant >patriarchal beholder. A chair does not become unclean if a menstruating >woman sits in it. This is all pointless superstition.
Blood can carry bad germs. It would be wise not to intermingle with a
woman in menstruation. It was a protection.
Christians today are no longer under those Mosaic Laws. There are no
purification ceremonies needed any longer, since Jesus ransom now
covers all of them. There is no sin in having children, and in fact,
children are called a "reward" from God:
Are you saying Jesus died to redeem women from medical quarantine due to >menstruation?\
Jesus died for our sins. Menstruation is not a sin in the Bible. And
God's servants are no longer under those Mosaic Laws.
Today, women just grab a tampon, then go along with their daily chores
etc.
The creation account of Genesis is accurate biology-testified to by
the fossil record and by modern genetics-when it says that each family
kind was to reproduce "according to its kind."-Genesis 1:12, 21, 25.
Genesis had the order of creation wrong, eg land animals created before
sea life, days before sun.
That is not I have read. Evolution says that life started in a sort of
primordial ocean soup. Genesis shows that the oceans were created
first. (Gen 1:1,2)
Genesis claims God created the earth first, then land plants, then the
stars, then marine life and birds, then other land animals. We now know
this sequence is incorrect.
Yes, the way you worded it is not correct. The Biblical sequence is:
But first let me mention Gen 1:1. It says God created the heavens and
the earth. Thus, after verse 1, the sun is shinning brightly, and so
are the stars. But the earth is in some kind of raw state.
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Also compare the creation account in Genesis with the creation account
of the ancient Babylonians. (I don't recall if I mentioned this
before, but if not here it is)
The Babylonian creation account says the god Apsu along with the
goddess Tiamat created other gods. Apsu later on didn't like these
other gods and tried to kill them, but he ended up getting killed by
the god Ea. Tiamat was upset at the killing of Apsu and thus tried to
kill Ea. Instead, Ea's son Marduk killed her. Marduk split her body in
half, and with one half made the sky and the other half made the
earth. Marduk then with the help of Ra, made mankind from the blood of
the god, Kingu.
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that Genesis had
access to information that the rest of humanity (at least the
Babylonians, and none other than I ever read about) did not have at
that time.
Thus, the Bible does not contradict itself concerning the creation
account nor is out of harmony with true science, but when investigated
shows a logical and reasonable way those things happened.
(snip)
Not to mention the flood.
What is amazing if no global flood really happened, is that most
cultures have flood stories in their background. If no flood, why all
the stories? Something had to trigger them!
Every culture has stories about talking animals too. It must be true!
Oh really! I am not aware that many other cultures had stories of
talking animals. But I have investigated the Deluge.
The genetic blueprint in the fertilized human egg cell contains
programs for all the bodily parts before any hint of their presence.
Compare Psalm 139:16: "Your eyes [Jehovah's] saw even the embryo of
me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards
the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."
Not very useful or actionable information, but ok.
You are not thinking like a non-technical person. Back then those who
I'm thinking like the reader of an authoratative textbook of settled
science. Remember? You are trying to convince people that this is an >example of science.
It absolutely is. Since it is not a scientific textual journal, you
can't expect it to go into specific details.
followed the Bible, now know that there was certain steps involved in
the formation of human life. And God could read those steps before
birth, since He is the Creator of genetics.
Likewise, about 800aB.C.E. the prophet Amos, a humble shepherd and
farmworker, wrote that Jehovah is othe One calling for the waters of
the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth.o
(Amos 5:8) Without using complex, technical language, both Solomon and
Amos accurately described the water cycle, each from a slightly
different perspective...." (2005 Watchtower, 4/1)
Not a big revelation that water evaporates from the sea and falls as
rain, but ok, i'll give you that one too.
Gee thanks, I'll take it.
People logically saw rivers emptying into a sea, yet the sea never
overflowed. So the Bible helped with that.
Except the sea did overflow when God wanted to kill everyone.
What about all the nations that want to kill bad criminals?
The Bible says at that time that the earth people were extra wicked.
And that they did bad things all the time. God did a judgment on them,
so they paid with their lives, except for those in the ark.
Is that
settled science, or allegorical?
It is Bible truths.
Why didn't God tell them about heliocentrism,
That's an unfair question. I have told you before that the Bible is
primarily dealt with religion. Why didn't the writer of Moby Dick
write about germ theory?
The Bible doesn't discuss our solar system or a million other topics.
It mainly discuss spiritual things, since that is its purpose.
or to cook pork
That's part of your million topics not written about.
thoroughly, or not to practice bloodletting,
You will have to show me any Scriptures mentioning such things. I am
not aware of any.
or how to make steel?
Or how to create automobiles, which beats using animals for
locomotion. But animals are better for the environment.
Sure, that's the idea. Or AI, or spooky quantum stuff.
How complex is the whole universe? If He did, the Bible would be
toooooo large for anyone to read it.
Is there any technical or scientific content in the bible that people
don't know yet?
Yes, what the end is going to look like.
Does
the bible have any scientific insight about things we don't already know
yet?
Well, if we discuss Jesus healings and powers, we don't know how he
used some laws of physics we don't know about. Just one example that
comes to mind is Jesus stopping a storm from capsizing a boat that he and his
apostles were in. They all thought they were doomed, but Jesus saved
them. Did Jesus tap into a law of weather physics we don't know about
yet?
Or, did Jesus simply do some magic?
Do you think magic miracles have any mechanistic stuff going on under
the hood? In today's miracles yes. But way back then, no.
Is it comprehensible to humans?
God's ways can be mysterious, and we will never know all about Him.
Thanks again for your reply.
Any time.
"What the Universe Tells Us About a Creator
The universe and the earth seem to be designed to make life possible.
Could they be that way because they were designed?
Find Out". See jw.org (1/29/2026)
James:
zebrabible@proton.me
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2