Are there scientific references in the Bible / the Hoy Tanakh? Here are some things one can say to atheists.?
Because "Yahoo Answers" only allows 1000 characters in a question, I am going to let my friend "Mare-ga'al" show the things I want said in the answer column. Please look below for his comments, then answer.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I am a Jewish man constantly defending my Holy Tanakh. I loathe the fact that many upon many so called "believers" don't read and study before opening their mouth to speak as they think they are representing my holy Tanakh correctly.
First off, what is your definition of "science?" Is it theories or is it reality? I ask this question because if it is just "theories" that's like me, a Jew, trying to convert a person that believes the "kool aid" doctrine of the Catholics from 325 CE, at the Nicene Council, away from their beliefs that the God of Israel is a trinity. Meaning - its very hard to convert someone over to something if they are convinced that their nonsense is true. For man was made in HaShem's image. Thus, when you look at your fellow man this is what HaShem looks like, yet - obviously - flawless and glorious and the like. For this is what Daniel says, "As I looked.... the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of His head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze (Dan 7:9)." Regarding His holy son, naturally a prince, he sits at the right hand of the ONLY GOD, "Yehowah said unto my [David talking] master, 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (Psalm 110)."
Let us move on to facts and not to the atheistic theories that are out there. For if you don't its just a battle of the mind. However, the true representative of the Tanakh can always be victorious over those that have doubt, because it is factual.
1. When young David went to fight Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 he
picked up "smooth" stones. Why? Its because of the better
aerodynamics of the "smooth" stones vs. those that are
cornered or rigid. For smooth stones fly straighter than those
that have corners. For the edged or cornered stones fling off
to the side, thus one can never really predict where it will go.
However, with smooth stones you will at least know where the
stones will go - as long as your accuracy is good. Remember,
David already killed a lion and a bear while tending his family's
flock, thus he was already experienced with using the sling.
2. And Adam knew his wife and she begat Cain, Abel and Seth.
That science is still true to this day. Put your seed within your
wife and lo and baby is conceived.
3. On every, not some either, high and low mountain peak there
are water table lines as if the whole world was deluged at one
point in the past. These markings are a forever reminder that
HaShem rid the world of it evil inhabitants by the means of a
massive flood that lasted over a year, read Genesis again!
4. Solomon said, "Cast your bread upon the waters, for after
many days you will find it again." What in the world is
Solomon saying here? Well, he is saying the same thing that
is said in Psalm 8, "what is man that you are mindful of
him....You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you
put everything under his feet.... the fish of the sea, all that
swim the paths of the seas." Namely the words "paths of the
Though the "white man" claims this, according to
Wikipedia.com: "Major James Rennell F.R.S. (12/03/1742 -
03/29,/1830) was an English geographer, historian and a
pioneer of oceanography....... During the extraordinary long
voyage around the Cape of Good Hope he mapped "the banks
and currents at the Lagullas" and published in 1778 the work
about what is today called the Agulhas Current. This was
one of the first contributions to the science of Oceanography."
Meaning: they think that "James Rennell" was the first to find
out about "ocean currents." Yet, it is clear that the ancient
Hebrews and the people of Tarshish knew about them long
before the birth of James Rennell, for that is what the Psalms
and Solomon is referring to. Thus, real science. Or, Should I
say - observations.
5. It is said that the people in the medieval times, possibly before,
thought that the world was flat. Well, we Jewish people never
taught that with several proofs to back it up.
a. First off our calendar is based on the sun and moon, not just
the sun. We use the sun for seasons and for determining our
new year. Meaning: in our calendar it is only after the sun hits
or goes past the spring equinox (the sun going north) can we
then start the new year. However, the new year will actually
start after the first sunset following the exact timing of the
"New Moon." All that being said, when this exact timing of
the "New Moon" took place, sometimes there would be an
eclipse and we would see this. Well, [finally getting to my
point] at the full moon, always the 14th or 15th day of our
month there would sometimes me a moon eclipse. In those
moon eclipses we can clearly see that our earth was as round
as the moon, because the earth's shadow would be on the
moon during these time. Meaning: we can see the silhouette
of the earth on the surface of the moon.
b. Because of (a.) it was proven to us why we could no longer
see the earth in the horizon when standing on a mountain
peak somewhere, for the earth seemed to just drop off. For we
knew it was the curvature of the earth.
c. Lastly, the Holy Tanakh says in Isaiah 40:22, "He sits
enthroned above the circle of the earth." Meaning: above its
6. What about "continental drift?"
Scientists, by using a theory vs. using any proof for their
thoughts, say that "Continental drift" took place over a period
of several millions of years by the so called "fact" that the
different continents moved over this period. Yet, amazingly
enough, in our holy Torah - which was uttered by prophets and
seers - talks about this very subject. Yet, how could they do
such a thing since they did not have any satellites or airplanes
to look down from the sky to see that the continents look like
broken pottery one could glue back together. Here is what the
holy prophets wrote, "Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and
Shelah the father of Eber. Two sons were born to Eber: One
was named Peleg, because in his [Eber's - when his wife was
pregnant] time the earth was divided (Genesis/Bereshit 10:24
Thus, the prophets said that this divide took place in minutes,
not over millions of years. Why did this occur? You might ask.
This occurred after the flood and the people built a city in
Shinar, in modern day Iraq, in a place called Babylon, which
comes from "Babel." For before those events, all manner of
flesh [animals and men] had the same language and there was
only one race among men and there was only
one land mass. When the people sinned for not "spreading
throughout the earth" HaShem did it for them.
Now on a footnote: the English name, "Eber" - I just mentioned
is where we get the word, "Hebrew" in the English. For in
Hebrew, the Hebrews [in English] are literally "Eberites [in
Hebrew]." Thus, the people of Moab, Ishmael, Laban, Jethro
are also "Hebrews," but all "Hebrews" are not Jews, nor
Well that good for now,
Shalom my friend,
For more truth, go to:
- Anonymous1 decade ago
1. ‘Theory’ – in the philosophy of science – is an explicitly defined concept that has a strict meaning in a specific epistemological context.
If you do not know what it is then you are scientifically illiterate and are not qualified to discuss any philosophical or methodological aspects of science.
2. Atheism is not a ‘theory’; it is a disbelief in
This is a very simple concept. If you do not understand it then you are not well-informed enough to discuss broader philosophical or socio-behavioral issues related to it.
Therefore, your ‘points’ would be irrelevant even if they were not logically strained, intellectually pathetic, and laughable – which they are.
1. It is not my definition of ‘theory’; it is the ‘scientific’ definition of theory.
How typically ‘conservative’ – you lack the education and ability to comprehend or conduct science so you try to change the ground rules and redefine things to suit your purpose. It is not only intellectually lame, but dishonest as well (another foundation of conservative thought and behavior).
2. This statement: "because you are not a soldier, you have no right to speak about war." is not something a liberal would think or say, but it is something a conservative might.
3. The ‘things written’ are so easily dismissed that using the word ‘challenge’ gives them more value than they really are worth. It’s a pathetic joke – as several of the Answerers have noted. It is something to laugh at, not take seriously.
Speaking of which - You never took that whole ‘education thing’ seriously, huh?
- 1 decade ago
You sound like a typical "liberal." Someone that cannot even address anything - constantly avoiding the conversation to give an "opinion." You write off everything on the basis that "your" definition of "theory" was challenged. Yet, you do not have the courage to give an honest debate, nor answer to anything here.
As mentioned, you sound like the typical liberal that says things like this, "because you are not a soldier, you have no right to speak about war."
You wasted internet storage space to say nothing in debate.
In truth, it is people such as yourself who have a "high-nose" against all others; yet - in truth - you are brought low because of the display of your open ignorance vs. anything of true intellectual thinking. Try challenging the things written next time; or, is that beneath you?
You say, "you are using the bible to validate the bible."
Wrong!!! Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. Another problem with liberalism - selective reading and hearing.
To shame you, this is what "Mare-ga'al" said on line 29-30, "it is factual," not just biblical. Again, this is what Mare-ga'al said that these things are "observations" on line 28 of #4.
For your info my dear lady - observations are NOT JUST biblical. It would behoove you to get out of your liberal textbooks and go outside for a change and "SEE" if they are not all true!!!
There is not a single non-observational thing that
mare-ga'al has written. All are literal facts of life. He did not say anything contrary to literal facts and literal observations. He, therefore, presented real science - NOT just thoughts as scientists give about many things. Notice I said, "many," not "ALL."
blessings on "HaShem's servant."
shalom from a fellow Jew that bumped into this question.
In fact, I can add to the things they write.
Such as, "lifeless things cannot beget life." This is why nothing grows on the other planets. There is only water, dirt and gas and combustion.
Likewise, as we can see by observance = we can cross breed different species within the cow family, as well as the goat family, the deer family; this is the case even of plants - like the tomato family, of corn and....
Meaning, a bell pepper can cross breed with a cayenne pepper; and therefore, produce a "cay-bell" or "bell-enne."
But, a pepper cannot cross breed out of it own specie or family. This is the same with monkeys and cows.
Thus, man was NEVER a monkey, even though we might have similar features.
Thus, the pagan "Darwin" is debunked by "observation." What Darwin observed in the Galapagos Islands was the cross-breeding of birds with the same family, NOT that he saw a half lizard and half bird.
Stop being full of yourself, and next time answer the question, or just don't bother.
Shalom to all
- Anonymous1 decade ago
wow...that was horrible! It proved nothing but your ability to stretch phrases in the Bible into being equivalent to scientific theories. David most likely chose smooth stones because he knew that they went straight, as did the writers, not because they understood aerodynamics, the bread tossed on the water could just be tossed onto STILLWATER, rather than the ocean, and would remain because it is not moving. Paths of the sea could just refer to ships moving across it, rather than actual currents. Everyone would know from experience how to procreate, the flood argument is specious, at best (though it is the most convincing you've given). I do not see how "dividing the earth" could not equally apply to cultural or national divisons, division of the earth from non-earth (sky, sea, what have you), though continental drift did not happen in days...that is just more absurd than anything I have ever heard, EVER! And I've been on here a lot....
Apparently these findings regarding a round earth weren't enough to convince Christians, though...
Overall, poor quality. Thanks, though!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- wondermusLv 51 decade ago
Wow! I read your friends first couple of list items. Picking smooth stones to throw, and impregnating your wife. Boy that's some high fallutin' science you got there in that there Tanakh.
- mzJakesLv 71 decade ago
How about statements in the bible that the only species with split hooves that does not chew its cud is the pig (in all its varieties) or that there are fish with fins and no scales but none with scales and no fins.
There are many more.
- GreenLv 71 decade ago
None that are original. It describes some features of the world, but such things were known at that time.. Even then, those are not scientific.
- AlanLv 71 decade ago
I am no expert - but everytime I have heard someone make a scientific statement from the bible - it turned out to be a big joke.
But if you have something - I would be willing to listen.
- Fancy ThatLv 61 decade ago
there are lots of scientific parallels in the bible that match science. For instance, the order of creation in genesis pretty much follows. A single land mass that split, evolution of the simpliest forms of life, from plants to animals to humans.
Also, when God rejected Cain's offering of produce, but accepted Able's offering of mean. Anthropologists have argued that humanities modern problems occured when cultures gave up hunting for agriculture. The population increased and social classes developed, along with the idea of personal ownership.
Carl Segan equated the human primitive brain (where anger, lust, greed, power reside) to the 'serpant in the Garden of Eden. He also pointed out that women's increased pain in child birth was a result of large brains (i.e. gaining knowlege).
Personally, I don't have a conflict between science and sprituality. God is the ultimate scientist.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
hahaha, this is hilarious!
Again, you morons are using the bible to validate, the bible.
Oh and a quick heads up, there are no "Atheist theories". We don't believe in god(s). Thats it.
- H.u.SLv 51 decade ago
mare-ga'al ben Yaakov! Amazing! That has convinced me. I'm converting. Where do I sign up?Source(s): :sigh: