Which side are you in?

Eriny Youssef · Post by **Eriny Youssef** » 04 Mar 2021, 10:44

I think I'm going to have to choose the third type. When it comes to such subjects, I believe it's key to be open to all interpretations, whatever agency it comes from. What you believe in you'll believe in, science and scriptures help understand, but they are never the source of belief, for me at least. It shouldn't boggle our mind if science disagrees, or if religion disagrees, it should just open a new perspective. This new standing broadens the mind to understand things better.

Fozia RYK · Post by **Fozia RYK** » 04 Mar 2021, 12:31

Science has verified the book of scriptures a bigger number of times than it wants to acknowledge. Nonetheless, science just goes similar to the human brain. Also, it is unarguable that there's more than meets the human brain (combined with science and our translation of the book of scriptures). So I figure each sane individual ought to, notwithstanding one of the previously mentioned gatherings, be in the fourth gathering.

friedmanndaniel · Post by **friedmanndaniel** » 04 Mar 2021, 17:32

Great points. this is what the sources predicted about our era!
The Zohar, which appeared about 800 years ago, prophesies:
In the six hundredth year of the sixth [millennium], the gateways of heavenly wisdom and the fountains of lower wisdom will be opened, and the world will be uplifted to prepare for the ascension of the seventh [millennium]...
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, expounding upon this verse, teaches:
Beginning from the year 5,600, or 1840 according to the secular calendar, the higher and lower waters opened. The lower waters are the wisdom of science. The higher waters are the wisdom of the Torah. The higher waters fertilize the lower waters, while the lower waters fertilize the higher waters. A great offspring will be born of the union of the two waters by the year 6,000 or 2240 according to the secular calendar, in time for the Messianic age.

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 04 Mar 2021, 19:46

Eriny Youssef wrote: ↑04 Mar 2021, 10:44 I think I'm going to have to choose the third type. When it comes to such subjects, I believe it's key to be open to all interpretations, whatever agency it comes from. What you believe in you'll believe in, science and scriptures help understand, but they are never the source of belief, for me at least. It shouldn't boggle our mind if science disagrees, or if religion disagrees, it should just open a new perspective. This new standing broadens the mind to understand things better.

You have a point there. What science said true sometime ago has been disproved by science ititself, today. There are facts that science cannot explain. Yet, that does not mean such entities do not exist or cannot be believed.

There are entities that religions give some sort of a different perspective. We cannot neither prove nor disprove them. But we can choose either to believe them or not.

So what we can do is either by scientific or religious means, when some new dimension is shown to us, to open our minds towards them and try to grab what is useful for us and let the remainder be there, because someone else might be interested in what we had no interest of.

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 04 Mar 2021, 19:50

Fozia RYK wrote: ↑04 Mar 2021, 12:31 Science has verified the book of scriptures a bigger number of times than it wants to acknowledge. Nonetheless, science just goes similar to the human brain. Also, it is unarguable that there's more than meets the human brain (combined with science and our translation of the book of scriptures). So I figure each sane individual ought to, notwithstanding one of the previously mentioned gatherings, be in the fourth gathering.

Well, since this fourth gathering is mentioned repeatedly, let's clarify about it by a bit.

I believe that this fourth group is for the ones who believe that there is a lot of content in various subjects, which are not apprehended by human brains so far. Some of them will be never apprehended.

But I think if you are telling that there are things that science do not see but can be seen through religions, then that does not sound like a new group, but the second group in my list of groups.

So, what should this fourth group members actually believe? Is it neither science nor religion, or science, religion, and something more?

EternalD · Post by **EternalD** » 05 Mar 2021, 07:37

VernaVi wrote: ↑02 Mar 2021, 02:00
Sushan wrote: ↑02 Mar 2021, 00:35
VernaVi wrote: ↑01 Mar 2021, 23:52 I would be in group three. I believe in the Bible as well as Science. I think they can and do go hand in hand, and that one proves the other because there have been so many proofs presented regarding the Bible by scientists over the years that exemplify the way this world is made, created, growing and evolving and prove out the Bible’s claims as well as its historical events over the many years.
What I see in the attempts of proving biblical teachings through science, it has been quite a reconciliation rather than an actual proving. The scientists who wanted to say that the bible is true have shown that some of the biblical events can be related to scientific facts amd events, but we can't understand them by merely reading the bible because of the riddle-like ways that they are written. The author of this book is trying to do the same, to reconcile the two, which I see as an attempt just to strengthen the bible.

At the same time, we have to keep in mind that some scientists have shown that the biblical events does not co-relate with the scientific evidence.
I'm not sure which scientific evidence to which you are referring that does not corroborate the bible, but I do know that science and archaeology have proven the bible true repeatedly with historic artifacts and evidence that is inarguable. It's amazing how history, science, and faith are so tied together.

Definitely. It is amazing how the bible describes some scientific phenomena that would be impossible to explain when the book was written.

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 05 Mar 2021, 09:36

friedmanndaniel wrote: ↑04 Mar 2021, 17:32 Great points. this is what the sources predicted about our era!
The Zohar, which appeared about 800 years ago, prophesies:
In the six hundredth year of the sixth [millennium], the gateways of heavenly wisdom and the fountains of lower wisdom will be opened, and the world will be uplifted to prepare for the ascension of the seventh [millennium]...
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, expounding upon this verse, teaches:
Beginning from the year 5,600, or 1840 according to the secular calendar, the higher and lower waters opened. The lower waters are the wisdom of science. The higher waters are the wisdom of the Torah. The higher waters fertilize the lower waters, while the lower waters fertilize the higher waters. A great offspring will be born of the union of the two waters by the year 6,000 or 2240 according to the secular calendar, in time for the Messianic age.

First of all, I don't know why they have named science as 'lower water'. Maybe because the wisdom in Torah came from the heaven (or believed as such).

And I can see that in some instances science 'fertilize' the religion. But how it is done in the other way round is unclear.

Science is a physical subject, but religion is a metaphysical subject. So I don't see how this 'great offspring' can unite these two subjects. By the way, by 2240 science will be in such a developed state that we can't even imagine today.

Brenda Creech · Post by **Brenda Creech** » 05 Mar 2021, 09:40

I am on the side of creation. Scientifically, the earth may be billions of years old, but it was only 6,000 years ago that life began on earth. God took a planet "without form and void" and created day, night, plants, rivers, oceans, animals, and man-kind. If there was a 'big bang' it was when God separated the waters from the land, or put the sun and moon in the heavens, etc!

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 05 Mar 2021, 09:40

EternalD wrote: ↑05 Mar 2021, 07:37
VernaVi wrote: ↑02 Mar 2021, 02:00
Sushan wrote: ↑02 Mar 2021, 00:35

What I see in the attempts of proving biblical teachings through science, it has been quite a reconciliation rather than an actual proving. The scientists who wanted to say that the bible is true have shown that some of the biblical events can be related to scientific facts amd events, but we can't understand them by merely reading the bible because of the riddle-like ways that they are written. The author of this book is trying to do the same, to reconcile the two, which I see as an attempt just to strengthen the bible.

At the same time, we have to keep in mind that some scientists have shown that the biblical events does not co-relate with the scientific evidence.
I'm not sure which scientific evidence to which you are referring that does not corroborate the bible, but I do know that science and archaeology have proven the bible true repeatedly with historic artifacts and evidence that is inarguable. It's amazing how history, science, and faith are so tied together.
Definitely. It is amazing how the bible describes some scientific phenomena that would be impossible to explain when the book was written.

To which book are you exactly referring to? Is it this book or the bible?

And I don't understand why people say that what science cannot explain can be explained by religion. Usually the areas that come undet this category are spirwand metaphysical stuff. Science cannot explain them because they cannot be subjected to experiment.

But how do religions explain them. Just by giving a spiritual explanation which can neither be rejected nor be accepted. And then the believers say that religion has explained it. And I don't see how logical that concept is.

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 05 Mar 2021, 10:44

B Creech wrote: ↑05 Mar 2021, 09:40 I am on the side of creation. Scientifically, the earth may be billions of years old, but it was only 6,000 years ago that life began on earth. God took a planet "without form and void" and created day, night, plants, rivers, oceans, animals, and man-kind. If there was a 'big bang' it was when God separated the waters from the land, or put the sun and moon in the heavens, etc!

Well it is a democratic world. So you can believe in whatever you prefer. But that implies that what scientists have found and proven through past hundreds of years is just a lie. And that means there were nothing ago 6000 years.

Then what about the 3.5 billion years old fossils of creatures that might have been dwelling on earth? Did they never exist? Or did God deceive the scientists?

Jessica045 · Post by **Jessica045** » 05 Mar 2021, 11:56

As much as I would love to be in the second group, I think I will side with the third group. This is because, over the years, science has been able to prove that most of the events in the Bible can be scientifically proven. Even the creation story now has a scientific theory attached to it.

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 05 Mar 2021, 12:17

Jessica045 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2021, 11:56 As much as I would love to be in the second group, I think I will side with the third group. This is because, over the years, science has been able to prove that most of the events in the Bible can be scientifically proven. Even the creation story now has a scientific theory attached to it.

Well, I won't say science has proven biblical teachings. Some preacher has gone to the extent of comparing science with biblical teachings and had claimed that bible is scientifically true (as this book does). And those who wanted to believe that, believed that. But I have never seen a scientist actually proving biblical content in the scientific manner.

I feel like you have to reconsider the group you feel like you belongs to

cd20 · Post by **cd20** » 05 Mar 2021, 16:04

I would be in group four, that the Bible and science can go hand in hand. I would believe the Bible over science.

ObianujuJane · Post by **ObianujuJane** » 05 Mar 2021, 16:49

I will be in group two because I believe in God but do not hold a grudge against scientific findings, neither will I discard the biblical teachings due to some findings.

Mariana Figueira · Post by **Mariana Figueira** » 05 Mar 2021, 20:44

I think this division is pretty decent, even if it's an oversimplification. I definitely fit in the first category, I firmly believe in the scientific approach and pretty much refuse everything the Bible says. I think a category that is missing is the people who are mostly uncertain about it, something like none of the above.