Science
VIEW:24 DATA:01-04-2020
SCIENCE.The word science occurs in AV [Note: Authorized Version.] only twice (Dan_1:4, 1Ti_6:20), and in both places it simply means knowledge; as in Barlowes Dialoge, p. 109, There is no truthe, no mercye, nor scyence of god in the yerth.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
gnoosis, rather "knowledge falsely so-called" (1Ti_6:20). There was a true "knowledge," a charism or "gift" of the Spirit, abused by some (1Co_8:1; 1Co_12:8; 1Co_13:2; 1Co_14:6). This was counterfeited by false teachers, as preeminently and exclusively theirs (Col_2:8; Col_2:18; Col_2:23). Hence arose creeds, "symbols" (sumbola), i.e. watchwords whereby the orthodox might distinguish one another from the heretical; traces of such a creed appear in 1Ti_3:16; 2Ti_1:13-14.
The germs of the pretended gnoosis were not developed into full blown gnosticism until the second century. True knowledge (epignoosis, "full accurate knowledge") Paul valued (Php_1:9; Col_2:3; Col_3:10). He did not despise, but utilizes, secular knowledge (Php_4:8; Act_17:28, etc.); and the progress made in many of the sciences as well as in the arts (as in that of design, manifested in the vases and other works of that description), was evidently very great.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
sı̄?ens: This word as found in the King James Version means simply ?knowledge.? ?Science? occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Dan_1:4, ?children ... understanding science? (דעת ידעי, yōdhe‛ēdha‛ath, ?those who understand science?). The meaning of the term here is ?knowledge,? ?wisdom.? The only other occurrence of ?science? is in the New Testament (1Ti_6:20, ?avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so called,? τῆς ψευδωνύμον γνώσεως, tḗs pseudōnúmou gnṓseōs, ?the falsely called gnōsis?). ?Science? is the translation of the Greek gnōsis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered ?knowledge.? The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted. It was an incipient form of Gnosticism, and it prevailed to a considerable extent in the churches of proconsular Asia, e.g. in Colosse and Ephesus. Timothy is put on his guard against the teaching of this gnōsis falsely so called, for it set itself in opposition to the gospel. See GNOSTICISM.
?Science? in the modern sense of the word, as the discovery and orderly classification and exposition of the phenomena and of the laws of Nature, is not found either in the Old Testament or the New Testament unless the passage in Daniel be interpreted as meaning the scientific knowledge which the learned men of Babylon possessed of mathematics and astronomy, etc. See also Act_7:22. To the Hebrew mind all natural phenomena meant the working of the hand of God in the world, directly and immediately, without the intervention of any secondary laws.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
(מַדַּע, madda; Dan_1:4, knowledge, as elsewhere rendered). In one passage only (1Ti_6:20) this word has also been given by our translators as the equivalent of the Greek term γνῶσις, a word which is used about thirty times in the New Test., but which in all other passages is properly rendered knowledge. It doubtless here refers to the so called gnosis, or that affectation of spiritual knowledge which set itself in array against the Gospel of Christ, and which boasted of its superior insight into the nature of things. It was from this sort of pretentious knowing that the Gnostics derived their name and they were among the earliest corrupters of the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. SEE GNOSTICS. Many readers have erroneously supposed that Paul is speaking of something else than the knowledge of which both the Judaizing and the mystic sects of the apostolic age continually boasted, against which he so urgently warns men (1Co_8:1; 1Co_8:7), the counterfeit of the true knowledge which he prizes so highly (1Co_12:8; 1Co_13:2; Php_1:9; Col_3:10). It was not until after the accession of David that the Jews became remarkable for their intellectual culture; but the patriarchs probably possessed a considerable knowledge of practical astronomy SEE ASTRONOMY, such as is still popular among pastoral tribes, probably corrupting it by an admixture of judicial astrology. SEE ASTROLOGY.
The literature of the Hebrews was chiefly limited to ethics, religion, the history of their nation, and to natural history, on which Solomon wrote several treatises no longer extant. If the phenomena mentioned in Scripture had been described with the accuracy of modern physical science, they would have been unintelligible to the persons for whose use the sacred writings were originally designed. The most numerous references to Oriental science occur in the book of Job (see Schmidt, Biblischer Physikus [Zullichau, 1731, 1748]).
In modern times the appeal of rationalists and semi-infidels has especially been to the discoveries of science, especially geology (q.v.), as militating against the Bible; but in every instance a careful and candid comparison has shown their compatibility. SEE INTERPRETATION, BIBLICAL SCIENCE AND REVELATION. It is an undeniable fact that there is a Controversy between scientists and theologians, but we propose to answer in this article the question, Is there any antagonism between science and revelation? It may be well to define the position which some of the most distinguished scientists take, and which they claim to be alone tenable. Prof. Huxley says, There is but one kind of knowledge, and but one method of acquiring it; that that kind of knowledge makes scepticism the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin. He describes all faith as blind which accepts anything on any kind of authority but that of scientific experience. He describes true religion as worship for the most part of the silent sort,' at the altar of the Unknown and Unknowable, and proclaims justification, not by faith, but by verification, as the gospel of modern science (Lay Sermon, read at St. Martin's Hall, London, and published in the Fortnightly Review, Jan, 15, 1866). He further says that the improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such, and maintains that the method of the inductive sciences is the only method by which any human creature can arrive at any sort of truth. The natural consequence is that such men find themselves opposed to revelation, which assumes that man by searching cannot find all truth, and therefore teaches what is, otherwise, unknown and unknowable. Many scientists assert that their investigations prove the falsity of the statements and teachings of Scripture. That the conclusions of scientists may not harmonize with what they believe to be the teachings of Scripture we readily admit; but that the real facts taught in the one contradict, antagonize, those revealed by the other we as unhesitatingly deny. In fact, revelation, as we hope to show, really has no controversy with science. Let us glance at some of the alleged contradictions.
1. Genesis. The first chapters of this book have been the great bone of contention, theologians having been wont to assume that Moses asserts the formation of the entire universe, or at least of our own globe, with all its internal and superficial furniture, in six literal days; while scientists at present in the main contend for an immense period of astronomical and geological eras, which they claim that they read in the nebular reductions, the rocky strata, and the vital evolutions. But a close inspection of the phraseology of Moses shows that he has not committed himself to either of these opposite opinions. He Simply states in Col_3:1 the fact of God's creation of our own planet and its solar system, substantially as they now exist, without specifying any particulars as to the time, mode, or order of the process; and in the following verses he narrates successive stages of a subsequent special creation of the present vegetable and animal tribes, either over the earth generally or possibly in a particular locality only. The Bible and modern science thus appear to be discoursing upon two entirely different subjects, and cannot possibly contradict each other.
2. The Antiquity of Man. The questions of the antiquity and unity of the human race upon the earth are indeed more explicitly touched upon in the Bible, but modern science has hitherto adduced nothing adequate to overthrow the Biblical testimony. Presumptions to the contrary, it is true, have been raised in some quarters by certain phenomena; but these admit of so ready an explanation on other grounds, and are rebutted by so many other facts, that scientists at large still hold fast to the opinion that man is of comparatively recent origin, and must have sprung from a single family.
3. The Flood. The universality of Noah's flood as to the surface of the globe, although we admit the first inference from the Biblical account, is found on a closer examination not to be necessarily intended by its language; and a consideration of its uselessness and impracticability for the mere purpose of drowning a few thousands in a particular locality induced expositors to limit its prevalence long before the modern scientific objections were thought of.
4. The Resurrection, etc. The doctrine of the survival of the soul after death, and of the resurrection of the body, are coming more and more to be seen to be not only not incompatible with physiological science, but to be almost necessary deductions from psychological and metaphysical reasoning, even apart from revelation. If the miraculous element be admitted into nature, and hard facts demand its occasional intervention, as well as its primal impulse, all difficulty on physical grounds vanishes from these problems of the future world. The imperceptible but frequent renewal of the material organism actually furnishes a striking illustration of the continuity of identity in the midst of apparent dissolution and atomic change.
5. Alleged Unscientific Statements. But it is said that certain specific statements of Scripture are shown by science to be false. For instance, in natural history the coney and the hare are classed with the ruminants (Lev_11:5-6; Deu_14:7), whereas in fact they have no cud; and the ant with non-hybernating insects (Pro_6:6-8; Pro_30:25), whereas in truth it lies torpid all winter. The answer to this is that the Scripture writers give a correct account of an actual phenomenon, although their descriptions are not couched in scientific terms. Their language is always optical, i.e. in accordance with the exterior or apparent phenomena. As, in the case of the hare, they undoubtedly refer to the constant motions of the lips, which seems like chewing the cud. They were not mistaken as to the fact which they meant to state, nor do they use language which when properly interpreted conveys a false impression. If their hearers or readers already had an impression scientifically erroneous in some respects, they were not bound to correct that impression, provided it did not interfere with the purpose or truth which they had in view. Popular language always uses this liberty, but it is not therefore chargeable with untruth. Science is simply systematized knowledge, and therein it differs from popular or general information. The facts remain the same both to the scientific and unscientific man; they are only viewed in a different light and with different associations.
The Biblical writers, of course, having no scientific notions or standpoint after the Baconian school, ignore its nomenclature, and express themselves in the plain language of fact or sensible phenomena. They broach no theories, they employ no technical terms; they confine themselves to actual things in their phenomenal forms. This is a universal rule with them. Hence they seem to disagree with science whenever its rigid canon of verbal precision is applied to them, for of course their vocabulary is different; but the dispute is about words only, while the things meant are identically the same. The sacred writers, in scholastic phrase, if you please, use solecisms in grammar inelegancies in rhetoric, the argumentum ad hominem in logic, an unscientific terminology throughout for such was their vernacular; but they never fall into error as to matter of fact. The conflict between science and revelation, when carefully scrutinized, is seen to be only a disagreement between particular theories of particular scientists and particular interpretations of particular passages of Scripture. And, furthermore, when the scientific principle of thought is compared with the theological, or the unveiling of the Holy Ghost to men, they are found to be on two absolutely different planes, and unable, properly compared, to clash with each other. The fundamental error of the scientists of our day is in their method. It is mechanical, external, superficial, false. They exalt the senses, which are the mere servitors of mind, into the mind's masters, and terrible is the bondage to which they thus doom the spirit of man. Admit that mind is a force, and that there is an infinite mind, and then that in Scripture which to many scientists is most objectionable, viz. the miraculous, becomes natural and easy of belief. The main body of scientists of the present day are firm believers in Christianity, and science has no warmer advocates than are to be found among Christian believers. SEE REASON AND RELIGION.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
gnoosis, rather "knowledge falsely so-called" (1Ti_6:20). There was a true "knowledge," a charism or "gift" of the Spirit, abused by some (1Co_8:1; 1Co_12:8; 1Co_13:2; 1Co_14:6). This was counterfeited by false teachers, as preeminently and exclusively theirs (Col_2:8; Col_2:18; Col_2:23). Hence arose creeds, "symbols" (sumbola), i.e. watchwords whereby the orthodox might distinguish one another from the heretical; traces of such a creed appear in 1Ti_3:16; 2Ti_1:13-14.
The germs of the pretended gnoosis were not developed into full blown gnosticism until the second century. True knowledge (epignoosis, "full accurate knowledge") Paul valued (Php_1:9; Col_2:3; Col_3:10). He did not despise, but utilizes, secular knowledge (Php_4:8; Act_17:28, etc.); and the progress made in many of the sciences as well as in the arts (as in that of design, manifested in the vases and other works of that description), was evidently very great.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
sı̄?ens: This word as found in the King James Version means simply ?knowledge.? ?Science? occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Dan_1:4, ?children ... understanding science? (דעת ידעי, yōdhe‛ēdha‛ath, ?those who understand science?). The meaning of the term here is ?knowledge,? ?wisdom.? The only other occurrence of ?science? is in the New Testament (1Ti_6:20, ?avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so called,? τῆς ψευδωνύμον γνώσεως, tḗs pseudōnúmou gnṓseōs, ?the falsely called gnōsis?). ?Science? is the translation of the Greek gnōsis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered ?knowledge.? The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted. It was an incipient form of Gnosticism, and it prevailed to a considerable extent in the churches of proconsular Asia, e.g. in Colosse and Ephesus. Timothy is put on his guard against the teaching of this gnōsis falsely so called, for it set itself in opposition to the gospel. See GNOSTICISM.
?Science? in the modern sense of the word, as the discovery and orderly classification and exposition of the phenomena and of the laws of Nature, is not found either in the Old Testament or the New Testament unless the passage in Daniel be interpreted as meaning the scientific knowledge which the learned men of Babylon possessed of mathematics and astronomy, etc. See also Act_7:22. To the Hebrew mind all natural phenomena meant the working of the hand of God in the world, directly and immediately, without the intervention of any secondary laws.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
(מַדַּע, madda; Dan_1:4, knowledge, as elsewhere rendered). In one passage only (1Ti_6:20) this word has also been given by our translators as the equivalent of the Greek term γνῶσις, a word which is used about thirty times in the New Test., but which in all other passages is properly rendered knowledge. It doubtless here refers to the so called gnosis, or that affectation of spiritual knowledge which set itself in array against the Gospel of Christ, and which boasted of its superior insight into the nature of things. It was from this sort of pretentious knowing that the Gnostics derived their name and they were among the earliest corrupters of the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. SEE GNOSTICS. Many readers have erroneously supposed that Paul is speaking of something else than the knowledge of which both the Judaizing and the mystic sects of the apostolic age continually boasted, against which he so urgently warns men (1Co_8:1; 1Co_8:7), the counterfeit of the true knowledge which he prizes so highly (1Co_12:8; 1Co_13:2; Php_1:9; Col_3:10). It was not until after the accession of David that the Jews became remarkable for their intellectual culture; but the patriarchs probably possessed a considerable knowledge of practical astronomy SEE ASTRONOMY, such as is still popular among pastoral tribes, probably corrupting it by an admixture of judicial astrology. SEE ASTROLOGY.
The literature of the Hebrews was chiefly limited to ethics, religion, the history of their nation, and to natural history, on which Solomon wrote several treatises no longer extant. If the phenomena mentioned in Scripture had been described with the accuracy of modern physical science, they would have been unintelligible to the persons for whose use the sacred writings were originally designed. The most numerous references to Oriental science occur in the book of Job (see Schmidt, Biblischer Physikus [Zullichau, 1731, 1748]).
In modern times the appeal of rationalists and semi-infidels has especially been to the discoveries of science, especially geology (q.v.), as militating against the Bible; but in every instance a careful and candid comparison has shown their compatibility. SEE INTERPRETATION, BIBLICAL SCIENCE AND REVELATION. It is an undeniable fact that there is a Controversy between scientists and theologians, but we propose to answer in this article the question, Is there any antagonism between science and revelation? It may be well to define the position which some of the most distinguished scientists take, and which they claim to be alone tenable. Prof. Huxley says, There is but one kind of knowledge, and but one method of acquiring it; that that kind of knowledge makes scepticism the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin. He describes all faith as blind which accepts anything on any kind of authority but that of scientific experience. He describes true religion as worship for the most part of the silent sort,' at the altar of the Unknown and Unknowable, and proclaims justification, not by faith, but by verification, as the gospel of modern science (Lay Sermon, read at St. Martin's Hall, London, and published in the Fortnightly Review, Jan, 15, 1866). He further says that the improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such, and maintains that the method of the inductive sciences is the only method by which any human creature can arrive at any sort of truth. The natural consequence is that such men find themselves opposed to revelation, which assumes that man by searching cannot find all truth, and therefore teaches what is, otherwise, unknown and unknowable. Many scientists assert that their investigations prove the falsity of the statements and teachings of Scripture. That the conclusions of scientists may not harmonize with what they believe to be the teachings of Scripture we readily admit; but that the real facts taught in the one contradict, antagonize, those revealed by the other we as unhesitatingly deny. In fact, revelation, as we hope to show, really has no controversy with science. Let us glance at some of the alleged contradictions.
1. Genesis. The first chapters of this book have been the great bone of contention, theologians having been wont to assume that Moses asserts the formation of the entire universe, or at least of our own globe, with all its internal and superficial furniture, in six literal days; while scientists at present in the main contend for an immense period of astronomical and geological eras, which they claim that they read in the nebular reductions, the rocky strata, and the vital evolutions. But a close inspection of the phraseology of Moses shows that he has not committed himself to either of these opposite opinions. He Simply states in Col_3:1 the fact of God's creation of our own planet and its solar system, substantially as they now exist, without specifying any particulars as to the time, mode, or order of the process; and in the following verses he narrates successive stages of a subsequent special creation of the present vegetable and animal tribes, either over the earth generally or possibly in a particular locality only. The Bible and modern science thus appear to be discoursing upon two entirely different subjects, and cannot possibly contradict each other.
2. The Antiquity of Man. The questions of the antiquity and unity of the human race upon the earth are indeed more explicitly touched upon in the Bible, but modern science has hitherto adduced nothing adequate to overthrow the Biblical testimony. Presumptions to the contrary, it is true, have been raised in some quarters by certain phenomena; but these admit of so ready an explanation on other grounds, and are rebutted by so many other facts, that scientists at large still hold fast to the opinion that man is of comparatively recent origin, and must have sprung from a single family.
3. The Flood. The universality of Noah's flood as to the surface of the globe, although we admit the first inference from the Biblical account, is found on a closer examination not to be necessarily intended by its language; and a consideration of its uselessness and impracticability for the mere purpose of drowning a few thousands in a particular locality induced expositors to limit its prevalence long before the modern scientific objections were thought of.
4. The Resurrection, etc. The doctrine of the survival of the soul after death, and of the resurrection of the body, are coming more and more to be seen to be not only not incompatible with physiological science, but to be almost necessary deductions from psychological and metaphysical reasoning, even apart from revelation. If the miraculous element be admitted into nature, and hard facts demand its occasional intervention, as well as its primal impulse, all difficulty on physical grounds vanishes from these problems of the future world. The imperceptible but frequent renewal of the material organism actually furnishes a striking illustration of the continuity of identity in the midst of apparent dissolution and atomic change.
5. Alleged Unscientific Statements. But it is said that certain specific statements of Scripture are shown by science to be false. For instance, in natural history the coney and the hare are classed with the ruminants (Lev_11:5-6; Deu_14:7), whereas in fact they have no cud; and the ant with non-hybernating insects (Pro_6:6-8; Pro_30:25), whereas in truth it lies torpid all winter. The answer to this is that the Scripture writers give a correct account of an actual phenomenon, although their descriptions are not couched in scientific terms. Their language is always optical, i.e. in accordance with the exterior or apparent phenomena. As, in the case of the hare, they undoubtedly refer to the constant motions of the lips, which seems like chewing the cud. They were not mistaken as to the fact which they meant to state, nor do they use language which when properly interpreted conveys a false impression. If their hearers or readers already had an impression scientifically erroneous in some respects, they were not bound to correct that impression, provided it did not interfere with the purpose or truth which they had in view. Popular language always uses this liberty, but it is not therefore chargeable with untruth. Science is simply systematized knowledge, and therein it differs from popular or general information. The facts remain the same both to the scientific and unscientific man; they are only viewed in a different light and with different associations.
The Biblical writers, of course, having no scientific notions or standpoint after the Baconian school, ignore its nomenclature, and express themselves in the plain language of fact or sensible phenomena. They broach no theories, they employ no technical terms; they confine themselves to actual things in their phenomenal forms. This is a universal rule with them. Hence they seem to disagree with science whenever its rigid canon of verbal precision is applied to them, for of course their vocabulary is different; but the dispute is about words only, while the things meant are identically the same. The sacred writers, in scholastic phrase, if you please, use solecisms in grammar inelegancies in rhetoric, the argumentum ad hominem in logic, an unscientific terminology throughout for such was their vernacular; but they never fall into error as to matter of fact. The conflict between science and revelation, when carefully scrutinized, is seen to be only a disagreement between particular theories of particular scientists and particular interpretations of particular passages of Scripture. And, furthermore, when the scientific principle of thought is compared with the theological, or the unveiling of the Holy Ghost to men, they are found to be on two absolutely different planes, and unable, properly compared, to clash with each other. The fundamental error of the scientists of our day is in their method. It is mechanical, external, superficial, false. They exalt the senses, which are the mere servitors of mind, into the mind's masters, and terrible is the bondage to which they thus doom the spirit of man. Admit that mind is a force, and that there is an infinite mind, and then that in Scripture which to many scientists is most objectionable, viz. the miraculous, becomes natural and easy of belief. The main body of scientists of the present day are firm believers in Christianity, and science has no warmer advocates than are to be found among Christian believers. SEE REASON AND RELIGION.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags