Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

June 09, 2005

Science and religion

It annoys me when people say the Bible isn't a science textbook -- as if that criteria means nothing but a science textbook can be taken as an accurate observation of anything scientific. It's especially annoying when few of the actual science textbooks in government schools are as dependable as the Bible, most having to be revised constantly due to mistakes by the writers and publishers. But more importantly it misses the point that the Bible is true, in everything it affirms, whether spiritual, historical or physical.

But even more annoying to me is when people try to change the Bible, or superimpose “facts” based on “science” which inevitably is short sighted, yet still adopted by the culture at large. Take for example this...

Jesus may have died from a blood clot that reached his lungs, an Israeli professor said today, challenging the popular conception that he died of blood loss during his crucifixion.

Professor Benjamin Brenner put forward his theory in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, hoping to raise awareness of the pulmonary embolism, a potentially fatal disorder often associated with long-distance flights.

The exact cause of death of Jesus is immaterial, and speculation about it is distracting, irrelevant and will tend to cause more trouble than it ever hoped to be worth. It's like the nonsense that the nails were put in His wrists rather than His palms. Some idiot, somewhere decided that there wasn't enough flesh in the palms to hold the weight of a human body and proclaimed that the Bible was wrong when it said His hands were nail scarred, that it was really His wrists, and like lemmings leaping off a cliff, most Christians, quickly adopted that as gospel (pun intended). The problem is, there is historical evidence to show that the palms were never meant to carry that weight -- the feet carried most of it, and the palms were used just to make sure the victim didn't fall off.

Modern science is all about agendas, speculation, making the facts fit the presupposition, none of which have anything to do with A. the Bible and B, real Science.

Coverage: Outside the Beltway, Of the Mind

Posted by Danny Carlton at June 9, 2005 08:11 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


More to the point, isn't the physical cause-of-death going to be necessarily indeterminate for Christ, since the cause-of-death was "yielded up His Spirit" and thus died because there was nothing to animate His body anymore. Which part of his dead body was last to stop working seems even more immaterial than you say . . .


Posted by: pgepps at June 9, 2005 09:56 AM

Excellent point.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at June 9, 2005 10:40 AM

I never heard speculation about the cause of death being loss of blood. I always assumed the stress of the beating plus the exposure resulted in edema (excess interstitial fluid) building up (after all John 19:34 says when one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear there was a sudden flow of both blood and water, i.e. interstitial fluid) and that the cause of death was congestive heart failure due to the excess interstitial fluid in the abdominal cavity.

But as you said the exact cause of death of Jesus is immaterial; what is important is why it happened, and what happened after he died.

Posted by: Don Singleton at June 10, 2005 09:42 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.