Why Trust the Bible?

[French Patriot]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

they hadn't been there to witness or observe how it all began!

Yet religious fools believe what their lying preachers tell them of what no one observed either.

That is why the supernatural is for fools.

Regards

DL

[French Patriot]

On 2/16/2020 at 7:37 AM, betsy said:

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.

 

 

Job 38

The Lord Speaks

38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2
“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.


4
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/scientists-are-baffled-whats-up-with-the-universe/2019/10/31/31fc42e4-f353-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

 

 

Job 2;3 has god admitting to being evil and a sinner that can be moved by Satan.

What was your point again?

Regards

DL

[betsy]

17 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Yet religious fools believe what their lying preachers tell them of what no one observed either.

That is why the supernatural is for fools.

Regards

DL

 

IRRELEVANT!   The only fool there is.....is...... the fool who flaunt  his ignorance!  Lol.   Read what you're responding to.

 

Either get in the game, or...…………….

…......……... create your own thread for stupid  rants! 

 

 

 

Quote

 

If we have dominion here, then Satan does not, and the temptation of Jesus in the desert was a sham or lie.

Christians keep wanting their cake and eat it too.

Regards

DL

 

Quote

 

Job 2;3 has god admitting to being evil and a sinner that can be moved by Satan.

What was your point again?

Regards

DL

 

 

  Lol.  And you ask about my point?  You can't even tell the point of this topic! 

 

Any mention of God, and you react like a bull to a red flag!  You give me an imagery of a little devil, having a fit - pounding away at your keys.

You need to chill, man.  

 

Do  a "foaming vent-out" thread! 

 

Don't derail my thread!

Edited February 18, 2020 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

22 hours ago, betsy said:

We disregard the cockamamie bull about climate change - the false preachings of the nature-worshipping climate changers!

 

Lol.  We are given dominion over earth, and along with it comes responsibility. 

 

However, we are also given our critical thinking,

 

that we may discern the facts from the bull!

"Nature-worshipping"? You don't need to 'worship' anything about nature to rationally recognize that the Earth is relatively limited in a way that prevents wishful thinking to assure it doesn't get destroyed by its inhabitants in a fair convention. If you believe your own denial about human intervention as being POSSIBLE, are you saying that no matter what we do, we cannot destroy OUR comfort in this world collectively? Are you saying, for instance, that it isn't possible for any HUMANS to deliberately start all the forests on fire, or set off a nuclear war, or do ANY intentional, let alone unintentional behavior, because some Supreme being would step in the way and save us all regardless? 

Pretend you are correct. Then is it not also justified that the majority who DO agree that global human intervention as causing problems, whether correct ot nor, should be permitted to disagree and force those of you who don't to comply by FORCE? I mean, if your 'god' will intervene anyways, why should you care THAT others disagree and use their free will to impose upon your selective carelessness? 

Or....is your 'god' just not so powerful after all?

 

Religious interpretation of anything written at all is NOT 'critical thinking' because it fails on the assumption that IF one such paticular book's contents is absolutely true, what is the means to assert anything written down in any other book or scripture is 'false'?

[betsy]

31 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

"Nature-worshipping"? You don't need to 'worship' anything about nature to rationally recognize that the Earth is relatively limited in a way that prevents wishful thinking to assure it doesn't get destroyed by its inhabitants in a fair convention. If you believe your own denial about human intervention as being POSSIBLE, are you saying that no matter what we do, we cannot destroy OUR comfort in this world collectively? Are you saying, for instance, that it isn't possible for any HUMANS to deliberately start all the forests on fire, or set off a nuclear war, or do ANY intentional, let alone unintentional behavior, because some Supreme being would step in the way and save us all regardless? 

Pretend you are correct. Then is it not also justified that the majority who DO agree that global human intervention as causing problems, whether correct ot nor, should be permitted to disagree and force those of you who don't to comply by FORCE? I mean, if your 'god' will intervene anyways, why should you care THAT others disagree and use their free will to impose upon your selective carelessness? 

Or....is your 'god' just not so powerful after all?

 

Religious interpretation of anything written at all is NOT 'critical thinking' because it fails on the assumption that IF one such paticular book's contents is absolutely true, what is the means to assert anything written down in any other book or scripture is 'false'?

Lol.  You're saying all environmentalists are sane??  You believe everything they say?  You don't do your own research, or verification?  

You're making an argument out of nothing!  You're putting words in my mouth!

 

Read this again:

 

However, we are also given our critical thinking,

 

that we may discern the facts from the bull!

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Lol.  You're saying all environmentalists are sane??  You believe everything they say?  You don't do your own research, or verification?  

You're making an argument put of nothing!  You're putting words in my mouth!

 

Read this again:

 

However, we are also given our critical thinking,

 

that we may discern the facts from the bull!

 

 

How did you interpret ME as being absolute here about whom to trust?

You, by contrast, take a DEFAULT to assume humans couldn't even POSSIBLY affect the Earth and why you argue against ANYONE who demands we pay attention to the issue at all. I am NOT a 'tree hugger', for instance, something that you WANT others to presume is implicit should anyone alert concern about our climate changes. The FACT that we are a part of this Earth AND have the power to affect it as drastically as we do over other living beings, such as being able to destroy it, suffices to prove that we have POWER to DESTROY the Earth. 

Now, extending this to whatever may or may not be 'true' about the environment as a whole, Earth with or without humans will certainly go on regardless of what we do or to whether we continue to exist because of whatever is true or not.  When scientists are arguing for proof of our role, it comes at the FACT that it only takes one person in all 6 billiion of us to start a forest fire. So if all BUT this one person 'disagrees' with the majority, that one person's arrogant belief of FREE behavior to choose to merely light a match suffices to dismiss the concern of all truth as mattering except their own.

That is, the trivial minority of those like yourself, suffices to ASSURE mutual destruction of the Earth simply for NOT even looking at any 'evidence' FOR human causes AND, to top it off, makes YOU the type of person who would prove the destruction comes to an end BY your minority selfish beliefs about what affect we have. There is NO possible way to PROVE ABSOLUTELY THAT we can destroy the Earth by our actions without literallly destroying the Earth to prove it. So this means that no amount of (deductive) proof could definitively PROVE that the Earth won't be 'saved' for us should we do anything. All we can do is to use science (our collective means of using observations to seek patterns) to determine what is more likely to be true than not. 

To me, all one has to prove inductively that we can affect the climate is to demonstrate ANY instance of such power. As I'm guessing you already agree to, someone, somewhere, at some time has had the power to destroy SOME part of the Earth completely, even UNINTENTIONALLY. For example, has anyone ever started a fire by accident that burned down some house? IF you say yes, then this suffices to mean that humans at least MUST have potential to affect climate in some FINITE space. And since Earth itself is 'finite', then it seems rational to assert, even without ANY further study, that humans CAN affect the climate on the whole. 

It would be up to you to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE to destroy the Earth. And that is what is scary about you Climate change deniers because for you to maintain doubt about even our potential to destroy it, you could only later be proven wrong IF you permit this destruction to occur by ignorance.Only YOU would 'win' because you also happen to think that some God will step in after we all die to repair any potential damage regardless. 

 

Why is it that the extreme evangelical religious thinker comes across as the complete opposite: one who believes in evolution to act without interference while simultaneously pretending that evolution doesn't even exist itself? You're being hypocritical. If some God exists to save us, it should then be an easy thing for you to just let those supposed idiotic scientists to believe and do whatever they want. But, wink wink, ...we know that the reality has more to do with you wanting to CONSERVE some power over the environment that you likely have at present some means to BENEFIT from by ignoring climate issues. Your rhetoric is just meant to bully the rest to conform to your selfish benefits at the expense of all others. 

[betsy]

56 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

How did you interpret ME as being absolute here about whom to trust?

 

Eh?

 

I'm not interpreting you or anyone.

 

This is what I said:

 

 

However, we are also given our critical thinking,

 

that we may discern the facts from the bull!

 

 

You don't agree that we are endowed with critical thinking?  Yes or no?

You don't agree that critical thinking is essential in discerning facts from bull?  Yes or no?

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by betsy

[SkyHigh]

On 5/1/2017 at 9:18 AM, betsy said:

That's the question usually asked by non-believers. 

This video addresses the arguments usually given by non-believers.  For those who want to discuss, please watch and we'll discuss the points given in this video on why we should trust the Bible.

 

Honesty test.

Telephone Test.

Corroboration test.

 

 

 

 

Your own video lies

No legitimate scholar thinks the gospels were written by four guys named Mathieu, mark, luke and john, but were written by anonymous scribes,in fact the first gospel was written at least 40 years after Jesus, and "Luke" is estimated around 90 years after "christ", so the videos claim of eyewitnesses is patently false.

The reference to pascals wager is also just a tool to distract from the fact that the "God" of the bible has no morals

Referencing other historical figures is again misleading, as these other people have outside sources saying the same thing, Jesus has the bible and only the bible, Josephus claimed only that people said they believed, but never gave any contemporaneous evidence to support it.

Not to mention simple objective truths the bible gets wrong for example 1 Kings 7:23 says pi is 3, if it can't get simple math correct, Why would anyone trust this book for internal salvation?

[betsy]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Your own video lies

No legitimate scholar thinks the gospels were written by four guys named Mathieu, mark, luke and john, but were written by anonymous scribes,

 

Even if what you say is true, does it change anything?  Like as if the authorship is crucial to the credibility of the historical sources on the life of Jesus!

Here's an interesting, long feedback from William Lane Craig:

 

Quote

 

Such an assumption is quite out of touch with contemporary historical criticism of the New Testament. I doubt that any historical Jesus scholar thinks that successfully identifying the authors of the various documents collected into the New Testament is crucial to their serving as credible historical sources for events or sayings from Jesus.

For that reason, I think that you’ve seriously misread Bart Ehrman in taking his central claim to be that the Gospels were not written by their traditionally received authors. (J.C., characterizing uncertainty about the Gospels’ authorship as “forgery” also betrays misunderstanding. If, as you point out, the original Gospels carried no authors’ names, then they cannot be forgeries, for they make no claims about the names of their authors! Your concern, rather, is that the Gospels are anonymous, and the names of Matthew, Mark, and so on have only later come to be associated with them.) Ehrman recognizes that we can glean a lot of historical information about Jesus from the four Gospels (not to mention Paul’s letters), even if we do not know who wrote them. Indeed, until recently, despite his uncertainty about the Gospels’ authorship, Ehrman accepted the historicity of the central facts undergirding the inference to Jesus’ resurrection, namely, his burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb by a group of his female disciples, his post-mortem appearances, and the original disciples’ coming to believe that God had raised him from the dead. Ehrman’s recent backpedaling about some of these facts is not due to his uncertainty about the Gospels’ authorship but to other factors.

So if historical Jesus scholars are not unduly worried about questions of authorship, how do they identify historical elements in the Gospels? One way is through the application of so-called “criteria of authenticity.”

 

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. For Acts overlaps significantly with the secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989).

 

According to the classical historian A. N. Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”[1] The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, a world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[2] Given this author’s care and demonstrated reliability, as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this man can be trusted when it comes to matters in the life of Jesus for which we do not enjoy independent confirmation.This last point demonstrates that having some knowledge of the Gospels’ authors can, indeed, be helpful. But the point remains: it’s not crucial.

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/gospel-authorshipwho-cares

 

 

Quote

The reference to pascals wager is also just a tool to distract from the fact that the "God" of the bible has no morals

I don't recall which you refer to - it's been a long time since I saw that video.   maybe you can give the timer?

 

 

 

Quote

Not to mention simple objective truths the bible gets wrong for example 1 Kings 7:23 says pi is 3, if it can't get simple math correct,

 

How many so-called mistakes or contradictions have been given and soundly rebutted? 

 

IS THE BIBLE WRONG ABOUT Pi?

 

Quote

 

The ancients did measure pi more precisely in some cases -- but this is found in places like the Rhynd Papyrus, a book of mathematical equations. The Kings and Chronicles writers were evidently literate, but there is no evidence that they were mathematicians. We would rightly expect accuracy of greater order from specialists in mathematics like the writer of the Rhynd Papyrus, and from Babylonian astrologers. But such an expectation is unreasonable from a non-mathematician.

Put it this way: If we ask how many gallons of fuel a rocket contains, we expect a detailed answer like "4,942,827.78 gallons" from a NASA engineer, if he is involved in a techincal discussion with other engineers. If he's talking to the press, and he is savvy, he'll say "4.9 million gallons" rather than bewilder the scientifically inert with more detail. Your average hobbyist (or even a reporter) will say "5 million gallons".

Are any of them incorrect? No, because there is a semantic contract that correlates the level of precision with the level of expertise. Unless the Bible authors were mathematicians on the level of Archimedes (one of the other few ancients to go this far in looking at pi), then it is unreasonable to expect precision to that level from them.

Check out the video too.

 

http://tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.php

 

 

Let me remind you that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific book, nor does it challenge science to prove it right or wrong!

HOWEVER - it just so happens that there are declarations/statements in the Bible that are reaffirmed by science!

Edited February 18, 2020 by betsy

[SkyHigh]

9 minutes ago, betsy said:

Like as if the authorship is crucial to the credibility of the historical sources on the life of Jesus

What? You can't have any credibility if you're not only anonymous, but you're historical sources aren't even written in the language that was used by the person you're supposedly reporting on.

Willam lane Craig is a hack that misrepresents things including but not limited to the kalam cosmological argument, and has been destroyed by many actual philosophical scholars, 

22 minutes ago, betsy said:

it's been a long time since I saw that video.

Do you know whar pascals wager is? It's the video you put forth, if you don't understand your own argument nothing i can do for you 

Your argument against pi being an estimate is simply ridiculous. If your God was all knowing why would he give an approximate? Again, if he can't communicate simple math, why would you think the rest of the book has any truth?

 

[French Patriot]

9 hours ago, betsy said:

Any mention of God, and you react like a bull to a red flag! 

Yes, I see a red flag because your garbage religion will not allow my wife, or you, stupid, from being first class citizens by continuing to preach their misogynous garbage.

You might like to be second class, woman, but real women do not.

Regards

DL

[French Patriot]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

HOWEVER - it just so happens that there are declarations/statements in the Bible that are reaffirmed by science!

Like talking serpents and donkeys that still exist. News at 11.00.

Only the stupid read myths literally.

Regards

DL

[taxme]

On 2/17/2020 at 8:49 AM, French Patriot said:

Yet religious fools believe what their lying preachers tell them of what no one observed either.

That is why the supernatural is for fools.

Regards

DL

Religion is truly for fools who cannot stand up on their own two feet. Religion has become a crutch for those weak minded people. I remember working with a woman who tried to convince me that there is a God. I asked her as to how she would know that there is a God? All I got from her was "well, I just know". I said that is it? She just smiled back, and took off. Aw well. 

[French Patriot]

15 hours ago, taxme said:

Religion is truly for fools who cannot stand up on their own two feet. Religion has become a crutch for those weak minded people. I remember working with a woman who tried to convince me that there is a God. I asked her as to how she would know that there is a God? All I got from her was "well, I just know". I said that is it? She just smiled back, and took off. Aw well. 

I recognize that there may be some benefits, socially, at local churches.

Many do not have social support systems or friends to get their fellowship needs satisfied.

I do not recognize a need for the organized religions. All they are, are lying machines.

 Your last, I have experienced when debating religion with lying preachers. They end at the same brain dead location as that woman of yours.

Regards

DL

 

[taxme]

On 2/18/2020 at 12:26 PM, French Patriot said:

Like talking serpents and donkeys that still exist. News at 11.00.

Only the stupid read myths literally.

Regards

DL

The story about the Noah's Ark really makes me laugh. How can anyone believe such a story as Noah's Ark? If one give some good thought, there can be no way that anyone can do what he was supposed to have done. The massive job of going out and collecting two of every kinds of animals, birds, and insects would be a massive undertaking and would take years to be able to finish unless you get divine help. Just how big was the boat anyway? Big as a super oil tanker or commercial tankers? 

Was Noah given a list of all the animals and birds and insects that he was supposed to collect and where to go get them? He would have to go to the Arctic to get the animals living there and transport them to the boat. Then he would have to go to the other four continents and get two of each animal on those continents. Then he would have to have enough food to feed all those animals on that boat. He would probably have to gather more than two because some of those animals were carnivores who prefer to eat meat. I could go on and on but I think you get my picture here. The whole bloody bible makes no sense at all. It's all to confusing to try and read and to try and make heads or tails out of it.  I gave up on reading the bible a very very long time ago.

The only thing good about the bible is the ten commandments. If we all practiced those ten commandments the world would probably be a lot better place to live in today. But when we get so many religions who are trying to tell us that their religion is better than another religion, and they even fight over it, like they did during the Crusades, tells me that this whole religion thing is nothing more than a big farce where the people at the top of these religions make lots of money and get to live the champagne life while the stupid fools who support them get to live the beer life. I would say that religion has probably created about half of the  worlds problems since time began by some people who decided to try and start a religion to see how far they could get with it. So far it has worked quite well for many religions now. The Catholic church alone is worth trillions, while some people who support that church are poor as hell. 

There truly is something wrong with this religious picture. 

[French Patriot]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

 

There truly is something wrong with this religious picture. 

You just do not have faith. God can do anything don't cha know.

Except he can only reproduce after coveting another man's wife, cuckolding Joseph and becoming a deadbeat dad.

What a god, demon that is. 

Try to put sense into his sheeple. I see it as our duty to correct poor thinking when we can.

Regards

DL

 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, French Patriot said:

You just do not have faith. God can do anything don't cha know.

Except he can only reproduce after coveting another man's wife, cuckolding Joseph and becoming a deadbeat dad.

What a god, demon that is. 

Try to put sense into his sheeple. I see it as our duty to correct poor thinking when we can.

Regards

DL

 

I can remember when I was young my mother would force me to go to Sunday church. I had to sit there for an hour and listen to this guy talking about something I did not give a dam about. When it was over I ran like - hell - out the door. Then one day when I got old enough my mother said let's go to Sunday church. I finally got brave enough and said "NO" I am not going, and I did not go, and I have not been back since. She was not happy with me but too bad. The days of my religious indoctrination came to an end. I finally got rid of religion in my life. I was finally free. 

[Scott Mayers]

14 hours ago, taxme said:

The story about the Noah's Ark really makes me laugh. How can anyone believe such a story as Noah's Ark? If one give some good thought, there can be no way that anyone can do what he was supposed to have done. The massive job of going out and collecting two of every kinds of animals, birds, and insects would be a massive undertaking and would take years to be able to finish unless you get divine help. Just how big was the boat anyway? Big as a super oil tanker or commercial tankers? 

Was Noah given a list of all the animals and birds and insects that he was supposed to collect and where to go get them? He would have to go to the Arctic to get the animals living there and transport them to the boat. Then he would have to go to the other four continents and get two of each animal on those continents. Then he would have to have enough food to feed all those animals on that boat. He would probably have to gather more than two because some of those animals were carnivores who prefer to eat meat. I could go on and on but I think you get my picture here. The whole bloody bible makes no sense at all. It's all to confusing to try and read and to try and make heads or tails out of it.  I gave up on reading the bible a very very long time ago.

The only thing good about the bible is the ten commandments. If we all practiced those ten commandments the world would probably be a lot better place to live in today. But when we get so many religions who are trying to tell us that their religion is better than another religion, and they even fight over it, like they did during the Crusades, tells me that this whole religion thing is nothing more than a big farce where the people at the top of these religions make lots of money and get to live the champagne life while the stupid fools who support them get to live the beer life. I would say that religion has probably created about half of the  worlds problems since time began by some people who decided to try and start a religion to see how far they could get with it. So far it has worked quite well for many religions now. The Catholic church alone is worth trillions, while some people who support that church are poor as hell. 

There truly is something wrong with this religious picture. 

I think religion begun as secular non-mythical stories from various different sources that devolved INTO myth. For the flood myths, at first I couldn't figure out why this was a common story accross different beliefs and relatively isolated peoples. So these myths gave me a puzzle to figure out how it could have evolved from the secular. This is what I think it comes from:

While evolutionary theory, archaeology, and geology were relatively more recent, these actually had to have roots in ancient times by at least some very observant intellectuals. One such factor is to those who would have noticed the layers in Earth that we later defined geological eras. The common record one can notice across the Earth from early on is how one could see creatures in hardened rock (fossils). To the ancients this would have been a shock. They would notice up high in mountains that there were fossilized fish far from the sea. The gradual evolution in the record would show how things got titanic in size, the dinosoaurs, then a layer where a sudden loss appeared. This occurs also long before the dinosaurs too where a gap of no living things exist and then sudden burst of new creatures came about. 

These were the likely source that derived the flood myths with original wonder. In the ancient times they also would not have been able to preserve much of this and why we also do not have a record of these. The old fossils, just like the rediscovery of Egyptian mummies, were mostly destroyed for not being able to preserve them. And these discoveries were likely known long before pyramid building. The appearance of creatures that we can see some partial links to our own would have led many of them to recognize that these creatures were all living things' ancestors. So the discovery of fossils likely was the justification to make sense of how this could have come about. 

Note too that many in the past may have been wise to the link but told stories in ways that could be remembered, such as funny stories, caricatures of intermixed human-thropic stories that anyone as simple as a child could remember and pass on. They were the 'cartoons' and 'fiction' understood by many in their origins that eventually others in later generations thought were literal religious ideas and not just entertaining means to help pass on old knowledge before the advent of good record keeping. 

This is my conjecture on this and it at least rationalizes how the myth evolved so widely in many religions.

[French Patriot]

10 hours ago, taxme said:

I was finally free.

Every parent should hear your words and recognize that their children do not have as much of the tribal need as they had.

That and we have educated our kids enough to not be as gullible as their parents are, and a damned site more moral, as our kids are not as homophobic or misogynous.

They also know that a genocidal god cannot be a good god.

Regards

DL

[eyeball]

On 2/20/2020 at 6:33 PM, taxme said:

The days of my religious indoctrination came to an end. I finally got rid of religion in my life. I was finally free. 

Looks like all you did with your freedom is to fill the void in your life with racism. Maybe your mom was trying to help you with that.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Looks like all you did with your freedom is to fill the void in your life with racism. Maybe your mom was trying to help you with that.

I enjoy appearing to look racist-racist-racist. It annoys and peeves off politically correct leftist liberals like you. A bunch of lefty Losers!  Maybe you should have listened to your mommy when she no doubt had to tell you several times that you should stop with making accusations against other people when you know that it is all just a lie. Naughty-naught, boy. Time to grow  up. little one.  I think that you could use a little bit of religion in your miserable looking life. Go buy a bible. Just saying.  

[betsy]

HOW RAIN IS FORMED

 

 

Job 37

¹⁶ Do you know the balancings^[b] of the clouds,
    the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge,

¹⁷ you whose garments are hot
    when the earth is still because of the south wind?

 

 

Quote

 

Another remarkable "weighing" act of God is noted in Job 37:16. "Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?"

Clouds are composed of liquid drops of water, not water vapor, and water is heavier than air, so how are they "balanced" in the sky? "For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distill upon man abundantly" (Job 36:27-28).

Meteorologists know that the weight of the small water droplets in the clouds is "balanced" by the "weight of the winds"--air rushing upward in response to temperature changes.

Eventually, however, the droplets coalesce to form larger drops which overcome these updrafts and fall as rain. "By watering he wearieth the thick cloud" (Job 37:11). The coalescence is probably triggered electrically in the clouds themselves, "when he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder" (Job 28:26).

Although these verses are not couched in the jargon of modern science, they are thoroughly scientific and up to date.

 

https://www.icr.org/article/6136

 

 

 

Quote

Rain is part of the water cycle. Air contains invisible moisture called water vapor. This is apparent on warm, humid days.when the air is thick with water vapor. Because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, when the air becomes cooler, excess water vapor is condensed out as water in the form of water droplets. These water droplets are carried up into the clouds and as the clouds become heavy, rain may fall.

https://www.reference.com/science/rain-formed-387a5dbf1c8ec677

 

 

Quote

Everyone is familiar with cold fronts, whether or not they explicitly know the meteorological term for them. When they occur, winds pick up, dark-bellied clouds pile up, rain or snow falls and the temperature drops--something dramatic is happening in the atmosphere.

 

Cold fronts describe the leading edge of a moving air mass as it displaces warmer pockets of temperature.

Because colder air is denser than warmer air, the former noses under the latter at the head of the cold front, forcing the warm air upwards and producing precipitation--rain or snow, depending on the temperatures. By contrast, warm fronts slide over colder air masses, usually resulting in longer bouts of precipitation, but at less intensity. As a cold front intrudes on an area, temperatures typically drop suddenly, then continue a consistent fall; barometric pressure plunges, too, then rises again after the front passes.

https://sciencing.com/cold-front-effects-wind-direction-6578022.html

Edited February 26, 2020 by betsy