Scientific terminology used in the NT

Well, here we find a scientific term that is used in the NT (KJV) and the definitions offered by Strongs' Exhaustive Concordance and dictionary offer meanings that in their simplified form say the same thing in regards to the context of being seen by the eye. That word is "invisible"

In the Bible, "invisible" can be found in use at the following locations as demonstrated by this link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?criteria=invisible&sstr=1&t=KJV

Naturally in my choice of dictionary it is found here: www.thefreedictionary.com/invisible .

Now the question...what are those "invisible things" mentioned in Romans 1:20 ?

 

It's talking about the invisible aspects of god: "the invisible things of him." Most other translations say "God's invisible qualities" or something like that. I'm not sure why you think that's "scientific" terminology.

 

Real simple. Unseen would apply to the inability of the eyes to see something. Visibility in like turn would apply to the ability of the eyes to see something.
"in·vis·i·ble (n-vz-bl)
adj.
1. Impossible to see; not visible
2. Not accessible to view; hidden
3. Not easily noticed or detected"

As you can see, (excuse the pun) the definitions relate only to the physical sense known as vision, though #3 does conceivably allow for detection by means other than the sense of vision.

'Invisible' can be in context to other practices but the context of the passage of scripture is surely that which pertains to vision. Do things become visible using any of the other senses of the body? You may feel, smell, touch, taste something and know what that something is but doing none of those will cause your eyes to see that something; you can only form a mental image of that something without the use of the eyes.

Science when speaking of invisible things also speak of physical items ... some of those things are simply too small to see with the naked eye... such as a single electron or a single photon or a virus. Surely it is a scientific term when it is used in context to the eyes not being able to see something.

 

Is this a yoga thread? Because there's quite a bit of reaching going on.

 

I don't believe it is.. What kind of reaching have you noticed.. Personally I have not seen anyone reaching.

 

Invisible is not a scientific term. In fact, when it comes to God, everything is invisible because that's the only way that the God myths are able to survive, and why people must have "faith" instead of just knowing.

 

None of that changes the fact that "invisible" is not a scientific term, especially in this context. You can't see the aspects of god that are referred to by the passage. That's all that is meant.

 

You are now denying that the term "invisible" is not a term that is used in the scientific community? How odd of you to do such a thing. What proof do you have that leads you to believe that 'invisible' is not a scientific term?

 

So here is another wannabe scientist denying that 'invisible' is a scientific term. Regardless of what the focus of the term is applied, it still means 'invisible'. Does it change meaning when it is switched from one subject to the other? No. It still means invisible... not visible, hidden, hard to perceive, concealed, etc.

 

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. All words do not have all its meanings all the time. It depends on the context.

I'm not sure exactly how you define a "scientific term". Yes, the scientific community uses it but it also uses words like "and", does that make "and" a scientific word? If it does, then scientific words can be used for non-scientific purposes which makes the original question moot.

 

"Invisible" is as much a scientific term as "water." You seem to be saying that any word used when describing a scientific process automatically becomes scientific. That pretty much makes every word "scientific." I guess you can call it a scientific term if you want. So what?

 

You do realize that your argument totally loses all credibility every time you use a phrase, "What proof do you have that _BLANK_ is not _BLANK_", right?

 

In this particular case, the context is about the inability to see something..... REGARDLESS of what that something is. Can you see Love or hate? No! You can only see the effects created by the existence of causes. Can you see air? No. Just the effects created by the movement of air. What other context can be used for 'invisible'? 'Invisible' is an adjective and as a part of speech scientists are free to use that term and any other term that forms parts of speech. This particular adjective "invisible" however relates to a physical attribute. The particular attribute is visibility:

"visibility
[vis′əbil′itē]
Etymology: L, visibilitas, being seen
a condition of being visible under the circumstances of light, distance, and other factors.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier."

Working right along with the definition of 'visibility' is the word 'optics'
"op·tics (ptks)
n.
The science concerned with the properties of light, its refraction and absorption, and the refracting media of the eye.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."

In the sense that invisibility relates to the sense of vision and vision can only be performed by the eye then the word invisible would have the meaning of not visible to the eye. Being "not visible to the eye" is the context for 'invisible'. And the final nail in the coffin: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Invisible

 

Right, here's the context, bud: "The science concerned with the properties of light, its refraction and absorption, and the refracting media of the eye."

Is there any science being done when the word invisible is used?

 

Well, it's used in Lord of the Rings. Does that count?

 

Perhaps you should tell me the answer to that question:

"We have come up with a new solution to the problem of invisibility based on the use of dielectric (nonconducting) materials. Our optical cloak not only suggests that true invisibility materials are within reach, it also represents a major step towards transformation optics, opening the door to manipulating light at will for the creation of powerful new microscopes and faster computers."

And this

"Furthermore, on April 30, 2009, two teams of scientists developed a cloak that rendered objects invisible to near-infrared light. Unlike its predecessors, this technology did not utilize metals, which improves cloaking since metals cause some light to be lost. Researchers mentioned that since the approach can be scaled down further in size, it was a major step towards a cloak that would work for visible light.[13]"

Both found on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloak_of_invisibility#Cloaks_of_invisibility_in_science

Now let me hear all your rationalizations (excuses)... but be certain,,, the scientists are working on the making of something "invisible". So.... yeppir.... 'invisible' has become a scientific term.

 

You apparently missed the point. Invisible is not a scientific term, nor does it have a special meaning when used in science. Optics, your correct, is the scientific study of various forms of light and waves. But, I see no science being conducted in the New Testament.

 

Not quite accurate on your part. See here:http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...fic-terminology-used-nt-2.html#post1062748459

 

See you are still up to your old tactics... changing the goal posts:

Where, within this statement of yours is there any mention of the 'New Testament'?
"Is there any science being done when the word invisible is used?"

In fact the entire post you made did not reference the NT or the Bible or any other religious source:
"Right, here's the context, bud: "The science concerned with the properties of light, its refraction and absorption, and the refracting media of the eye."

Is there any science being done when the word invisible is used?"

How about we reset the goal posts to where they were originally: Go back to the OP and look at the one question that was asked.

I have shown where 'invisibility' is an active scientific study, therefore, the scientists have accepted the concept of 'invisibility' as a viable and needful area of research. Does it have a special meaning in science? Well of course it does.
"mean·ing (mnng)
n.
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance."


As previously stated "In summary, we have demonstrated the first macroscopic cloak operating at visible frequencies, which transforms a deformed mirror into a flat one from all viewing angles. The cloak is capable of hiding three-dimensional objects three to four orders of magnitudes larger than optical wavelengths, and therefore, it satisfies a layman's definition of an invisibility cloak: namely, the cloaking effect can be directly observed without the help of microscopes. Because our work solves several major issues typically associated with cloaking: size, bandwidth, loss, and image distortion, it paves the way for future practical cloaking devices."

 

I know that science can study invisible things and the concept of invisibility, but I don't see how that makes the entire concept scientific. Science concerns itself with all sorts of things, including stars, brain activity, gravity, computers and so on, in fact, I bet you have never touched a material that hasn't had shelf meters of writing dedicated to it. The fact that science has concerned itself with a concept does not make that term inherently scientific. Or if it does (depending on the definition of "scientific term" which you didn't provide when askeed), then a term being scientific means nothing which means that its presence in the Bible is at best uninteresting for our purposes.

 

Sorry, I forgot that you don't understand context too easily. I was, in fact, referring to the New Testament when I asked about the usage of the word. Which is why I clarified the point in the very next post. It was a misunderstanding, don't get caught up on it.

... Yes, that is the definition of meaning. Now, what is so special about the meaning of invisible when used in relation to science?

 

"Cloaks of invisibility are relatively rare in folklore; although they do occur in some fairy tales, such as The Twelve Dancing Princesses, a more common trope is the cap of invisibility.[1] The cap of invisibility has appeared in Greek myth: Hades was ascribed possession of a cap or helmet that made the wearer invisible.[2] In some versions of the Perseus myth, Perseus borrows this cap from the goddess Athena and uses it to sneak up on the sleeping Medusa when he kills her. A similar helmet, the Tarnhelm, is found in Norse mythology. In the Second Branch of the Mabinogi, one of the important texts of Welsh mythology, Caswallawn (the historical Cassivellaunus) murders Caradog ap Bran and other chieftains left in charge of Britain while wearing a cloak of invisibility.[3]"

Science dabbling in myth and finding out that the myth is not only possible but achievable. That is the significance of the meaning of 'invisible' with regard to science.

Yes... context does seem to be a problem of yours.

 

/facepalm

And we're done here.

 

Then you have no rebuttal to my claim that science is dabbling in myth and is finding that this particular myth is not only conceivable but is also achievable. Very good.... perhaps science should engage in researching some of the other myths so enjoyed by the naysayers as opposed to simply rejecting them as 'myth'.

 

Two things.
First we need to start with a definition of "scientific terminology". What does that mean? What does the OP intend it to mean?
Secondly, and you may think this is a nit pick but I don't think so at all, "invisibility" as defined here in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the ability or inability of the eye, but rather the character of the invisible thing. The "invisible" thing would never be detectable by the eye, regardless of its abilities. It is inherently undetectable by that organ. Thus, invisibility is not in any way a commentary on the person or thing doing the looking, it is a description of the thing that is not being seen.