Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
the big bang doesn't beg of the supernatural. in fact it is a good job it doesn't, because if one bases one's belief on the fact that the big bang cannot be explained and then it is, well religion is dead.
Because one of the basic statements of all the current monotheisms is that God created the universe. It's like Santa Claus or atoms. The existence of both is defined by what they do. Atoms were first hypothesized in terms of the behavior of gasses. Because atoms existed, gasses would behave a certain way. If the gasses hadn't behaved that way, then they would not have existed.
Or take the aether. The aether was hypothesized as a medium in which light waves were propagated. When it was shown that light did not behave as tho it were being propagated in a medium, aether did not exist.
Santa, of course, brings gifts to all children at Christmas. When it is falsified that gifts come from Santa, there is nothing more for him to do and we regard Santa as fictional.
One of the consequences of No Boundary by Hawking is that God is not needed to create the universe. The universe simply IS. If No Boundary is true, then one of the major things God does is gone.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Because one of the basic statements of all the current monotheisms is that God created the universe. It's like Santa Claus or atoms. The existence of both is defined by what they do.
As far as I know, we do not try to define the existence of our God by what He does. Our attempts to define his existence are based on who He is, His attributes. He is love, He is holy, He is just. When Moses asked who to tell the Hebrews had sent Him, God replied with "I am who I am". He did not say "I am what I do."
I should add that the big bang is only compatible with a liberal interpretation of genesis. If you accept the big bang then you're open to interpret genesis any ways you like, this could include evolution if you wanted. In this liberal model God is more of an unseen guiding hand than a hands on creator as genesis describes.
Absolutely not. While a liberal model MAY have God as an unseen force, the two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. I believe there is ample evidence that the term "day" could refer to "God's day" and not "man's day" and be of any length. I believe that God _may_ have used evolution as his tool to create Adam and Eve, and I believe that God is an active being in three aspects; the very God of the Bible.
I believe in interpreting the bible with as much information regarding the original language, context, and culture as possible. To me, reading it as if the prophets spoke English, and wrote specifically from the standpoint of the culture of today, is ridiculous. What they wrote *pertains* to us, but it is not the backdrop from which it was written.
I believe there is ample evidence that the term "day" could refer to "God's day" and not "man's day" and be of any length. I believe that God _may_ have used evolution as his tool to create Adam and Eve.
So if God planted vegetation on the fourth day but it didn't spring up until the sixth day, how many thousands of years do you think could have passed without any plant life in active existence?
So if God planted vegetation on the fourth day but it didn't spring up until the sixth day, how many thousands of years do you think could have passed without any plant life in active existence?
I think there is a misunderstanding here. In my Bible (NIV not that that should matter) plants are mentioned on the third day, and only on the third day. God said "let the land produce vegetation..." and "the land produced vegetation"
There is no mention of planting or later springing up either on the 4th day OR on the 6th day. As the second account DOES mention the planting, but puts man in the garden BEFORE it mentions the plants coming out of the ground it is an error to assume 4th and 6th days for these events. Either the first account is wrong in saying that plants were both ordered and grown on the third day, or the second account is wrong in saying that the plants grew AFTER man was placed.
This discrepancy isn't a problem if you see the literary techniques used, but if you are claiming a strict literal meaning, you CANNOT claim that plants were seeded on the 4th day, and grew on the 6th. Genesis 1:9-13 is very clear that it was the 3rd day.
__________________
“there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there should never be a time when we fail to protest.”
I think there is a misunderstanding here. In my Bible (NIV not that that should matter) plants are mentioned on the third day, and only on the third day.
Sorry, my mistake.
Either the first account is wrong in saying that plants were both ordered and grown on the third day, or the second account is wrong in saying that the plants grew AFTER man was placed.
Acts 16:31 says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."
Philippians 2:12 says, "Continue to work out your salvation."
I don't believe that when two verses of scripture disagree that it calls for one of them to be labeled as wrong. I believe that Scripture is a whole and should be viewed as such.
This discrepancy isn't a problem if you see the literary techniques used
Genesis is a book of history, relating to us the lives of certain men and the role that God played with them. I don't know any biographer or historian who would start their task of presenting an accurate account by putting forth fiction as fact and then following it up with another piece of fiction presented as fact which absolutely contradicts the former.
If Genesis 1 and 2 are not true then the Bible itself would be guilty of breaking the 3rd commandment which says to not misuse God's name. Genesis 1 and 2 would be putting words in God's mouth and having Him do things that He did not do.
I don't believe that when two verses of scripture disagree that it calls for one of them to be labeled as wrong. I believe that Scripture is a whole and should be viewed as such.
How very logical of you.
Tell me just how much disagreement will you tolerate before you have to accept that one statement is wrong?
Do you apply this kind of logic to your everyday life or just reserve it for special occasions like the reading of scripture.
Tell me just how much disagreement will you tolerate before you have to accept that one statement is wrong?
Do you apply this kind of logic to your everyday life or just reserve it for special occasions like the reading of scripture.
In answer to your first question, I am willing to 'tolerate' seeming disagreement to the point that it becomes absolutely irreconcilable. If the author of these two chapters thought that they were compatible then perhaps they are. If the disagreement is between God and man I will immediately believe God rather than man. Therefore when Jesus says in Mark 10:6 "At the BEGINNING OF CREATION God 'made them male and female,'" I tend to believe Him rather than other people who only speculate our origins and weren't responsible for them.
In response to your second question, I do try to have this same attitude in everyday life. I've learned that there are often times when people we trust may give differing but honest accounts about something. Assuming the honesty of both parties unless one is proven wrong can sometimes save you a lot of trouble. I guess I'm guilty of buying into that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' idea.
when Jesus says in Mark 10:6 "At the BEGINNING OF CREATION God 'made them male and female,'" I tend to believe Him rather than other people who only speculate our origins and weren't responsible for them.
Again, I feel that I must point out that this, again, is in direct conflict with BOTH of the genesis accounts - in neither was man created at the literal beginning. Now I recognize that this is just nit-picking. As a born again believer, I trust the Bible 100%. However, it illustrates my point which is much the same as yours, "the scripture is a whole, and must be viewed as such." From that viewpoint, I have to conclude that the authors (and by inspiration, God) wasn't too concerned with a literal account of early creation. Perhaps as a believer, I can find meaning in the text (and I DO) but it in no way conflicts with the Big Bang theory, which is the whole point of the thread.
Incidentally, I see the big bang as the leading theory on the beginning of the universe. The theory has changed a LOT in the last few decades, so it's important to realize that it's not simply an idea that's set in stone - it's a working theory as any theory should be. However, I have encountered no other theory with the extensive supporting evidence.
Sorry, I don't have time for references as I'm currently writing an rather involved exegesis on Luke 4, but there are other threads that offer websites and papers if you're looking for support.
__________________
“there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there should never be a time when we fail to protest.”
-- Elie Weisel
Last edited by Deamiter; 8th January 2004 at 08:17 PM.
Linear Mode
