Is modern science part of the context of Genesis?

[Calminian]

I thought this would make an interesting thread, so started a new one.

The scientific findings regarding the age of the earth I consider part of the context of Genesis 1, just like the history of Assyria and Babylon are part of the context of II Kings. In both cases, when you study both together and harmonize all the facts, you get a coherent picture....

But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).

Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.

History on the other hand is the discernment of truth of discovered written information that may or may not be accurate, and gains reliability when corroborated with other discovered written documents.

But Percivale, notice what you're doing here. You're actually picking and choosing which science you'll believe and which history you'll believe. For virtually all biblical narratives contain supernatural acts to one degree or another, which are anti-scientific by definition. But in those cases you set science aside, and trust the Bible (I'm assuming you're a christian and believe its miraculous stories). But with Genesis you suddenly throw out corroborating histories, like the rest of the Bible, like Josephus and Jubilees which are not inspired documents but do have historical value, and trade them for anti-supernatueralistic scientific theories.

My challenge to you is, why do this? Why not be consistent? Either use scientific anti-supernatural reasoning as context for the entire Bible or use it for non of it. But don't just pick and choose what applies where.

 

[ChetSinger]

I've found something interesting among some of our theistic evolutionist brethren: I think there's a bright dividing line in their minds between the OT and the NT.

They accept everything in the NT, both historical and supernatural, without question. So far, so good, they're brothers in the Lord. But when it comes to the OT there's another standard of evidence at play. Even historical events in the OT, such as the exodus, are often rejected unless outside sources can be found that corroborate them.

So, Jesus is considered to be the resurrected Son of God who will come again and gather his elect to himself. Cool. But Moses isn't even considered to have existed unless a plurality of unbelieving archaeologists and historians agree. And don't even get me started on Noah, or Adam.

I think that's kinda funky.

 

[juvenissun]

Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.

No no no. Several critical misconceptions in this description.

For one: Science is looking at how the world works today and is expecting the world would work in a different way tomorrow. The world does not change, the science is changing.

Second ...

 

[juvenissun]

I've found something interesting among some of our theistic evolutionist brethren: I think there's a bright dividing line in their minds between the OT and the NT.

They accept everything in the NT, both historical and supernatural, without question. So far, so good, they're brothers in the Lord. But when it comes to the OT there's another standard of evidence at play. Even historical events in the OT, such as the exodus, are often rejected unless outside sources can be found that corroborate it.

So, Jesus is considered to be the resurrected Son of God who will come again and gather his elect to himself. Cool. But Moses isn't even considered to have existed unless a plurality of unbelieving archaeologists and historians agree. And don't even get me started on Noah, or Adam.

I think that's kinda funky.

Yes. A very good way to describe them.

 

[BobRyan]

I thought this would make an interesting thread, so started a new one.

The scientific findings regarding the age of the earth I consider part of the context of Genesis 1, just like the history of Assyria and Babylon are part of the context of II Kings. In both cases, when you study both together and harmonize all the facts, you get a coherent picture....

But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).

Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.

History on the other hand is the discernment of truth of discovered written information that may or may not be accurate, and gains reliability when corroborated with other discovered written documents.

But Percivale, notice what you're doing here. You're actually picking and choosing which science you'll believe and which history you'll believe. For virtually all biblical narratives contain supernatural acts to one degree or another, which are anti-scientific by definition. But in those cases you set science aside, and trust the Bible (I'm assuming you're a christian and believe its miraculous stories). But with Genesis you suddenly throw out corroborating histories, like the rest of the Bible, like Josephus and Jubilees which are not inspired documents but do have historical value, and trade them for anti-supernatueralistic scientific theories.

My challenge to you is, why do this? Why not be consistent? Either use scientific anti-supernatural reasoning as context for the entire Bible or use it for non of it. But don't just pick and choose what applies where.

Eisesgesis says "I found something in this rock --- I make lots of speculative guesses about the past -- I then believe my own story rather than the Bible or a I bend the Bible as if it told my own little story here - no matter what is actually in the text of the Bible".

Why not use Exegesis instead?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I've found something interesting among some of our theistic evolutionist brethren: I think there's a bright dividing line in their minds between the OT and the NT.

They accept everything in the NT, both historical and supernatural, without question. So far, so good, they're brothers in the Lord. But when it comes to the OT there's another standard of evidence at play. Even historical events in the OT, such as the exodus, are often rejected unless outside sources can be found that corroborate them.

So, Jesus is considered to be the resurrected Son of God who will come again and gather his elect to himself. Cool. But Moses isn't even considered to have existed unless a plurality of unbelieving archaeologists and historians agree. And don't even get me started on Noah, or Adam.

I think that's kinda funky.

Indeed resurrection-ists, virgin-birth-ists, miracle-healing-ists that suddenly discover that Creation-ists are claiming that God did a miracle that science cannot reproduce or video.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Calminian]

I've found something interesting among some of our theistic evolutionist brethren: I think there's a bright dividing line in their minds between the OT and the NT.

They accept everything in the NT, both historical and supernatural, without question. So far, so good, they're brothers in the Lord. But when it comes to the OT there's another standard of evidence at play. Even historical events in the OT, such as the exodus, are often rejected unless outside sources can be found that corroborate them.

So, Jesus is considered to be the resurrected Son of God who will come again and gather his elect to himself. Cool. But Moses isn't even considered to have existed unless a plurality of unbelieving archaeologists and historians agree. And don't even get me started on Noah, or Adam.

I think that's kinda funky.

This may be more widespread than you think. Mega church Pastor Andy Stanley (son of Charles Stanley) made this interesting statement about the existence of Adam and Eve.

The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history and the issue is always 'who is Jesus?' That's always the issue. The Scripture is simply a collection of ancient documents that tells us that story.

So when we talk about the Scriptures, and especially the reliability of the Scriptures, I think anytime that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus, we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know. . .You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth—so what?—who is Jesus?. . .

Here's why I believe this [Adam and Eve] actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. It appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures and if He believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody who can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off, I just believe anything they say. . . .

The foundation of my faith is not an infallible Bible, it's something that happened in history. Jesus came into the world, walked on the earth, represented God, was God, and then rose from the dead. And that's a very, very important part of our approach to the Scripture every single week.​

Did you get that? "Not because the Bible says so." Seems he's also say, not because Genesis says so.

I think this is too your point and seems to be where the church today is headed. It's about the N.T. not the O.T. If the N.T. affirms portions of the O.T. we can trust those portions, but the O.T. on its own has no authority in and of itself, and you don't have to trust it as a christian.

Here's the video if you want to hear all the comments in context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMfU6HXuroA

In essence, he's saying that we should not think authority resides in the Bible, but rather in Christ whom the Bible is about. But that then begs the question, how do know the Christ of the Bible is the real Christ? If some of the Bible is false, how do you know the story of Christ isn't also false? And is that really a message we want to share with the world?

 

[KWCrazy]

They accept everything in the NT, both historical and supernatural, without question.

Not everything.
The events of the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New testament alone. They reject the first three chapters of Genesis, so therefore they reject much of the New Testament as well. Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, the Exodus and other things which they reject, so they reject many of the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught that the Scriptures were completely reliable. They reject that as well.

My question to T.E.'s has always been, by what standard to you decide which items you accept and which you reject. I've never been given a reliable standard. It's like each has his own private religion, regardless of what the Scriptures teach. If Jesus had said that prior to the flood the earth rotated in the other direction I would accept it. Would they?

So, Jesus is considered to be the resurrected Son of God who will come again and gather his elect to himself. Cool. But Moses isn't even considered to have existed unless a plurality of unbelieving archaeologists and historians agree.

So God is defined by the godless? Not a very trustworthy standard, if you ask me. Archeologists can tell us who lived before based on what they find, but they can't tell who didn't live before based on not finding their remains. They tell us that there could have been a shallow water crossing of the Reed Sea, but that isn't what the Scriptures record happened. The ultimate goal of Satan is to use the finding of ancient artifacts to provide a narrative history for the Bible that isn't anything more than a distorted version of collective ancient myths. As time goes by, these conclusions will get so increasingly complete that much of the Word will be discredited and rejected. There will be a great falling away of the righteous prior to the return of the Father.

We don't have to participate.

 

[Calminian]

Not everything.
The events of the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New testament alone. They reject the first three chapters of Genesis, so therefore they reject much of the New Testament as well. Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, the Exodus and other things which they reject, so they reject many of the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught that the Scriptures were completely reliable. They reject that as well.

My question to T.E.'s has always been, by what standard to you decide which items you accept and which you reject. I've never been given a reliable standard. It's like each has his own private religion, regardless of what the Scriptures teach. If Jesus had said that prior to the flood the earth rotated in the other direction I would accept it. Would they?

So God is defined by the godless? Not a very trustworthy standard, if you ask me. Archeologists can tell us who lived before based on what they find, but they can't tell who didn't live before based on not finding their remains. They tell us that there could have been a shallow water crossing of the Reed Sea, but that isn't what the Scriptures record happened. The ultimate goal of Satan is to use the finding of ancient artifacts to provide a narrative history for the Bible that isn't anything more than a distorted version of collective ancient myths. As time goes by, these conclusions will get so increasingly complete that much of the Word will be discredited and rejected. There will be a great falling away of the righteous prior to the return of the Father.

We don't have to participate.

I don't think he's saying he agrees with the practice, nor with their interpretations of the old or new testament. He's just pointing to a general attitude. There seems to be more of an emotional focus on Christ in the N.T. and a disconnect with the old testament which explains why He needed to come. I would think you would agree that's problematic.

 

[SkyWriting]

I thought this would make an interesting thread, so started a new one.



But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).

Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.

History on the other hand is the discernment of truth of discovered written information that may or may not be accurate, and gains reliability when corroborated with other discovered written documents.

Any "facts" about history are a matter of faith.

Science has the faith that God does not exist and did not
create anything.

Religion says God is a real entity though not a physical phenomenon.

All past events require faith.

 

[BobRyan]

I thought this would make an interesting thread, so started a new one.

But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).

I think a case could easily be made that Moses was not preaching Darwinism - nor any form of the blind faith evolutionism that some believe in today.

The resurrectionists, creationists, virgin-birth-ists, new birth-ists, Bible-believe-ists, will hall have it that these biblical historic accounts are to be trusted.

The evolutionists will have a problem at that point.

But not if those evolutionists are the sort of atheist that we find in many of the world class universities when it comes to admitting to the "kind of literature" that these historic accounts are - as we find them in the Bible.

reject even the most obvious statements in scripture.

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

 

[Percivale]

I thought this would make an interesting thread, so started a new one.



But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).

Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.

History on the other hand is the discernment of truth of discovered written information that may or may not be accurate, and gains reliability when corroborated with other discovered written documents.

But Percivale, notice what you're doing here. You're actually picking and choosing which science you'll believe and which history you'll believe. For virtually all biblical narratives contain supernatural acts to one degree or another, which are anti-scientific by definition. But in those cases you set science aside, and trust the Bible (I'm assuming you're a christian and believe its miraculous stories). But with Genesis you suddenly throw out corroborating histories, like the rest of the Bible, like Josephus and Jubilees which are not inspired documents but do have historical value, and trade them for anti-supernatueralistic scientific theories.

My challenge to you is, why do this? Why not be consistent? Either use scientific anti-supernatural reasoning as context for the entire Bible or use it for non of it. But don't just pick and choose what applies where.

There's a big difference between the resurrection and YEC. Science does not contradict the resurrection; all it can say is that people don't come to life on their own. It can't say whether or not God would raise someone from the dead; to say either yes or no to that would be a theological, not a scientific statement. If a scientist was there watching Jesus' tomb the Sunday morning after the crucifixion, then science could say something, but now we have no evidence one way or the other. Regarding the age of the earth, on the other hand, there are many independent scientific evidences for it. If the earth is young, a great many miracles would have to have been performed to make it look as old as it does--light from fake stars, added fossils of animals that never lived, radioisotopes added to rocks in a consistent pattern...all with no purpose other than deceiving the world. To say that God did that, or that Satan did, as KWCrazy did in this thread, is dangerously close to gnosticism, which the apostles and church fathers condemned as heresy.

 

[Smidlee]

Science has the faith that God does not exist and did not
create anything.

I disagree with that. Science foundation is based on the fact that there is a God. Without God science has no foundation which cause man to talk in circles.

Science is part of human nature... we are born to understand and interpret the world around us.

 

[SkyWriting]

I disagree with that. Science foundation is based on the fact that there is a God. Without God science has no foundation which cause man to talk in circles.

Science is part of human nature... we are born to understand and interpret the world around us.

My mistake. Science-History takes the stand that God does not
exist. Science-Real takes the stand that God will not interfere with
experiments or observations.

Science-Faith takes the stand that the past is as scripture tells it.

 

[Calminian]

There's a big difference between the resurrection and YEC. Science does not contradict the resurrection; all it can say is that people don't come to life on their own. It can't say whether or not God would raise someone from the dead; to say either yes or no to that would be a theological, not a scientific statement. If a scientist was there watching Jesus' tomb the Sunday morning after the crucifixion, then science could say something, but now we have no evidence one way or the other. Regarding the age of the earth, on the other hand, there are many independent scientific evidences for it. If the earth is young, a great many miracles would have to have been performed to make it look as old as it does--light from fake stars, added fossils of animals that never lived, radioisotopes added to rocks in a consistent pattern...all with no purpose other than deceiving the world. To say that God did that, or that Satan did, as KWCrazy did in this thread, is dangerously close to gnosticism, which the apostles and church fathers condemned as heresy.

You've not made a distinction. There are also many independent evidences demonstrating that men don't rise form the dead in 3 days. The scientific data is fairly replete.

And your examples are fallacious. There are no creationists that cite the examples you give. You just made them up. No one believes God created the light in transit. You won't see that anywhere. Nor will you hear the theory of added fossils. LOL. Why would we have to do that when they're now finding fossils left and right with preserved soft tissue?

Come on man, get up to date. What I would suggest is actually taking your head out of the sand and reading some creationist material. You'll find they don't make any of the claims your accusing them of. I'm assuming you only visit skeptical websites, and avoid creationists websites.

But at this point, you hold a very inconsistent view. You dismiss the science that conflicts with the resurrection (and there are tons of scientific data), but accept the science that conflicts with Genesis 1. You're a walking contradiction. At least guys like Bishop Spong are consistent.

 

[SkyWriting]

I disagree with that. Science foundation is based on the fact that there is a God. Without God science has no foundation which cause man to talk in circles.

Science is part of human nature... we are born to understand and interpret the world around us.

I may agree with you. But "Science" insists that God does not
interfere with the physical world. I understand the reason for
that is light will destroy darkness completely.

However, "The Spirit" was sent back after Christ left.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Percivale wrote:

Regarding the age of the earth, on the other hand, there are many independent scientific evidences for it. If the earth is young, a great many miracles would have to have been performed to make it look as old as it does--light from fake stars, added fossils of animals that never lived, radioisotopes added to rocks in a consistent pattern...all with no purpose other than deceiving the world.

And your examples are fallacious. There are no creationists that cite the examples you give. You just made them up. No one believes God created the light in transit. You won't see that anywhere. Nor will you hear the theory of added fossils. LOL.

Well, I'm glad you agree those arguments are silly. The question is whether or not creationists use them - as opposed to them being "made up" by Percivale as you say. However, you are wrong. Percivale did not make them up - they are straight from the mouths (and books) of creationists.

Gish himself uses the "light in transit" argument :

Duane Gish:

Well if a star is say a million light years away, and we have a pretty good idea that it is, it would obviously, at the rate of 186,000 miles per second, take a million years to get here, there’s no question about that. But if the universe, on the other hand, was supernaturally created, you see, that light did not necessarily start from the star. Now in our particular model…

Art:

How? How can light not start from a star?

Duane Gish:

Because, if god created the earth, and he created the stars, and if he, as he said in the scri… in the Bible, that he created stars to be for signs and seasons on the earth, obviously he’d have to make them visible immediately.​

“Bill Dembski is world famous” says creationism’s prodigal son Michael Shermer | Uncommon Descent

and while the ompalos approach is a lot less popular now than in the past, it still crops up, such as here, where it says:

How can they be bones when they are made out of ROCKS? I told my son that dinosaurs are one of Satan's many ways of tricking man

My neighbor gave my 8-year-old toy dinosaurs. - BabyCenter

Come on man, get up to date. What I would suggest is actually taking your head out of the sand and reading some creationist material. You'll find they don't make any of the claims your accusing them of. I'm assuming you only visit skeptical websites, and avoid creationists websites.

As we saw above, this those ideas are not confined to creationists from 100 years ago. And to that point, why the shift away from them? It can't be based on evidence, since there was plenty of evidence of starlight and fossils back then too. Could it be because one by one, the arguments for creationism are being found untenable?

In Christ -

Papias

 

[Willtor]

I may agree with you. But "Science" insists that God does not
interfere with the physical world. I understand the reason for
that is light will destroy darkness completely.

However, "The Spirit" was sent back after Christ left.

Science doesn't insist that God doesn't interfere with the physical world.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science doesn't insist that God doesn't interfere with the physical world.

They are pretty specific in their insistence that all "effects" have a natural "cause."

Methodological naturalism is the practice of naturalism in science; in other words, as it is most commonly stated, there are naturalistic answers sought for scientific questions, and the question of potential supernatural answers (“miracles” if you will) is not even considered.


....philosophical naturalism is usually defined as a philosophical position that there is no such thing as the so-called “supernatural” because the natural world is all that exists. This view assumes, a priori, that there is no separate realm of existence, which is distinguished from the natural world. Thus, in this view, anything, which is claimed to exist within the “supernatural” realm, either doesn’t exist at all or is being confused for some other kind of natural phenomenon which isn’t necessarily well understood by the claimant. It should come as no surprise that in the world of the philosophical naturalist there is no such thing as a miracle and there are no gods per se. There is no comfort for the supernaturalists in the worldview of philosophical naturalism.
Can Science Test the Validity of the Supernatural?

 

[Willtor]

They are pretty specific in their insistence that all "effects" have a natural "cause."

Methodological naturalism is the practice of naturalism in science; in other words, as it is most commonly stated, there are naturalistic answers sought for scientific questions, and the question of potential supernatural answers (“miracles” if you will) is not even considered.


....philosophical naturalism is usually defined as a philosophical position that there is no such thing as the so-called “supernatural” because the natural world is all that exists. This view assumes, a priori, that there is no separate realm of existence, which is distinguished from the natural world. Thus, in this view, anything, which is claimed to exist within the “supernatural” realm, either doesn’t exist at all or is being confused for some other kind of natural phenomenon which isn’t necessarily well understood by the claimant. It should come as no surprise that in the world of the philosophical naturalist there is no such thing as a miracle and there are no gods per se. There is no comfort for the supernaturalists in the worldview of philosophical naturalism.
Can Science Test the Validity of the Supernatural?

You have quoted two paragraphs that are talking about different things. One is methodological naturalism, and the other is philosophical naturalism. These are not the same. Science works with methodological naturalism because that is the extent of its power. But that's decidedly different from saying that science insists that God does not operate supernaturally in the world. That would be philosophical naturalism, the second paragraph.