Bible versus science - Bible wins!

[laptoppop]

Our understanding of both the Scriptures and science is fallible. However, especially if the Scripture seems to be talking plainly about a topic and science disagrees -- I'll push a lot harder on examining what could be wrong about my understanding related to science than that related to Scripture.

Scripture is the express direct revelation from God. Science can be helpful in understanding how God's creation works -- and WOW parts of His creation are AMAZING. God is a wonderful engineer! However, our understanding of God from nature is VERY imperfect, and should not conflict with what He tells us directly.

You can learn a lot more about a potter from a love letter from Him than from the cracked pot!

(I would remind TEs that this is not the proper forum for debates -- I'm just plain tired of arguing and justifying why I have the audacity to defy the scientific establishment right now)

 

[FallingWaters]

I'm just plain tired of arguing and justifying why I have the audacity to defy the scientific establishment right now)

Let me get in THAT boat with you!

phew!

 

[vossler]

Our understanding of both the Scriptures and science is fallible. However, especially if the Scripture seems to be talking plainly about a topic and science disagrees -- I'll push a lot harder on examining what could be wrong about my understanding related to science than that related to Scripture.

If only we all took the same approach. This just isn't about science either, it's about people taking something outside of Scripture and allowing it to usurp the plain teachings of God. I pray that if God or anyone he wishes to use, ever sees me doing that I am rebuked me immediately.

Scripture is the express direct revelation from God. Science can be helpful in understanding how God's creation works -- and WOW parts of His creation are AMAZING. God is a wonderful engineer! However, our understanding of God from nature is VERY imperfect, and should not conflict with what He tells us directly.

Yet our pride keeps us from acknowledging that because it is within our nature to find our own answers, especially when those that God provides don't satisfy.

You can learn a lot more about a potter from a love letter from Him than from the cracked pot!

The cracked pots are supposed to show themselves to be weak, yet the opposite is what typically occurs.

That reminds me of a story I heard the other day. Recently all the industrialized nations children were given a math test. Each student was asked afterward how they thought they did. The U.S. students came out with the most positive assessment as to how they did, yet finished 28th, or last among all countries. Evidently we've taught our kids self esteem pretty well, but not much else.

(I would remind TEs that this is not the proper forum for debates -- I'm just plain tired of arguing and justifying why I have the audacity to defy the scientific establishment right now)

Yeah, that's why I typically take refuge here, the last thing I want to hear about is some TE spouting from his/her science god.

 

[laptoppop]

Its a hard saying to call science a god -- and we need to acknowledge that it isn't that for most people. However, for me, the question is who judges who? Do we judge our science using scripture, or do we judge the scriptures using science? Ideally, both can be used properly, and will support each other. Modern science has revealed much behind the poetic statements that God made to Job, for example. But the Lord's universe from smallest subatomic particle to largest galaxy is still beyond our ability to completely understand -- so I'll just trust that the Maker of all things understands what's going on.

 

[vossler]

Its a hard saying to call science a god -- and we need to acknowledge that it isn't that for most people.

The reason I see it as a god is because we worship it. We place our faith or trust in something above God and that is creating an idol. It's really no different that any other idol we make, whether it be money, sex, drugs, etc. Think about the discussions over in OT, how often is God or Scripture mentioned, very rarely. Quite interesting for a Christan forum, don't you think?

However, for me, the question is who judges who? Do we judge our science using scripture, or do we judge the scriptures using science? Ideally, both can be used properly, and will support each other.

Without a doubt that is a major issue within our society, in what do we place our trust? Yet if you think about it, it corresponds directly with what I said above. We idolize science because we've been programmed to believe that science has all the answers to the pertinent questions of society, instead of God Almighty.

 

[laptoppop]

I absolutely agree. It seems like when scripture is mentioned in OT, one of the big TE fallbacks is that differing interpretations make it untrustworthy to use to judge science. Sheesh. I guess if you come from the perspective that the scriptures were from men, then maybe. For me, the scriptures are from God Himself. Yes, he used people to bring them to us - but they are "God-Breathed" and every part, every jot and tittle, every word in the original writings were *exactly* as He wanted. Yes, there are tiny issues related to textual transmission over so many years and there are ongoing translation issues that enhnace the richness of our understanding - but they still provide the best source of truth available to us. We worship the Author, not the book, but the book contains lots of data useful in every way.

 

[vossler]

I absolutely agree. It seems like when scripture is mentioned in OT, one of the big TE fallbacks is that differing interpretations make it untrustworthy to use to judge science. Sheesh.

When you take the plain meaning of Scripture and then throw in 'that's your interpretation' claims, what you're essentially doing is stating that Scripture can't be trusted but _____ can. Here that blank is usually science.

We worship the Author, not the book, but the book contains lots of data useful in every way.

This used to be a favorite ploy of TEs, call those of us who know the Bible to be the Word of God, idolators or blasphemers. Kind of reminds you of the Pharisees, doesn't it.


2 Timothy 3: 1-5 states:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.​

It's the 'having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power' part that rings true for me.

 

[laptoppop]

I've always been fascinated by the rise of evolutionary theory and uniforitarianism. I'm comforted to know that the very rise of the theory is a sign that the return of the Lord is approaching:

First of all you must understand this: In the last days mockers will come and, following their own desires, will ridicule us by saying, "What happened to his promise to return? Ever since our ancestors died, everything continues as it did from the beginning of creation." But they deliberately ignore the fact that long ago the heavens existed and the earth was formed by God's word out of water and with water, by which the world at that time was deluged with water and destroyed.
(2Pe 3:3-6 ISV)

"everthing continues as it did from the beginning" -- sure sounds like uniformitarianism

denying the flood (and its geological effects)...hmmmmm.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

 

[laptoppop]

Parts of this thread were copied into the OT forum down below. I did the best I could at elaborating. If you are interested, its the last couple pages in the "Why should the Bible be about science or history?" I'm vain enough to think I made some good points -- and Vossler didn't help puncture my swelled head <grin>. It starts at page 10 in the thread.

 

[vossler]

For those of you who's interest is piqued, I highly recommend the going to the post laptoppop eluded to and see where this discussion has gone.

It's a great read.

 

[random_guy]

Yeah, that's why I typically take refuge here, the last thing I want to hear about is some TE spouting from his/her science god.

Just want to point out that most TEists don't take science as a God as that would be violating one of the Ten Commandments. I personally think of it as a tool for studying the natural world, no more, no less. I also understand that science is done by people, which makes it falliable, which is why I will readily reject any current theory if a better one comes into play. I think most TEists feel the same way.

 

[Floodnut]

Its a hard saying to call science a god -- and we need to acknowledge that it isn't that for most people. However, for me, the question is who judges who? Do we judge our science using scripture, or do we judge the scriptures using science? Ideally, both can be used properly, and will support each other. Modern science has revealed much behind the poetic statements that God made to Job, for example. But the Lord's universe from smallest subatomic particle to largest galaxy is still beyond our ability to completely understand -- so I'll just trust that the Maker of all things understands what's going on.

I find that in discussions with TE's they are almost AGHAST AND DISTRAUT that I would start with Scripture and interpret the evidence of nature based on what the Scripture declares. They ask for "evidence" or "proof," and I give them Scripture and they pooh pooh that and say it is not evidence, and it is not an answer. How mixed up is that? And this is supposed to be a "Christian" forum. If they want to have the natural world as their final authority (which approach is is discussed by Paul in ROMANS 1), then let them go to "TALKORIGINS.COM"

 

[Floodnut]

I find that in discussions with TE's they are almost AGHAST AND DISTRAUT that I would start with Scripture and interpret the evidence of nature based on what the Scripture declares. They ask for "evidence" or "proof," and I give them Scripture and they pooh pooh that and say it is not evidence, and it is not an answer. How mixed up is that? And this is supposed to be a "Christian" forum. If they want to have the natural world as their final authority (which approach is is discussed by Paul in ROMANS 1), then let them go to "TALKORIGINS.COM"

Then the TE's also talk about their unbelieving approach to Scripture, almost as if to boast of it rather than confessing it as sin. They do not take its historical accounts as historical, but make them into "as-you-like-it" allergories, to teach moral lessons of their own choosing. How they decide to transition from the the allegorical to the literal is shrouded in mystery. Genesis One through chapter Eleven is most often treated as lore. Some however accept that the patriarch have a greater tone of reality and so Jacob and Joseph are real people, and even Moses might be real. And certainly Jesus was a real person, thought much of what was attributed to him was myth. Oh my, what a sad state of affairs.
Here they say they don't make Science to be God, but they still put created things and their understanding of created things as the antecedent in all discussions of the nature of Origins. Scripture must take a back seat and be treated as allegory anywhere it seems to be contrary to their view of nature. Somehow the TE's hold on to the substitutionary atonement and the literal resurrection of Christ through all of this, in spite of the inconsitency of such a position. Amazingly, God reaches through their paganism and brings them to a faith in the Cross. I find that for most evolutionists you can't have faith in evolution and faith in the literal atonement of the Cross. The testimony of secular evolutionists is that the one excludes the other. TE's try to hold to the Cross. I admire that.

 

[random_guy]

Then the TE's also talk about their unbelieving approach to Scripture, almost as if to boast of it rather than confessing it as sin. They do not take its historical accounts as historical, but make them into "as-you-like-it" allergories, to teach moral lessons of their own choosing. How they decide to transition from the the allegorical to the literal is shrouded in mystery. Genesis One through chapter Eleven is most often treated as lore. Some however accept that the patriarch have a greater tone of reality and so Jacob and Joseph are real people, and even Moses might be real. And certainly Jesus was a real person, thought much of what was attributed to him was myth. Oh my, what a sad state of affairs.
Here they say they don't make Science to be God, but they still put created things and their understanding of created things as the antecedent in all discussions of the nature of Origins. Scripture must take a back seat and be treated as allegory anywhere it seems to be contrary to their view of nature. Somehow the TE's hold on to the substitutionary atonement and the literal resurrection of Christ through all of this, in spite of the inconsitency of such a position. Amazingly, God reaches through their paganism and brings them to a faith in the Cross. I find that for most evolutionists you can't have faith in evolution and faith in the literal atonement of the Cross. The testimony of secular evolutionists is that the one excludes the other. TE's try to hold to the Cross. I admire that.

While I sometimes post fellowship posts here, it's things like this that makes me avoid this forum, and makes me ashamed to be a Christian. Why does having a different interpretation of the Genesis and other parts of the Bible makes us paganists, or makes it so I can not believe that Jesus dies for our sins? I guess the only true Christians are the ones in this forum. I'll go back to the general forums with the rest of the heathens and idolters where we belong.

 

[Floodnut]

While I sometimes post fellowship posts here, it's things like this that makes me avoid this forum, and makes me ashamed to be a Christian. Why does having a different interpretation of the Genesis and other parts of the Bible makes us paganists, or makes it so I can not believe that Jesus dies for our sins? I guess the only true Christians are the ones in this forum. I'll go back to the general forums with the rest of the heathens and idolters where we belong.

In spite of Random's misstatement of what he just quoted from me, I still am amazed that they believe At RANDOM in the Cross of Christ and in His Resurrection. It is random to reject Creation as "unscientific" while still believing in the Atonement and the Resurrection. My post said that he DID believe in the Cross and now he asserts that I said He did not believe in the Cross.
The fundamental difference between TE's and Creationists is that on the one hand TE's believe that Creationists are utterly unscientific and that to them is the big issue and makes us completely heretical to their religion of faith in the creation, while on the Other hand Creationists believe that TE's are in unbelief of the Scriptures at those points where they allegorize historical portions, and that to Creationists is the big issue and at that point makes the TE's heretical just with respect to the texts that treat the matter of origins.
That is the fundamental difference. But no one seems to want to just live with it.

 

[vossler]

Then the TE's also talk about their unbelieving approach to Scripture, almost as if to boast of it rather than confessing it as sin. They do not take its historical accounts as historical, but make them into "as-you-like-it" allergories, to teach moral lessons of their own choosing. How they decide to transition from the the allegorical to the literal is shrouded in mystery. Genesis One through chapter Eleven is most often treated as lore. Some however accept that the patriarch have a greater tone of reality and so Jacob and Joseph are real people, and even Moses might be real. And certainly Jesus was a real person, thought much of what was attributed to him was myth. Oh my, what a sad state of affairs.
Here they say they don't make Science to be God, but they still put created things and their understanding of created things as the antecedent in all discussions of the nature of Origins. Scripture must take a back seat and be treated as allegory anywhere it seems to be contrary to their view of nature. Somehow the TE's hold on to the substitutionary atonement and the literal resurrection of Christ through all of this, in spite of the inconsitency of such a position. Amazingly, God reaches through their paganism and brings them to a faith in the Cross. I find that for most evolutionists you can't have faith in evolution and faith in the literal atonement of the Cross. The testimony of secular evolutionists is that the one excludes the other. TE's try to hold to the Cross. I admire that.

I enjoyed reading your posts and found myself in agreement with most everything. There was one statement that however was a bit inflammatory and could have been said with more accuracy.

Amazingly, God reaches through their paganism and brings them to a faith in the Cross.

In order to better describe this from both God's perspective and I believe the TE, I would substitute worldliness for paganism. Paganism implies polytheism and someone who isn't even a Christian. Not only isn't that an accurate description of TEs, it isn't an accurate way that God works. God doesn't work through paganism but through His Word.

 

[Floodnut]

I enjoyed reading your posts and found myself in agreement with most everything. There was one statement that however was a bit inflammatory and could have been said with more accuracy.

Amazingly, God reaches through their paganism and brings them to a faith in the Cross.

In order to better describe this from both God's perspective and I believe the TE, I would substitute worldliness for paganism. Paganism implies polytheism and someone who isn't even a Christian. Not only isn't that an accurate description of TEs, it isn't an accurate way that God works. God doesn't work through paganism but through His Word.

in using the word "through" I don't mean via, or by means of, but I mean in between, or more like down through, kind of in spite of, it is the idea of penetrating their darkness and confusion, the walls of unbelief and false doctrine are conquered by the mighty God, who is able to bring them to accept the Cross even though their culture seeks to prevent it. Jim Elliot was used of God to get through to the natives in the Ecuadorian Amazon, even though they continued to hold many incorrect beliefs.
And I will grant that Paganism may be incorrect. God is able to overcome and penetrate the darkness of uniformitarianism and naturalism as certainly as He can penetrate the darkness of animism. Whether Pagananism or the captivity to secular "science," those who are brought to accept the sacrifice of the Cross can find salvation.

 

[kenneth558]

...It is random to reject Creation as "unscientific" while still believing in the Atonement and the Resurrection...

If they reject Creation/Creationism as "unscientific", at least they are partly right: all of God's miracles are unscientific. That is, He defied natural laws to do them, and they cannot be replicated using scientific method.

 

[shernren]

I find that in discussions with TE's they are almost AGHAST AND DISTRAUT that I would start with Scripture and interpret the evidence of nature based on what the Scripture declares. They ask for "evidence" or "proof," and I give them Scripture and they pooh pooh that and say it is not evidence, and it is not an answer. How mixed up is that? And this is supposed to be a "Christian" forum. If they want to have the natural world as their final authority (which approach is is discussed by Paul in ROMANS 1), then let them go to "TALKORIGINS.COM"

Evidence with quotes please. I can imagine this happening in C&E, but not OT.

 

[Floodnut]

Evidence with quotes please. I can imagine this happening in C&E, but not OT.

Here we go again, they always ask for quotes, and "EVIDENCE," as if it is uncertain whether or not the TE's are usually more concerned about supposed "natural evidences" than they are willing to be subject to the clear and direct statements of Scripture. They are so quickly willing to disregard the plain reading of the text whenever it appears to be in conflict with the current conclusions of secularistic "science."