Biblical literalism vs. science - Why is evolution the sticking point?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Big Bang theory is diametrically opposed to a literal six-day creation.

So the following theories are in contrast to the Bible:

1. Theory of evolution.
2. Theories of how we got our moon.
3. The Big Bang theory.

Is that the totality, in your opinion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then can you clarify your position for me, please?

Sure.

God did not make anyone deliberately misinterpret the Bible for centuries.

He allowed it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that the totality, in your opinion?

How many do you want?

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

The following aren't "theories" per se, but they are ways science operates to sterilize the word of God:

1. Calling a "child in the womb" a "fetus."
2. Calling "miracles" "magic."
3. Defining FAITH as: "Something someone believes, knowing it isn't true."
4. Refusing to employ general relativity, so they can claim Joshua spoke of geocentrism.
5. Giving false deities the same weight as God (diabolical mimicry).

Among others.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure.

God did not make anyone deliberately misinterpret the Bible for centuries.

He allowed it.

So you do agree that they misinterpreted the Bible? Okay. But if God did not cause them to misinterpret the Bible, then how was God the cause of Galileo being imprisoned?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How many do you want?

All of them, if you could.

At the moment, all the places that you have stated you believe the Bible to be incompatible with the current scientific consensus are from Genesis. That might be an interesting route to explore, but unless your list is exhaustive then I don't even know if it's true.

The following aren't "theories" per se, but they are ways science operates to sterilize the word of God:

1. Calling a "child in the womb" a "fetus."
2. Calling "miracles" "magic."
3. Defining FAITH as: "Something someone believes, knowing it isn't true."
4. Refusing to employ general relativity, so they can claim Joshua spoke of geocentrism.
5. Giving false deities the same weight as God (diabolical mimicry).

Among others.

You're right - none of these are relevant to this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you do agree that they misinterpreted the Bible? Okay. But if God did not cause them to misinterpret the Bible, then how was God the cause of Galileo being imprisoned?

He hardened their hearts, like He did Pharaoh.

In other words, He flushed out of them their intolerance and made them take action they were going to take in the first place.

In other words, He simply said, "Move it! Let's go! Do something! Stop standing around!"

 

[AV1611VET]

All of them, if you could.

I think I've given you enough to satisfy your requests.

At the moment, all the places that you have stated you believe the Bible to be incompatible with the current scientific consensus are from Genesis.

Then by all means, let's go elsewhere.

God pwned thermodynamics in the following places:

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

In addition, the law of gravity is going to take a hike at the Rapture.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

[dysert]

I doubt I'll get too involved in this thread, but I feel compelled to point a couple of things out. Squeegee, you haven't defined "literalism" so I'm not sure you're using the term the way we literalists use it. You've mentioned apparent problems with literalism, so I'll offer up some more. Jesus isn't a lamb, even though the Bible calls Him that. Jesus isn't a door, even though the Bible calls Him that. Jesus isn't a lion, even though the Bible calls Him that.

The Bible must be read with spiritual eyes, and, no offense, you don't have them. For a Christian to take you seriously when you offer interpretations of spiritual themes, they'd be making a serious mistake.

Please see my sig if you need further clarification. Thanks.

 

[Radrook]

1. Pi, in my Arabic translation (NAV), it is written (About 5 meters) & (About 15 meters), diameter & perimeter consequently, which indicates that the perimeter was NOT exactly 15 meters, but it was estimated to be so, same applies on the diameter, those were rounded numbers, if we estimate the perimeter as 15.4 meters, which can be rounded to 15 meters, and the diameter as 4.901, which can be rounded to 5 meters, we will get the 3.14... Pi as an answer, hopefully, the Bible didn't produce a 7.8 Pi, or 1.3 Pi, it produced an understandable estimate. (I didn't go into full calculations but I can do it more accurately and put my work here if you want.)

2. In the Bible, (Earth = Land) most of the time, when in Astronomy, (Earth = Overall Planet), if you re-read the Bible with this concept, you will see how it doesn't teach a flat earth, specially that the Bible claims that the earth is a "circle" yet with "4" corners/extremities, how is that? I think if you look at Pangaea you will understand what those 4 extremities are.
Check: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o4PMHJ5UuNg/ToA2638Mm_I/AAAAAAAABJY/bia3eKjWtFE/s1600/Pangaea+1_jpg.jpg

And when you look at the Earth from outside (as if from God's perspective) you will see the overall planet as a CIRCLE, here the Bible predicted something that was not known in its time, Check mate! (Yeah, it didn't impose the earth is a square, triangle, rectangle or a pentagon.)
Check: http://ginayajesmer.com/site/wp-con...om-space-Apollo-17-mission-19721207-other.jpg

The firmament in the Bible is not a solid roof, it may be translated to that but is it the case? Let us read Genesis 1:6-8, there are some expressions as "and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:" & "And God called the firmament Heaven." What is a "Heaven"? A sky, how can a sky be a solid roof? Simply the firmament is the atmospheric layers, and yes, waters were separated, on the ground there is liquid water, in the sky there is vapor water.
Check: http://images.wisegeek.com/diagram-of-the-earths-atmosphere.jpg

Now what do we call the light that reaches us from the Moon? "Moonlight", it is defined as "Moonlight is the light that reaches Earth from the Moon", we know that the sun is the source of that light, but what is the main function of the moon in the night? "Light", if we go into details, it is a reflector, the Bible gives an overview of scientific facts that may look unscientific if taken specifically.

Now for Revelation, what is the book called? "Revelation", let me tell you something, the "beast" in revelation was and is already here on earth, how is that? Can we see a "literal" beast? No, it is a form of religion that will take the people away from God, and there will be supporting beasts to this beast.

So I agree with your 2nd point, the Bible gives us an overall perspective of God's plan, but when it comes to Evolution, i think i would have to write a large essay for why i don't believe in Evolution as it is presented to the crowd, i believe in adaptation, and i also believe that every scientist has the right to think, unlike what happened to Mark Armitage after publishing his "peer-reviewed" article over soft tissue in Dinosaur's fossil.
Check: Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil

He is a respected scientist too and his works may lead to a conclusion that there is a sort of error in radiometric dating that we didn't discover yet, if this error is discovered, the whole evolutionary theory will fall back to "adaptation" and only "adaptation".

I also like your signature and would like to tie it with Armitage's contradicting evidence. "It is a form of lying to ignore evidence that contradicts, or would cause you to question, that which you would like to believe is true."

Excellent responses to all the issues raised!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He hardened their hearts, like He did Pharaoh.

In other words, He flushed out of them their intolerance and made them take action they were going to take in the first place.

In other words, He simply said, "Move it! Let's go! Do something! Stop standing around!"

So he didn't cause them to misinterpret the Bible, but he did cause them to imprison Galileo when they otherwise might not have? Is that right?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think I've given you enough to satisfy your requests.

It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you choose to participate fully in this thread or not.

God pwned thermodynamics in the following places:

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

In addition, the law of gravity is going to take a hike at the Rapture.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I would have thought that miracles fall into a different category. Or are you seriously arguing that God should have to obey the laws of physics? Or, conversely, that the laws of physics should be able to describe God?

If not, then these examples don't really fit the thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee, you haven't defined "literalism" so I'm not sure you're using the term the way we literalists use it.

If you feel you could offer a definition that would contribute meaningfully to this thread, I'd certainly appreciate it.

 

[dysert]

If you feel you could offer a definition that would contribute meaningfully to this thread, I'd certainly appreciate it.

You probably won't think it's meaningful, but interpreting the Bible literally (as I do) is to interpret it the way the Spirit of God wants us to. Note that this means a person must have the Spirit of God within them as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

On a purely natural basis understanding the Bible properly means a bunch of different things. For example, it means you must believe that God exists; that you're diligently seeking Him; that your study considers metaphor, simile, idioms, etc.; that you're accounting for the knowledge gaps introduced by the passage of time; that you're seeking the meaning as it would have been understood by the original audience; that you incorporate proper hermeneutics; that you understand the context of the passage under consideration.

And above all that, you must allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into the truth.

I'm a literalist, and I can check off all these boxes. Somehow I don't think you can say the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You probably won't think it's meaningful, but interpreting the Bible literally (as I do) is to interpret it the way the Spirit of God wants us to. Note that this means a person must have the Spirit of God within them as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

On a purely natural basis understanding the Bible properly means a bunch of different things. For example, it means you must believe that God exists; that you're diligently seeking Him; that your study considers metaphor, simile, idioms, etc.; that you're accounting for the knowledge gaps introduced by the passage of time; that you're seeking the meaning as it would have been understood by the original audience; that you incorporate proper hermeneutics; that you understand the context of the passage under consideration.

And above all that, you must allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into the truth.

I'm a literalist, and I can check off all these boxes. Somehow I don't think you can say the same.

There is a huge problem with literalism. To be a literalist means ultimately that one believes in a lying God. There are mountains of evidence that tell us that a literal interpretation, meanwhile scientific evidence that supports literalism is totally missing. Ultimately your version of God would have had to have created that evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

So he didn't cause them to misinterpret the Bible, but he did cause them to imprison Galileo when they otherwise might not have? Is that right?

No.

Let me say it again, with emphasis:

In other words, He flushed out of them their intolerance and made them take action they were going to take in the first place.

He just made them do it sooner.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You probably won't think it's meaningful, but interpreting the Bible literally (as I do) is to interpret it the way the Spirit of God wants us to.

How do you know how God wants it to be interpreted? In fact, if it is literally true, then why does it need interpreting?

Also, if your interpretation is entirely as God wishes it to be interpreted, does that necessarily imply that you have never changed your mind about anything written in the Bible? Your interpretation now is 100% the same as it was the first time you read it once you have the Spirit of God inside you?

[...] that your study considers metaphor, simile, idioms, etc.; that you're accounting for the knowledge gaps introduced by the passage of time;[...]

These both lead right back to the questions that I wrote in the OP as pre-emptive responses to what I labelled as the two most common defences. Why can you not say that the story of Creation as outlined in Genesis was metaphorical? Why can you not say that it was set out that way in order to explain to people who did not yet have the understanding that we have in the modern world?

How do you determine that when the moon is described as a "light" that it means a reflector which acts as a light, yet when Eve is described as being made out of Adam's rib that this is a literal description of what occurred? How do you determine that when the sun is described as going around the Earth or the sky as a solid dome that it is being presented that way because that was the understanding of the people of the time, yet when it is said that God created the birds that it means that God literally fashioned every single species of bird as it exists today (as well as those which have become extinct since this creation event occurred)?

I'm a literalist, and I can check off all these boxes. Somehow I don't think you can say the same.

Since my profile clearly states that I'm an atheist, I don't think it will come as much of a surprise that I agree with you that I don't believe in God.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No.

Let me say it again, with emphasis:He just made them do it sooner.

As in God made them arrest him sooner, or that they would otherwise have delayed his trial or his sentencing?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a huge problem with literalism. To be a literalist means ultimately that one believes in a lying God. There are mountains of evidence that tell us that a literal interpretation, meanwhile scientific evidence that supports literalism is totally missing. Ultimately your version of God would have had to have created that evidence.

My raisin bread challenge shows otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

As in God made them arrest him sooner, or that they would otherwise have delayed his trial or his sentencing?

Why do I feel like I'm trying to nail jello to the wall?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do I feel like I'm trying to nail jello to the wall?

I just want to be perfectly clear on what your claims are, as I don't want to build up a false picture of what you believe, or to misrepresent your beliefs. If you are happy for me to not fully understand your position, or for me to attribute beliefs to you that you do not hold, you don't have to clarify your position, but you should do so on the understanding that I may well do those things - not on purpose, but still potentially.

It would be helpful for me if you could describe in detail what you believe the chain of events was in Galileo's incarceration, from his advocacy of heliocentrism to his sentencing, including the events that occurred to and actions which were carried out by the various parties involved - Galileo, the Church, and God. I don't believe that you will be willing to do this, though, so instead of asking this, I've been asking a few questions in order to try to get your position clear in my mind. It is, of course, entirely up to you whether or not you answer them.