- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,118
- 10,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Consider these 4 POV statements.
1. The Bible is correct when it comes to its historic account (Gen 1:2-2:4) of how it is that all life on earth gets here in a literal 7 day week as we see defined in legal code - Exodus 20:11. ("Legal code" is not parable or allegory or ...)
3. The Bible account for origins cannot be bent at all in favor of evolution - but evolution is science fact, so the Bible is wrong. (Atheism - So not included in the list of options to vote on)
4. The Bible account cannot be bent to fit evolution, evolution is science fact, the Bible is wrong on this point but I "feel" the Bible is ok anyway, it does not matter if it is wrong on such things.
===========================
Clarification on one option above in the list.
Many creationists accept that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -
For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.
In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that said jet flight "did not arise out of rocks over time" as if it is an inherent property in rocks to self-organize and provide jet flights across the nation.
Lazarus was raised from the dead and yet salt still had the same properties that it always had before that resurrection and hot air still rises. The fact of his resurrection "is compatible" with science fact - - but it does not mean that man's level of science has the same ability to explain how God raised the dead three days later.
We don't reject science fact as Christians just because we know that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. We see no conflict at all there.
My use of the term "is compatible" simply means - "does not oppose" or reject or contradict science fact. It does not mean that our level of science has fully acquired all the knowledge to do what God does in order to admit that something did happen in real life - in nature and that God did it.
(Maybe there is an even better way to word it - I concede that as qualifier for option 1)
=================
not everyone will agree with creationists on that point and everyone has free will.. and may choose as they wish.
1. The Bible is correct when it comes to its historic account (Gen 1:2-2:4) of how it is that all life on earth gets here in a literal 7 day week as we see defined in legal code - Exodus 20:11. ("Legal code" is not parable or allegory or ...)
- It is "compatible with science fact" -- so then salt still has the same properties and hot air still rises in our atmosphere no matter that life on Earth was created in 7 days. Example: Lazarus was raised from the dead as a fact of what happened in nature - and this did not destroy science or refute science fact.
- Moses was not a darwinist nor a teacher of darwinism in his Gen 1-2 statements see also Genesis 2:1-3.
- Science fact reproducible in the lab is in perfect harmony with this fact of origins so then NaCL is still salt and has certain properties that remain true EVEN if one is a creationist. Just as the general ideal Gas law formula: PV = nRT holds true for creationists and non-Creationists alike.
3. The Bible account for origins cannot be bent at all in favor of evolution - but evolution is science fact, so the Bible is wrong. (Atheism - So not included in the list of options to vote on)
4. The Bible account cannot be bent to fit evolution, evolution is science fact, the Bible is wrong on this point but I "feel" the Bible is ok anyway, it does not matter if it is wrong on such things.
- Many non-Christians describe Christians this way (as option 4) .. And my guess is that some Christians might describe themselves this way.
===========================
Clarification on one option above in the list.
Many creationists accept that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -
For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.
In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that said jet flight "did not arise out of rocks over time" as if it is an inherent property in rocks to self-organize and provide jet flights across the nation.
Lazarus was raised from the dead and yet salt still had the same properties that it always had before that resurrection and hot air still rises. The fact of his resurrection "is compatible" with science fact - - but it does not mean that man's level of science has the same ability to explain how God raised the dead three days later.
We don't reject science fact as Christians just because we know that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. We see no conflict at all there.
My use of the term "is compatible" simply means - "does not oppose" or reject or contradict science fact. It does not mean that our level of science has fully acquired all the knowledge to do what God does in order to admit that something did happen in real life - in nature and that God did it.
(Maybe there is an even better way to word it - I concede that as qualifier for option 1)
=================
not everyone will agree with creationists on that point and everyone has free will.. and may choose as they wish.
Last edited: