Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[BNR32FAN]

Not even remotely.

Unless something had changed radically about Biblical archeology in the last 10-15 years, the vast majority of Biblical scholars, including Jewish and Christian scholars, are of the opinion that there is marginal evidence for the historicity of Abraham, and that the story in the Torah is either a legendary re-telling of an oral tradition, a literary device to tell a psuedo-historical narrative, or a composite character combed out of older (pre-6th century BC) writings.

Even the Biblical Maximalists like Kitchen admit there is no extra-biblical evidence of such an individual and that the Abraham narative was developed quite late (circa 10th to 8th century BC, at the earliest). Theologically focused scholars like Joseph Blenkinsopp admit that the historicity of Abraham is "questionable" and that any notion of the existence of such an individual prior to about 1200 BC is "equally suspect".

Vast majority? This “vast majority” of Bible scholars outnumbers the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim biblical scholars that venerate Abraham on a regular basis? I don’t know where you’re getting this vast majority from when the vast majority of Jewish biblical scholars, Christian biblical scholars, and Muslim biblical scholars actually teach that Abraham was a real person.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. If the Bible said that Jesus came back to life after 3 days due to completely natural means, then we'd have a scientific problem with that, thanks to all the natural evidence that we have. But we don't have any scientific evidence dealing with miracles.

Well the Bible says that God created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and everything in them in 6 days. You don’t think there might’ve been a miracle involved in that process?

 

[Yttrium]

Well the Bible says that God created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and everything in them in 6 days. You don’t think there might’ve been a miracle involved in that process?

Sure. Kinda by definition, because God.

 

[Gene2memE]

Vast majority? This “vast majority” of Bible scholars outnumbers the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim biblical scholars that venerate Abraham on a regular basis? I don’t know where you’re getting this vast majority from when the vast majority of Jewish biblical scholars, Christian biblical scholars, and Muslim biblical scholars actually teach that Abraham was a real person.

Scholars - as in credentialed academics and those who work in Near East archeology, Biblical archeology and related fields - really don't "teach that Abraham was a real person." Even ministers and theologians are arguing that Evangelicals should reject any notion of a historical Abraham.

The Abraham Myth - First Things

Evangelicals are debating the historicity of Adam, but they are too timid. It is time to reject fundamentalist distortions of the Abrahamic narrative just as decisively as we have...

www.firstthings.com

Evangelicals are debating the historicity of Adam, but they are too timid. It is time to reject fundamentalist distortions of the Abrahamic narrative just as decisively as we have abandoned literalistic readings of Genesis 1–3.​

​

Clinging to discredited biblical accounts of Abraham as if these events actually happened makes us look like Neanderthals, undermines the plausibility of our witness, and ultimately overturns the Gospel. To defend the Gospel and uphold the authority of the Bible, we need to reckon with the myth of Abraham.​

​

The historical evidence is overwhelming and need not be rehearsed here. It is sufficient to point the curious reader to Hans Georg Unglauber’s definitive study, popularly known as Die Suche nach dem historischen Abraham but originally published as Abraham: Historie oder Pferd-Geschichte? Unglauber shows that there is not a shred of independent evidence for the existence of Abraham, much less for any of the events recorded in Genesis.​

​

 

[Michael 777]

The false "atheism is a faith/religion" claim breaks out all over the place, as it did here. (And no, I am no interested in discussing books built on false premises, here or elsewhere.)

Ok - your choice

 

[Michael 777]

The Bible is a history book and what category do the genealogies fall into in your statement here?

The genealogies would fall into the historical narrative.

 

[Michael 777]

No but does the Bible give us an exact number of years from Adam’s creation to Abraham’s birth?

Yes it does.

 

[Michael 777]

That’s not even remotely close to what he said. He specifically said “most atheists”. Where did you get the idea that he said anything about having to know about evolution to be an atheist?

This topic is becoming emotional..

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just make it up, or do you read it somewhere?

To be an atheist, you do not need to know anything about evolution, you do not need to accept evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist.

I will try and make my writing simpler.

 

[Michael 777]

I am not attacking you. My pointing out to you that a Scientific theory is not at all like a hypothesis, well that is not an attack. You'd have to be very thin skinned to consider this as an attack on you. I have merely pointed out something that you said about science which was incorrect and I have suggested you spend 5 minutes looking it up so that you can be better informed. I actually thought I was helping you. Not criticising and certainly not attacking.



Evolution isn't speculative science, it is a Scientific theory which means it is much more solid than any individual fact. It is a fascinating field of science and I would highly recommend to anyone to dive into it and educate themselves. I have done this and I continue to do this. I think it is really fascinating. But it is of great dismay when people rush to the internet and talk about evolution and in their posts they get a great many things wrong. All I can do is to let them know they are getting some things wrong and advise them to read up more about it.

There is a saying. "A fool knows a little and says a lot, a wise man knows a lot and says a little"
It is more fun and interesting to read and learn than it is to try to educate people on things you know very little about.

I don't take to the internet and write posts about scripture or theology. I don't presume to know anything about it, I don't try to dismantle it using a very poor understanding of it. If I wanted to dismantle scripture then absolutely, I would then be obliged to delve into it and learn all about it. But I don't want to dismantle it, I don't what to write about it and I don't want to learn it. I have zero interest in it.
There are a great many things and I only have limited time in my life, I am not going to waste time on things I have no interest in.

They created models of aspects of our universe. They were very significant papers and models that these people created. They allowed others to learn a great deal about the universe and to build upon these great learnings, Others can now stand upon the shoulders of these great giants of science.


But yes, you are right. There models are created to represent what is already there, science is a method of discovery.
Someone once said, If you burned all the science books, wiped everyone's memories. Given enough time, humanity would create pretty much the same science books, the same scientific models.

But it you burned all the religious texts and wiped everyone's memories and given enough time. You still would not get the same religious books back. Religion isn't a method of discovery.

Yes. I am glad you at least heard and understood somewhat that part. Although I am baffled as to why you insist on trying to goad me into reading or studying your Christian scriptures.

I can understand you have an excitement about this book. But you know, not everyone is going to be interested in this book.

You are right - religion isn't a method of discovery it is a revelation. God reveals his presence to us through the natural world (general revelation) and through specific revelation (the Bible).

You keep spooling the same stuff over and over so I will not spend any more time responding to you. Have great day.

 

[stevil]

I will try and make my writing simpler.

You don't need to make it simpler, just more accurate. Don't post misinformation about science, and don't try to tie religious belief or lack of religious belief to evolution.

Pretty simple huh?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Scholars - as in credentialed academics and those who work in Near East archeology, Biblical archeology and related fields - really don't "teach that Abraham was a real person." Even ministers and theologians are arguing that Evangelicals should reject any notion of a historical Abraham.

The Abraham Myth - First Things

Evangelicals are debating the historicity of Adam, but they are too timid. It is time to reject fundamentalist distortions of the Abrahamic narrative just as decisively as we have...

www.firstthings.com

Evangelicals are debating the historicity of Adam, but they are too timid. It is time to reject fundamentalist distortions of the Abrahamic narrative just as decisively as we have abandoned literalistic readings of Genesis 1–3.​

​

Clinging to discredited biblical accounts of Abraham as if these events actually happened makes us look like Neanderthals, undermines the plausibility of our witness, and ultimately overturns the Gospel. To defend the Gospel and uphold the authority of the Bible, we need to reckon with the myth of Abraham.​

​

The historical evidence is overwhelming and need not be rehearsed here. It is sufficient to point the curious reader to Hans Georg Unglauber’s definitive study, popularly known as Die Suche nach dem historischen Abraham but originally published as Abraham: Historie oder Pferd-Geschichte? Unglauber shows that there is not a shred of independent evidence for the existence of Abraham, much less for any of the events recorded in Genesis.​

​

There’s no evidence that discredits the stories about Abraham and we were talking about biblical scholars not archeologists. Failing to find physical evidence of a person’s existence doesn’t prove that they didn’t exist. The truth is that the vast majority of biblical scholars do in fact agree on when Abraham lived and their respective churches venerate Abraham on a regular basis.

 

[Michael 777]

There’s no evidence that discredits the stories about Abraham and we were talking about biblical scholars not archeologists. Failing to find physical evidence of a person’s existence doesn’t prove that they didn’t exist. The truth is that the vast majority of biblical scholars do in fact agree on when Abraham lived and their respective churches venerate Abraham on a regular basis.

The article is disturbing if one reads the last paragraph

"Only when it is stripped of the mythology of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus will the Bible be firmly established as our inerrant rule of faith. We must die to our modern demand to know “what happened” and recognize that Scripture is infallible only when it is thoroughly de-historicized. Then we will arrive finally at the fullness of Christian faith, the Church of Christ Without Jesus."

Kind of discredits itself and belongs in the bin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes it does.

The reason I hold to the literal reading of Genesis is because it really can’t be interpreted any other way and I can see room for error in man’s predictions about when the earth was created. I don’t see any room for error in the biblical creation account. When scientists apply the dating methods there’s a lot of room for error. One of the biggest assumptions that they make is that when the material was created there was zero isotopic decay in it. They always calculate how long it would take from zero isotopic decay to get to the amount of decay the material has now. What if the material already contained isotopic decay the day it was created as a result of the methods God used to miraculously create it? We don’t know what kind of forces or energies the material was exposed to during the creation process so we have no idea what properties to expect within the material the day it was created. Their whole idea behind the dating methods hangs on the principle that IF WHAT THEY SUSPECT IS TRUE then this material is X amount of years old. If what they expect is not true then that throws the entire dating method off.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The article is disturbing if one reads the last paragraph

"Only when it is stripped of the mythology of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus will the Bible be firmly established as our inerrant rule of faith. We must die to our modern demand to know “what happened” and recognize that Scripture is infallible only when it is thoroughly de-historicized. Then we will arrive finally at the fullness of Christian faith, the Church of Christ Without Jesus."

Kind of discredits itself and belongs in the bin.

Where’s that quote from?

 

[Michael 777]

Where’s that quote from?

The article on the Abraham Myth posted above. Sorry dont know how to post the link - will have to figure it out.

 

[Michael 777]

The reason I hold to the literal reading of Genesis is because it really can’t be interpreted any other way and I can see room for error in man’s predictions about when the earth was created. I don’t see any room for error in the biblical creation account. When scientists apply the dating methods there’s a lot of room for error. One of the biggest assumptions that they make is that when the material was created there was zero isotopic decay in it. They always calculate how long it would take from zero isotopic decay to get to the amount of decay the material has now. What if the material already contained isotopic decay the day it was created as a result of the methods God used to miraculously create it? We don’t know what kind of forces or energies the material was exposed to during the creation process so we have no idea what properties to expect within the material the day it was created. Their whole idea behind the dating methods hangs on the principle that IF WHAT THEY SUSPECT IS TRUE then this material is X amount of years old. If what they expect is not true then that throws the entire dating method off.

I also hold to a literal reading of Genesis simply because it is historical narrative and was never meant to be interpreted in an allegorical way. The rest of scripture always quotes or uses Genesis as historical fact - even Jesus, God himself, quoted Genesis in a historical context. There are some variations of thought of how God created the earth in light of scientific theory. One interesting theory is that God created the earth old - it makes sense to have a biological and geological system created old so there was stability to sustain complex life. Scripture does not say Adam was created as a baby, he was created a man. The plants and trees were able to bear seeds and fruit which marks maturity. Genesis 1 and 2 refer to creating of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 3 starts off with the creation of light which marked the first day. The theory is that we do not know the length of time between creation of the earth and the start of the first day. Or Genesis 1&2 could just be treated as a literary introduction to the rest of the book and has no impact on the timeline. If God did create the world old then it would be easy to align to modern geology which dates in millions of years.

Another theory is the progressive creation theory which makes the days in Genesis allegories for long periods of time which could make the creation account over much longer periods than 7 days. There are problems with this theory in terms of continuity with the rest of scripture.

In terms of isotropic decay and radiometric measuring techniques, I have read some articles, both by creation scientists and by traditional scientists and there is some debate on how it is done and how it is calculated.

 

[trophy33]

Well the Bible says that God created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and everything in them in 6 days. You don’t think there might’ve been a miracle involved in that process?

Bible also says that the world is a circle and that it has 4 corners. If such cultural references are largely ignored, why the 7 days must be literally and scientifically true and not a cultural way of communicating things?

 

[BCP1928]

I also hold to a literal reading of Genesis simply because it is historical narrative and was never meant to be interpreted in an allegorical way. The rest of scripture always quotes or uses Genesis as historical fact - even Jesus, God himself, quoted Genesis in a historical context. There are some variations of thought of how God created the earth in light of scientific theory. One interesting theory is that God created the earth old - it makes sense to have a biological and geological system created old so there was stability to sustain complex life. Scripture does not say Adam was created as a baby, he was created a man. The plants and trees were able to bear seeds and fruit which marks maturity. Genesis 1 and 2 refer to creating of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 3 starts off with the creation of light which marked the first day. The theory is that we do not know the length of time between creation of the earth and the start of the first day. Or Genesis 1&2 could just be treated as a literary introduction to the rest of the book and has no impact on the timeline. If God did create the world old then it would be easy to align to modern geology which dates in millions of years.

Another theory is the progressive creation theory which makes the days in Genesis allegories for long periods of time which could make the creation account over much longer periods than 7 days. There are problems with this theory in terms of continuity with the rest of scripture.

In terms of isotropic decay and radiometric measuring techniques, I have read some articles, both by creation scientists and by traditional scientists and there is some debate on how it is done and how it is calculated.

Yes, we are all familiar with that point of view, and you are certainly free to argue in favor of it--even if this is really not the right forum to discuss the matter in the detail it deserves (although we usually wind up doing it anyway). The bottom line is that the majority of Christians find it neither necessary nor persuasive. You are arguing to defend your own view of the Bible against science; you are not defending Christianity or theism generally.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I also hold to a literal reading of Genesis simply because it is historical narrative and was never meant to be interpreted in an allegorical way. The rest of scripture always quotes or uses Genesis as historical fact - even Jesus, God himself, quoted Genesis in a historical context. There are some variations of thought of how God created the earth in light of scientific theory. One interesting theory is that God created the earth old - it makes sense to have a biological and geological system created old so there was stability to sustain complex life. Scripture does not say Adam was created as a baby, he was created a man. The plants and trees were able to bear seeds and fruit which marks maturity. Genesis 1 and 2 refer to creating of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 3 starts off with the creation of light which marked the first day. The theory is that we do not know the length of time between creation of the earth and the start of the first day. Or Genesis 1&2 could just be treated as a literary introduction to the rest of the book and has no impact on the timeline. If God did create the world old then it would be easy to align to modern geology which dates in millions of years.

Another theory is the progressive creation theory which makes the days in Genesis allegories for long periods of time which could make the creation account over much longer periods than 7 days. There are problems with this theory in terms of continuity with the rest of scripture.

In terms of isotropic decay and radiometric measuring techniques, I have read some articles, both by creation scientists and by traditional scientists and there is some debate on how it is done and how it is calculated.

The problem I see with the Gap theory is that it puts the creation of the earth before the first day. We can’t really say that the time before the creation of light was still the first day because the day didn’t begin until light was made. So the idea that the earth was created before the first day would make Exodus 20:11 incorrect.

 

[BCP1928]

The problem I see with the Gap theory is that it puts the creation of the earth before the first day. We can’t really say that the time before the creation of light was still the first day because the day didn’t begin until light was made. So the idea that the earth was created before the first day would make Exodus 20:11 incorrect.

How so? Isn't it a correct retelling of Gen 1?