Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[stevil]

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?

What relevance was he referring to by trying to tie Atheist to Evolution?

There are many Christians, Muslims, Jews etc that accept evolution.
What does evolution have to do with being an atheist?

 

[stevil]

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

No idea.
What relevance is there to the years between Adam and Abraham vs evolution?

I assume Adam and Abraham are of the same species.

 

[BNR32FAN]

After reading the responses, I am actually dismayed that people immediately assume I know nothing about science or evolution. Anyway, I do not need to defend myself or go and research what science is. Just because I have a particular view does not make me ignorant of what the other views are or make me uneducated.

Lets move on...

In theological fields of study there are three main areas or views on creation.

1) Young Earth Creation
2) Progressive Creation
3) Theistic Evolution

What all three have in common is the underlying and critical belief that God created all things and man was created in the image of God. There are many variations of each view but most can be grouped into the one of the 3 above. What is excluded is naturalistic evolution which is the atheistic belief that nothing created everything. It is excluded because this is a Christian site and I assume most here believe in Jesus.

As Christians when looking at the three theistic views, we should base our beliefs and understanding firstly on scripture. As mentioned in my opening post, scripture is not a scientific book, so it will not tell us the mathematical equation for the speed of light etc. What is does tell us in quite vivid detail is the creation account not only in Genesis but is also referred to by Jesus himself who actually created all things. How do we interpret scripture in the light of scientific theory? Do we try and flex our understanding of scripture to fit scientific theory or do we hold on to scripture and rather flex scientific theory?

If we had to draw a moving line from left to right with scripture on the left and science on the right - where does the balance of our beliefs sit? The weight of scripture and the weight of science will show us where we place the most emphasis. Young Earth Creation will sit on the far left, with a literal understanding of scripture and Theistic Evolution will sit on the far right with a more analogous interpretation of scripture. Progressive creation will drift somewhere in the middle depending on how much is deemed progressive and how much is based on literal scripture. Where does your belief sit?

We should not debate who is wrong or right but rather appreciate that people do hold differing views on this topic. Lest keep this friendly and respectful like all Christians should.

God bless

You keep saying that the Bible is not a science book but you haven’t addressed the fact that it is absolutely a history book. It’s a book of recorded historical events. That’s exactly what it is. I’m sure you’ve taken several history classes throughout your lifetime, none of which used a science textbook to teach history, yet I’m confident that you didn't dispute the dates contained in them for when certain events took place based on the argument that “it’s not a science book”.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What relevance was he referring to by trying to tie Atheist to Evolution?

There are many Christians, Muslims, Jews etc that accept evolution.
What does evolution have to do with being an atheist?

“Most atheists” not all. It’s pretty much common knowledge that most atheists believe in evolution. I don’t see a problem with his statement.

 

[stevil]

“Most atheists” not all. It’s pretty much common knowledge that most atheists believe in evolution. I don’t see a problem with his statement.

Many Christians also accept evolution.

Evolution is in no way tied to atheist positon.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No idea.
What relevance is there to the years between Adam and Abraham vs evolution?

I assume Adam and Abraham are of the same species.

It has nothing to do with evolution but it has everything to do with the age of the earth because it’s pretty much undisputed that Abraham lived around 2,000 BC.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Many Christians also accept evolution.

Evolution is in no way tied to atheist positon.

And he’s said that several times in this thread including the OP.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If we had to draw a moving line from left to right with scripture on the left and science on the right - where does the balance of our beliefs sit? The weight of scripture and the weight of science will show us where we place the most emphasis. Young Earth Creation will sit on the far left, with a literal understanding of scripture and Theistic Evolution will sit on the far right with a more analogous interpretation of scripture. Progressive creation will drift somewhere in the middle depending on how much is deemed progressive and how much is based on literal scripture. Where does your belief sit?

We should not debate who is wrong or right but rather appreciate that people do hold differing views on this topic. Lest keep this friendly and respectful like all Christians should.

So you’re saying that we should only respond with which creation account we believe in but not discuss why we believe it? That’s not what you’re doing in the OP.

When we go looking for truth we need to go looking in the right places. If I want to learn how to work out the area of a triangle, I will not consult scripture but rather a book on geometry. If I want to learn about the French Revolution, I will not go to the latest book on biology but will consult a historian. Why then do we throw the Bible and Science as supposedly apposing disciplines? I don't hear many people debunking Mozart with the latest scientific journal on sound waves. One is beautiful music, intangible yet can create waves of emotion in the listeners. The other is a cold hard mathematical calculator but does not capture the beauty of the music. The real reason, the truth behind the science vs theology debate is emotional not logical. Yes, I know many will disagree but the real reason people deny God is an emotional one, not one of logic. Logic will actually point us towards God.

In the OP you’re saying that we should NOT go to the Bible to understand the age of the earth. So that’s not just stating your belief, it’s actually opposing the beliefs of YEC believers.

This is why people are defending their position, because you’re opposing it.

 

[Gene2memE]

It has nothing to do with evolution but it has everything to do with the age of the earth because it’s pretty much undisputed that Abraham lived around 2,000 BC.

If you think the existence of Abraham is "undisputed", I suspect your information on Biblical archeology is very out of date. The general scholarly consensus is that there is no evidence of Abraham as an actual historical figure outside of the Biblical account, and that the accounts of the patriarchs are likely re-tellings of oral traditions or an invention.

"After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures." William Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?

"We know about Abraham only from the Hebrew Bible since no other independent source of information is currently available, about Abraham either as a literary invention or as the creation of a collective memory the origins of which are now irrecoverable. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Abraham: The Story of a Life

"The actual individuals mentioned in the Bible probably did not exist…The travels and experiences Abraham experienced with his family as they wandered in foreign environments, entered the new homeland, and fled to Egypt are all enduring and engaging stories, reflecting the history of the late 10th to 8th century BCE, but projected back onto the characters of the patriarchal period" Bernard and Fran Alpert, Archaeology and the Biblical Record.

"There is considerable uncertainty whether the patriarchs in the Bible actually lived or are instead legends of ancestral founders. No evidence for their existence has been found independent of the Bible". Elliott Rabin, Understanding the Hebrew Bible:

 

[stevil]

It has nothing to do with evolution but it has everything to do with the age of the earth because it’s pretty much undisputed that Abraham lived around 2,000 BC.

Aren't YEC's a minority of Christians?

 

[Yttrium]

But it would imply that the Bible is incorrect.

Yes, I'm trying to emphasize the point that the Bible being incorrect doesn't disprove the existence of God. The Theory of Evolution isn't an attempt to replace God, it just conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. I mean, them's the breaks. That's where the evidence is going. Nothing we can do about that.

As I've often said, one should try to interpret the Bible in a way that agrees with what we find in nature, not try to make reality fit an interpretation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you think the existence of Abraham is "undisputed", I suspect your information on Biblical archeology is very out of date. The general scholarly consensus is that there is no evidence of Abraham as an actual historical figure outside of the Biblical account, and that the accounts of the patriarchs are likely re-tellings of oral traditions or an invention.

"After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures." William Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?

"We know about Abraham only from the Hebrew Bible since no other independent source of information is currently available, about Abraham either as a literary invention or as the creation of a collective memory the origins of which are now irrecoverable. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Abraham: The Story of a Life

"The actual individuals mentioned in the Bible probably did not exist…The travels and experiences Abraham experienced with his family as they wandered in foreign environments, entered the new homeland, and fled to Egypt are all enduring and engaging stories, reflecting the history of the late 10th to 8th century BCE, but projected back onto the characters of the patriarchal period" Bernard and Fran Alpert, Archaeology and the Biblical Record.

"There is considerable uncertainty whether the patriarchs in the Bible actually lived or are instead legends of ancestral founders. No evidence for their existence has been found independent of the Bible". Elliott Rabin, Understanding the Hebrew Bible:

Yes I’m well aware of what secular scholars quoted on Wikipedia said about him. Christian scholars on the other hand firmly agree on the time period.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, I'm trying to emphasize the point that the Bible being incorrect doesn't disprove the existence of God. The Theory of Evolution isn't an attempt to replace God, it just conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. I mean, them's the breaks. That's where the evidence is going. Nothing we can do about that.

As I've often said, one should try to interpret the Bible in a way that agrees with what we find in nature, not try to make reality fit an interpretation.

Scientific evidence tells us that a man can’t come back to life after being dead for 3 days. Should we not believe the gospel because of this?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, I'm trying to emphasize the point that the Bible being incorrect doesn't disprove the existence of God. The Theory of Evolution isn't an attempt to replace God, it just conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. I mean, them's the breaks. That's where the evidence is going. Nothing we can do about that.

As I've often said, one should try to interpret the Bible in a way that agrees with what we find in nature, not try to make reality fit an interpretation.

You can believe the evidence if you want. I understand that evidence isn’t proof and missing information can change everything about what evidence appears to suggest.

 

[Yttrium]

Scientific evidence tells us that a man can’t come back to life after being dead for 3 days. Should we not believe the gospel because of this?

There's no scientific evidence that a miracle can't bring someone back from the dead. Science doesn't deal with miracles. If we found Jesus' body still buried, that would indicate he didn't come back to life after 3 days. It's when the evidence demonstrates that something different happened that we have a problem, because a miracle isn't going to account for that.

You can believe the evidence if you want. I understand that evidence isn’t proof and missing information can change everything about what evidence appears to suggest.

I'm a skeptic, I'm not sure if the evidence even really exists. Belief isn't something I deal with. Missing information can and often does change things when it turns up. But all that doesn't mean that I'm going to consider the evidence to be completely untrustworthy. Given a preponderance of the evidence, I'm inclined to think that the Theory of Evolution is a much more likely explanation of the development of species on Earth than a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Gene2memE]

Yes I’m well aware of what secular scholars quoted on Wikipedia said about him. Christian scholars on the other hand firmly agree on the time period.

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".

 

[BNR32FAN]

There's no scientific evidence that a miracle can't bring someone back from the dead. Science doesn't deal with miracles. If we found Jesus' body still buried, that would indicate he didn't come back to life after 3 days. It's when the evidence demonstrates that something different happened that we have a problem, because a miracle isn't going to account for that.

That would be ignoring the evidence we have of every other human being who has died, wouldn’t it?

 

[BNR32FAN]

There's no scientific evidence that a miracle can't bring someone back from the dead. Science doesn't deal with miracles. If we found Jesus' body still buried, that would indicate he didn't come back to life after 3 days. It's when the evidence demonstrates that something different happened that we have a problem, because a miracle isn't going to account for that.


I'm a skeptic, I'm not sure if the evidence even really exists. Belief isn't something I deal with. Missing information can and often does change things when it turns up. But all that doesn't mean that I'm going to consider the evidence to be completely untrustworthy. Given a preponderance of the evidence, I'm inclined to think that the Theory of Evolution is a much more likely explanation of the development of species on Earth than a literal interpretation of Genesis.

There’s evidence, then there’s conclusive evidence. Right now what we have is evidence, nothing conclusive, which is why I prefer to remain faithful to the scriptures.

 

[Yttrium]

That would be ignoring the evidence we have of every other human being who has died, wouldn’t it?

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.

 

[stevil]

Yes, I'm trying to emphasize the point that the Bible being incorrect doesn't disprove the existence of God. The Theory of Evolution isn't an attempt to replace God

The scientific Theory of Evolution shows that the expansion of speicies and the adaptation of species to their environment can be explained by natural means. This means even if a god did it, the god wouldn't be required to break the rules of the universe in order to do it.

Christians are welcome to believe that their god created all the species. I presume they consult with their religious leaders on what to believe here.
But science is just showing that speciation can happen without the need to break the laws of the universe.


Jesus coming back from the dead, especially without being frozen, would indeed require breaking the rules of the universe. Hence some people believe in a miracle happening there.