Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[BNR32FAN]

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?

Because Moses had no reason to use the word day instead of years because he already demonstrated that he was perfectly capable of conveying a vast amount of time in Genesis 24:60. Furthermore nowhere else does the Bible use the word Yovm with a number value attached to it in reference to a time frame other than a 24 hour period. I mean you’re free to believe whatever you want, I’m simply explaining why I believe that it is intended to be literal. I’ve already demonstrated that science could very well be wrong.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

If the use of the word Yovm was used in reference to a period other than 24 hours why don’t we see it being used anywhere else in the scriptures other than the creation account?

 

[BCP1928]

Because Moses had no reason to use the word day instead of years because he already demonstrated that he was perfectly capable of conveying a vast amount of time in Genesis 24:60. Furthermore nowhere else does the Bible use the word Yovm with a number value attached to it in reference to a time frame other than a 24 hour period. I mean you’re free to believe whatever you want, I’m simply explaining why I believe that it is intended to be literal. I’ve already demonstrated that science could very well be wrong.

Your assumption that it is intended to be literal could also be wrong.

 

[Michael 777]

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.

That is your opinion that the majority of Christianity finds it unnecessary.

 

[Michael 777]

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?

The literary genre and purpose for writing scripture needs to be understood as well as the cultural significance at the time. If we take the scripture in Isaiah 11:12 where God will assemble Judahs people from the four corners of the earth. The book of Isaiah is written in poetical, apocalyptic, prophetic and narrative form. When the text is interpreted it is easy to see that this particular phrase is a figure of speech and the writer is speaking metaphorically. The meaning is easily understood that God will call Judahs scattered people from far away lands and from all directions.

The texts in Genesis are written in historical narrative and the original recipients would have understood them to mean literal days. Continuity with the rest of scripture also implies days. The understanding of the creation account in Genesis is difficult and has resulted in many views or theories on the duration.

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.

Yeah - Genesis 1&2 could just have been a literary device to introduce creation or Exodus 20:11 could have been a summary of the Genesis creation account. The Gap theory has a few problems but is closer to scripture than the theistic evolutionary theory.

 

[BCP1928]

That is your opinion that the majority of Christianity finds it unnecessary.

That is my observation, not my opinion. I was raised and still am an Anglican and was educated by Roman Catholics up to and including an undergraduate degree. Consequently, I am familiar with Traditional Christian doctrines. Traditional Christians do not find it necessary to believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant , perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Those, along with the underlying doctrine of Sola Scriptura, are distinctly fundamentalist Protestant views.

 

[Michael 777]

That is my observation, not my opinion. I was raised and still am an Anglican and was educated by Roman Catholics up to and including an undergraduate degree. Consequently, I am familiar with Traditional Christian doctrines. Traditional Christians do not find it necessary to believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant , perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Those, along with the underlying doctrine of Sola Scriptura, are distinctly fundamentalist Protestant views.

This is why we differ. I hold the scriptures as the only true source of God's special revelation to man. If we have a low view of scripture then how do we decide what is to be taken as truth and what do we believe is unnecessary? Who decides what is important or not?

In all church denominations there is a balance between Theology and Church Praxis or tradition. In some churches, the balance of praxis is tipped towards scripture and less towards church tradition. This is what you probably refer to as fundamentalist Protestant views, although I would take the less critical terminology and call them Bible based churches. In other churches the balance of praxis is tipped towards church tradition and scripture is seen as less important and this is quite prominent although not pervasive in the Traditional Churches.

I would love to have a discussion on this topic but I know from experience it is more emotive than the creation/evolution debate. It has led millions to their deaths during the reformation and we are definitely not going to resolve it here. If we were close friends then maybe a good debate would be easier. It is an argument which can so easily degenerate into a prideful and hurtful topic that observers would find it hard pressed to find any semblance of Christianity. So as a fellow Christian I will not engage on this topic in an online forum like this, we have our points of difference but hopefully we can find unity in Christ Jesus.

 

[BCP1928]

This is why we differ. I hold the scriptures as the only true source of God's special revelation to man. If we have a low view of scripture then how do we decide what is to be taken as truth and what do we believe is unnecessary? Who decides what is important or not?

I'm more inclined to the view that the authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration rather than its adherence to any particular literary genre. Because of that, it is all important.

In all church denominations there is a balance between Theology and Church Praxis or tradition. In some churches, the balance of praxis is tipped towards scripture and less towards church tradition. This is what you probably refer to as fundamentalist Protestant views, although I would take the less critical terminology and call them Bible based churches. In other churches the balance of praxis is tipped towards church tradition and scripture is seen as less important and this is quite prominent although not pervasive in the Traditional Churches.

I would love to have a discussion on this topic but I know from experience it is more emotive than the creation/evolution debate. It has led millions to their deaths during the reformation and we are definitely not going to resolve it here. If we were close friends then maybe a good debate would be easier. It is an argument which can so easily degenerate into a prideful and hurtful topic that observers would find it hard pressed to find any semblance of Christianity. So as a fellow Christian I will not engage on this topic in an online forum like this, we have our points of difference but hopefully we can find unity in Christ Jesus.

OK, we just need to keep those differences in mind when talking about Christians and the Bible generally. I don't really understand literal inerrancy all that well, which is why I may continue to annoy you from time to time about it. I just don't get it. I was recently admonished in this forum that if I did not embrace the literal inerrancy of Genesis, I must of necessity reject the Gospel of John. I was taken aback, since I have previously had no trouble accepting the Gospel of John. I don't get it; be patient.
BTW, "fundamentalist" is not a critical term, but a well defined descriptor of a Protestant who accepts five "fundamental" theological precepts as published in 1910 by the Testimony Publishing Company of Chicago.

 

[Michael 777]

I'm more inclined to the view that the authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration rather than its adherence to any particular literary genre. Because of that, it is all important.

OK, we just need to keep those differences in mind when talking about Christians and the Bible generally. I don't really understand literal inerrancy all that well, which is why I may continue to annoy you from time to time about it. I just don't get it. I was recently admonished in this forum that if I did not embrace the literal inerrancy of Genesis, I must of necessity reject the Gospel of John. I was taken aback, since I have previously had no trouble accepting the Gospel of John. I don't get it; be patient.
BTW, "fundamentalist" is not a critical term, but a well defined descriptor of a Protestant who accepts five "fundamental" theological precepts as published in 1910 by the Testimony Publishing Company of Chicago.

Happy to discuss further but not on this thread. Dont know if there is another thread on this forum which would be suitable?

 

[Astrid]

There is much debate regarding the "truth" of science vs the "truth" of scripture and people get carried away on all sorts of theories, hypothetical or not and get quite arrogant and often combative against anybody who disagrees with them. Often coming back to basic principles can iron out a lot of these heated arguments and people can have rational discourse.

Basic Principle 1: The Holy Scriptures are not scientific or mathematical and are not intended to be so. Their purpose is to teach us about God and His plans and purposes for our lives which have eternal consequences. The intention of the Bible is to lead us to God, and bring us into relationship with him so we can accept Jesus and be forgiven and set free. The scriptures are timeless intended for all generations so they cannot have some meaning that was never meant or understood by the original recipients.

Basic Principle 2: Scripture is written using many different literary types (historical narrative, poetry, song, pastoral letters etc). Scripture must be interpreted in the correct way taking the literal type into account amongst other important literary devices. Science is written in the language of mathematics and logic. I can hear the naturalists already claiming superiority on this point BUT if somebody wants to know the real impactful, long lasting and life changing truths, they will not find them in mathematic and logic. For example, science can explain how the oxygen transfer rate can impact my lung capacity. Nice to know but if I want to know why I breathe everyday, what is my purpose for breathing, my purpose for living, science cannot tell me that. Actually science has failed to define what the essence of life actually is. What makes an organised clump of biological elements actually live? Scripture tells me how!

Basic Principle 3: For any scientific fact, and I must really highlight the word "FACT" to be proven as truth it has to undergo the 3 basic scientific principles. 1) An object of study must be measurable. 2) An object of study must be observable. 3)An object of study must be repeatable. Let's look at some examples of what is scientific fact and what is just theory. Gravity - It is observable as I can actually see an apple falling off a tree and hitting the ground. It is measurable as I can measure the height and time it takes to fall therefore calculating the speed of gravity. It is repeatable as I can repeat the same experiment over and over again and get the same results. Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment. Yes I know about the thousands of bacteria that multiplied in a lab and they did show signs of metabolic change but that is adaptation not evolution because they remained bacteria. They did not suddenly become multicellular in nature nor did they have any additional DNA. Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons. Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact. It is a popular theory so it gets thrown around like fact but it is not actually a proven fact. There is a lot of circular reasoning in evolution science. For example evolution science presumes it takes millions of years for an organism to evolve. A scientist one day finds a fossil of a slightly different shape and size than what has been found before. The scientist assumes, based on evolution science, that the fossil is an example of evolutionary change. Evolution science then uses that fossil as evidence to support evolution theory. Round and round the merry go round. The scientist could have also made other assumptions regarding the fossil but did not because of the perceived truthfulness of evolution theory.

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.

If the point I made on evolution makes you upset and emotional, before just jumping on the warrior keyboard and responding, think about why does it make you emotional and upset. The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, we are all just accidental and results of billions of years of mistakes and iterations. Essentially a life based on evolution has got no value, we are just a bunch of molecules in a churning universe destined to be compost one day. Entropy sucks in the physical world doesn't it? Why does the concept of being created, having a purpose, incredibly valuable in God's eyes upset so much, why is it so hard to accept? I do not want to be controversial or polarising but genuinely have a heart for those who believe their lives have little to no value. God created you and me, how and when does not really matter but know that your life, any life has incredible value and an eternal purpose.

If I want to know the truth about who I am, why I am here, how I should relate to others, what is love, what is forgiveness, what is sacrifice and what is true freedom then I will consult the only source of truth and that is scripture.

We should not go looking to the Bible for scientific facts or theories, quite simply because that is not its purpose and we should not go to science to look for the deeper truths, spiritual truths about life because that is not its purpose. If science could define God then he would cease to be God, because he cannot be defined by the very laws he created.

Upset? Maybe a shrug or eye roll for someone
“instructing “on evolution and serving up such
a Gish of confusion and nonsense

 

[Michael 777]

Upset? Maybe a shrug or eye roll for someone
“instructing “on evolution and serving up such
a Gish of confusion and nonsense

Ok if you say so.

If enough people agree to a theory then it becomes fact... consensus of many must make it true.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok if you say so.

If enough people agree to a theory then it becomes fact... consensus of many must make it true.

A theory never becomes a "fact." If enough people who have examined the evidence agree to a theory then it stays a theory.

 

[Astrid]

Ok if you say so.

If enough people agree to a theory then it becomes fact... consensus of many must make it true.

You neednt keep showing that the only complaints are against things you make up.

 

[DennisF]

“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.

Leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins said (paraphrasing) that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The statement is an over-reach by Dawkins (no surprises there) yet it tends to support your connection between the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and atheism. On the other hand, the strength of this connection remains debated, though one of the leading questioners of the theory is Intelligent Design advocate Stephen C. Meyer, who leads a discussion about the plausibility of the theory with two ex-MIT AI Lab people, Gelernter and Berlinski, here.

 

[Gene2memE]

Leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins said (paraphrasing) that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The statement is an over-reach by Dawkins (no surprises there) yet it tends to support your connection between the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and atheism. On the other hand, the strength of this connection remains debated, though one of the leading questioners of the theory is Intelligent Design advocate Stephen C. Meyer, who leads a discussion about the plausibility of the theory with two ex-MIT AI Lab people, Gelernter and Berlinski, here.

Meyer isn't a "questioner" of the Theory of Evolution. He is a polemicist. His positions on questions of biology are theologically oriented, rather than research/evidence oriented. Intelligent Design isn't a serious scientific effort to provide an alternative explanation to the history and diversity of life. It's just creationism with extra steps, wearing a stolen lab coat.

A "questioner" of the Theory of Evolution would be someone like Gerd Muller, Juan Gefaell, Cristian Saborido or Armin Moczek - people who are both researchers and theoreticians who are publishing actual scientific papers that challenge established explanations of observed facts.

 

[BCP1928]

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”.

It depends on how the dates are expressed or implied in the text. It also depends on when the text was written. History can and has been written in different ways, with different levels of historical accuracy expected of the author. The level of accuracy of detail we expect of contemporary historians is a relatively modern development.

 

[DennisF]

Meyer isn't a "questioner" of the Theory of Evolution. He is a polemicist. His positions on questions of biology are theologically oriented, rather than research/evidence oriented.

This is a common response by evolutionary-atheists yet it misses the point of ID. Anyone who promotes the mainstream view are accepted as true scientists while those with an opposing view must have other motives, like theology (as though atheism is not its own kind of theology as an "anti-theology") and are thus not scientific (though Meyer holds a degree in the life sciences as well as the philosophy of science and consequently has a deeper understanding of the foundations of science than too many scientists, atheist or otherwise).

Intelligent Design isn't a serious scientific effort to provide an alternative explanation to the history and diversity of life. It's just creationism with extra steps, wearing a stolen lab coat.

What do you mean by "creationism"? There are young-earth creationists and there are also evolutionary creationists. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the ID movement. It addresses what are identified as fundamental weaknesses in the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution. Your criticism seems more accurately directed to YEC than to ID.

A "questioner" of the Theory of Evolution would be someone like Gerd Muller, Juan Gefaell, Cristian Saborido or Armin Moczek - people who are both researchers and theoreticians who are publishing actual scientific papers that challenge established explanations of observed facts.

Are you asserting that the issues raised by Meyer, Gelernter and Berlinski are superfluous? Can you explain the solution to the problems they raise with the current neo-Darwinian theory? I do not know the people you name above, but are any of them rethinking the presuppositions underlying evolutionary theory? Or analyzing evolutionary theory from an informational standpoint? Gelernter and Berlinski are both from the MIT AI Lab and have a computational perspective. It reveals that blind chance is inadequate to produce the existing complexity of life. The plausibility of the random mechanisms of evolution are in question and nobody has really explained them. Unless some directed selection principles are introduced, purely random processes have a uniform probability distribution. (I won't go farther with this because I don't know how much probability theory you know.)

Truly random processes cannot produce the present complexity of life; the probability is so low that it could not have occurred. Bill Dembski has written a book on this (and yes, he has a PhD in statistics). Consequently the hypothesis fails that mutation and selection are both random. Some form of directing principles must exist. The present mechanistic hypothesis of evolutionary theory based on blind chance is more in the category of philosophy than science. It falls short of identifying its own causes.

Evolutionary theory also does not include the origin of life, only its development. What ID questions are the physical mechanisms attributed to that development. In the life sciences at present, there is simply no viable theory for explaining the origin of life. There have been attempts, but nothing that has held up.

 

[BCP1928]

This is a common response by evolutionary-atheists yet it misses the point of ID. Anyone who promotes the mainstream view are accepted as true scientists while those with an opposing view must have other motives, like theology (as though atheism is not its own kind of theology as an "anti-theology") and are thus not scientific (though Meyer holds a degree in the life sciences as well as the philosophy of science and consequently has a deeper understanding of the foundations of science than too many scientists, atheist or otherwise).

What do you mean by "creationism"? There are young-earth creationists and there are also evolutionary creationists. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the ID movement. It addresses what are identified as fundamental weaknesses in the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution. Your criticism seems more accurately directed to YEC than to ID.

Are you asserting that the issues raised by Meyer, Gelernter and Berlinski are superfluous? Can you explain the solution to the problems they raise with the current neo-Darwinian theory? I do not know the people you name above, but are any of them rethinking the presuppositions underlying evolutionary theory? Or analyzing evolutionary theory from an informational standpoint? Gelernter and Berlinski are both from the MIT AI Lab and have a computational perspective. It reveals that blind chance is inadequate to produce the existing complexity of life. The plausibility of the random mechanisms of evolution are in question and nobody has really explained them. Unless some directed selection principles are introduced, purely random processes have a uniform probability distribution. (I won't go farther with this because I don't know how much probability theory you know.)

Truly random processes cannot produce the present complexity of life; the probability is so low that it could not have occurred. Bill Dembski has written a book on this (and yes, he has a PhD in statistics). Consequently the hypothesis fails that mutation and selection are both random. Some form of directing principles must exist. The present mechanistic hypothesis of evolutionary theory based on blind chance is more in the category of philosophy than science. It falls short of identifying its own causes.

Evolutionary theory also does not include the origin of life, only its development. What ID questions are the physical mechanisms attributed to that development. In the life sciences at present, there is simply no viable theory for explaining the origin of life. There have been attempts, but nothing that has held up.

It depends on what you mean by "ID," ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute is a politically motivated fraud, a haphazardly constructed trojan horse for YECism.

 

[Astrid]

This is a common response by evolutionary-atheists yet it misses the point of ID. Anyone who promotes the mainstream view are accepted as true scientists while those with an opposing view must have other motives, like theology (as though atheism is not its own kind of theology as an "anti-theology") and are thus not scientific (though Meyer holds a degree in the life sciences as well as the philosophy of science and consequently has a deeper understanding of the foundations of science than too many scientists, atheist or otherwise).

What do you mean by "creationism"? There are young-earth creationists and there are also evolutionary creationists. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the ID movement. It addresses what are identified as fundamental weaknesses in the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution. Your criticism seems more accurately directed to YEC than to ID.

Are you asserting that the issues raised by Meyer, Gelernter and Berlinski are superfluous? Can you explain the solution to the problems they raise with the current neo-Darwinian theory? I do not know the people you name above, but are any of them rethinking the presuppositions underlying evolutionary theory? Or analyzing evolutionary theory from an informational standpoint? Gelernter and Berlinski are both from the MIT AI Lab and have a computational perspective. It reveals that blind chance is inadequate to produce the existing complexity of life. The plausibility of the random mechanisms of evolution are in question and nobody has really explained them. Unless some directed selection principles are introduced, purely random processes have a uniform probability distribution. (I won't go farther with this because I don't know how much probability theory you know.)

Truly random processes cannot produce the present complexity of life; the probability is so low that it could not have occurred. Bill Dembski has written a book on this (and yes, he has a PhD in statistics). Consequently the hypothesis fails that mutation and selection are both random. Some form of directing principles must exist. The present mechanistic hypothesis of evolutionary theory based on blind chance is more in the category of philosophy than science. It falls short of identifying its own causes.

Evolutionary theory also does not include the origin of life, only its development. What ID questions are the physical mechanisms attributed to that development. In the life sciences at present, there is simply no viable theory for explaining the origin of life. There have been attempts, but nothing that has held up.

The point of ID is to prove God.

To accuse those who object to pseudoscience,
and / point out that ID has exactly zero data
even from those who do real research, of being the ones
lacking Integrity is kind of funny.

Your “ cannot produce…” is a claim of facts not
in evidence, and, also amusingly, is self contradictory.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the ID movement

No, he identified the purpose correctly. How do you pronounce cdesign proponentsists?

Are you asserting that the issues raised by Meyer, Gelernter and Berlinski are superfluous?

Why, yes. None of them are biologists, and it shows.

It reveals that blind chance is inadequate to produce the existing complexity of life. The plausibility of the random mechanisms of evolution are in question and nobody has really explained them.

No evolutionary biologist is proposing that blind chance has produced the existing complexity of life. Are you sure that you understand the theory of evolution?

Consequently the hypothesis fails that mutation and selection are both random. Some form of directing principles must exist.

Whose hypothesis is that? Selection is not random, and is a directing principle behind evolution.

The present mechanistic hypothesis of evolutionary theory based on blind chance is more in the category of philosophy than science. It falls short of identifying its own causes.

The present theory of evolution is not based solely on blind chance. You are falling way short of actually understanding evolutionary biology. Perhaps a refresher course is in order:
Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia