Creation, why we must accept it as given?

[reddogs]

God inspires and watches over the writers of His word, I am sure He would not have allowed the basis of many beliefs and the downfall of man to be put in scripture in a inprecise fashion. Everything on creation was specific and with purpose and the story of it was also very important and needed to be told as understandable as possible for man. Otherwise, it would lead to many interpretations, discord and false ideas, but it was given in a clear and orderly fashion that shows you the 'modus operendi' in how God does things. So we must accept Creation as it was given in scripture and God will fill in the extra details when we get to heaven.....

 

[djconklin]

I am sure He would not have allowed the basis of many beliefs and the downfall of man to be put in scripture in a inprecise fashion.

We're discussing this very point on a different thread. Those who attack the SDA church also attack the Bible--no surprise there.

 

[TrustAndObey]

We're discussing this very point on a different thread. Those who attack the SDA church also attack the Bible--no surprise there.

Because they have to. They have to believe scripture is unreliable in order to call people that follow the Word foolish.

It's a logical conclusion, at least to them, that anyone that follows scripture must have a very fallible foundation to begin with.

Some atheists won't allow you to use scripture for an answer, but they love to throw up certain verses that appear to paint God as unmerciful. Have you noticed that?

Scripture is only worth mentioning, in their opinion, if it appears to shine a negative light on the One we follow. Then, suddenly, it's "oh so true."

 

[JonMiller]

It seems very reasonable to me to read the creation stories in the Bible as not literal in the details, but true in the message/concepts/ideas. For one thing, it wasn't written by an eyewitness, and God is known to speek in metaphors and symbols.

It is in the Bible, and so the story is at the least inspired though.

I do beleive in an active God. And since I do, I think that the creation stories could be the literal descriptions of what happened (despite being completely counter to everything that we can observe).

Since the Bible isn't a book of science, and isn't meant to tell us about how the universe works (I know some Christians who desire to use it that way, but I can tell you plainly and clearly that it is not, and there is no reason why one should think so), but is rather an inspired record of man and God's relationship together, what is important is what it tells us about our relationship with God (and God's relationship with us). This it can do whether you beleive it relates literal events or not, as long as you take the Bible as inspired. Note, however, that the Bible is often (always?) from man's perspective. Not God's.

JM

 

[reddogs]

It seems very reasonable to me to read the creation stories in the Bible as not literal in the details, but true in the message/concepts/ideas. For one thing, it wasn't written by an eyewitness, and God is known to speek in metaphors and symbols.

It is in the Bible, and so the story is at the least inspired though.

I do beleive in an active God. And since I do, I think that the creation stories could be the literal descriptions of what happened (despite being completely counter to everything that we can observe).

Since the Bible isn't a book of science, and isn't meant to tell us about how the universe works (I know some Christians who desire to use it that way, but I can tell you plainly and clearly that it is not, and there is no reason why one should think so), but is rather an inspired record of man and God's relationship together, what is important is what it tells us about our relationship with God (and God's relationship with us). This it can do whether you beleive it relates literal events or not, as long as you take the Bible as inspired. Note, however, that the Bible is often (always?) from man's perspective. Not God's.

JM

Why would you say they are not literal?

 

[JonMiller]

No eye witnesses (or even freind of a freind of a freind of a freind). Humans would have a hard time understanding what was going on anyways. Also, God is known to speak in stories and symbols.

Additionally, all of our scientific observations provide evidence that something very different happened.

I am not saying that it isn't literal in the details, I am saying that there are good reasons why some don't think they are literal.

And in no wise am I saying that they aren't inspired. If you say that the Bible isn't inspired, you lose Jesus... which is the heart of Christianity.

JM

 

[Jon0388g]

No eye witnesses (or even freind of a freind of a freind of a freind). Humans would have a hard time understanding what was going on anyways. Also, God is known to speak in stories and symbols.

Additionally, all of our scientific observations provide evidence that something very different happened.

I am not saying that it isn't literal in the details, I am saying that there are good reasons why some don't think they are literal.

And in no wise am I saying that they aren't inspired. If you say that the Bible isn't inspired, you lose Jesus... which is the heart of Christianity.

JM

I have to disagree. There are many well learned, respected scientists who categorically demonstrate the problems with so called "observations" science has which seem to contradict the genesis account.

I can get the name of a few from a lady at church tomorrow if you want. She's much more into this issue than I am - surprising seeing as I'm scientifically inclined!



Jon

 

[djconklin]

My cousin has a biology doctorate and when he was working on his doctorate I helped--he remarked that I knew more about science than he did when he started. Oh?!?

I'm trying to get in touch with some scientists to help write up a short note on the creation-evolution controversy which shows that those who argue on this issue haven't thought it through very carefully. In short (and you have keep this here), both sides are talking past each other--because they both failed to properly define their terms. Creationism is about how life came to be; while evolution is how life changes--and one scientist said it doesn't do a very good job at that either!

 

[JonMiller]

I Am not talking about creationism versus evolutionism.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I have to disagree. There are many well learned, respected scientists who categorically demonstrate the problems with so called "observations" science has which seem to contradict the genesis account.

I can get the name of a few from a lady at church tomorrow if you want. She's much more into this issue than I am - surprising seeing as I'm scientifically inclined!



Jon

I don't think you understand what scientific observations mean yet.

There isn't one bit of scientific evidence or observation that favors the genesis account. You won't find any respected scientist who says otherwise.

I agree, and know, that there are small holes in evolutionary theory (I don't know details, it isn't my field, but from what reading I have done). But then Biology is a very complicated science. And such is expected (holes), but it does coincide well with scientific observations todate, while creationism does not.

On the other hand, physics (and geophysics), and decay rates/etc, are very simple (And so well understood). And these not only provide no scientific evidence of the creation account, they also provide evidence that something different happened.

Now, once more, I am not saying that the world wasn't created in 7 days, some 7000 years ago. I believe in a powerful God.

I am saying that there isn't one bit fo scientific evidence in favor of such a theory. And that our current scientific models are the logical models to best explain our scientific observations.

And I have read a number of creation science books (The Genesis Flood and others).

JM

 

[reddogs]

I don't think you understand what scientific observations mean yet.

There isn't one bit of scientific evidence or observation that favors the genesis account. You won't find any respected scientist who says otherwise.

I agree, and know, that there are small holes in evolutionary theory (I don't know details, it isn't my field, but from what reading I have done). But then Biology is a very complicated science. And such is expected (holes), but it does coincide well with scientific observations todate, while creationism does not.

On the other hand, physics (and geophysics), and decay rates/etc, are very simple (And so well understood). And these not only provide no scientific evidence of the creation account, they also provide evidence that something different happened.

Now, once more, I am not saying that the world wasn't created in 7 days, some 7000 years ago. I believe in a powerful God.

I am saying that there isn't one bit fo scientific evidence in favor of such a theory. And that our current scientific models are the logical models to best explain our scientific observations.

And I have read a number of creation science books (The Genesis Flood and others).

JM

The problem is when you discount any part of the Bible its a long slippery slope...........I rather go with that then the "theories" of man.....

 

[JonMiller]

Where did I say that I discount any part of the Bible? Most creationists read a whole lot into the Bible that isn't there, but is instead based on their own reasoning.

JM

 

[mva1985]

Where did I say that I discount any part of the Bible? Most creationists read a whole lot into the Bible that isn't there, but is instead based on their own reasoning.

JM

JM,

When I read your post I got the same impression. But then you said that you weren't saying that the world wasn't created in 7 days, but it sure seemed like you were giving more credence to science and not the Bible.

I am of the opinion that when science seems to contradict the Bible there is something we have done wrong in our reasoning.

 

[JonMiller]

Where does the Bible say that evolution doesn't happen? Where does it say anything about decay rates?

JM

 

[Jimlarmore]

No eye witnesses (or even freind of a freind of a freind of a freind). Humans would have a hard time understanding what was going on anyways. Also, God is known to speak in stories and symbols.

Remember, with God anything is possible. If He inspired the writer of the creation story to tell it like it happened whose to say God didn't let Him see the events as they happened long ago in vision or a dream? We just don't know. Many things we must take on faith but you are not totally correct in saying the Bible is not scientific as true science is about accepting God.

Additionally, all of our scientific observations provide evidence that something very different happened.

No it doesn't. The big bang is not actually a proveable theory in all it's aspects. Especially in the concept of the initial singularity. Certain aspects and interpretations ( Copenhagen ) of quantum mechanics has recently confirmed the neccessity of an alpha observer which for all practical purpose is God without calling it that.

I am not saying that it isn't literal in the details, I am saying that there are good reasons why some don't think they are literal.

And in no wise am I saying that they aren't inspired. If you say that the Bible isn't inspired, you lose Jesus... which is the heart of Christianity.

JM

Both sides require faith to accept. Fiat creation is not observable in nature but neither is chemical and physical evolution to the extent they want us to believe in. Unassisted abiogenesis takes a lot of faith and statistically is impossible to have occurred yet many atheistic scientists hold onto it like glue because they have nothing else to hold onto. Sad sad deal.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[JonMiller]

Does the Bible say that God showed Moses or whoever the creation of the world (or whatever?). Why are you putting stuff into the Bible which isn't there?

I haven't talked about proven theories of beginnings. I have talked about science though.

How is true science about accepting God? I don't think you know what science is. I get upset at Christians who claim science is what it is not. It does a disservice to Christianity, and creates a backlash against Christianity from intellectuals.

Science is about observation, experiment, modeling, and prediction.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

and I agree that both sides take faith. or assumptions) to belief-science takes a belay in empiricism


J M

 

[mva1985]

Where does the Bible say that evolution doesn't happen? Where does it say anything about decay rates?

JM

JM,

Just so you know I always loved science in school. So I am not an adversary.

No the Bible doesn't say anything about decay rates, but can we assume that the rates where always the same, especially before sin entered? Carbon-14 dating?

 

[JonMiller]

My point is that the Bible doesn't say anything about decay rates. So why do some insist that the science must be wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible doesn't say so!

Could God have changed things like decay rates.. or the processes of evolving? Sure.

I am not saying He did (I don't know). I am saying, however, that scientific observations, models, and experiments explicitly don't support creation, and their predictions are in fact the evolutionary theory and 'big bang'. I also am saying that scientific theories don't include God acting, so if He did, they would have some wrong predictions (especially at any time He acted).

The scientific method works in a certain way, and that way gives the great results we have seen the past several hundred years (the results of science). However, it only works where it's assumptions hold true. Even if God did create the world 7000 years ago, would that make the scientific theories wrong? Most likely not, it would merely mean that the assumptions that went into those theories stopped being valid in a (fundamentally?) nonpredictable way. In other words, the events would be outside of the scope of science.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I am not saying He did (I don't know). I am saying, however, that scientific observations, models, and experiments explicitly don't support creation, and their predictions are in fact the evolutionary theory and 'big bang'. I also am saying that scientific theories don't include God acting, so if He did, they would have some wrong predictions (especially at any time He acted).

Please explain what you mean. How do scientific observations not include creation or not include a Creator acting?

The scientific method works in a certain way, and that way gives the great results we have seen the past several hundred years (the results of science).

The scientific method is not a process. It is a tool used to interpret reality.