Evolution makes Jesus a liar

[Micaiah]

I do not know if evolution happened, but I do know all the evidence could be explained in more than one way.

The 'evidence' is explained more than one way even within a certain camp. One thing we are certain of is that scientists make mistakes. Theories are developed by trial and error.

 

[shernren]

Hey jaybee,

Well I have to disagree with you here.. he created all things perfect and it was good, until Adam and Eve fell, then he cursed the ground and Adam and Eve were told they would have to suffer and toil in the world.

Now, find me the dictionary that tells you that everything which is good (or even very good) is perfect.

Well, this may be true for some YEC's but not for all of us.. a lot of generalisation has been happening in this thread about YEC's ! For my part, if the bible tells me something is so after i study it out, and there is evidence that seems to contradict it, then we are misinterpreting the evidence. (Which, lets face it, is always a possibility in science)

Really? What happened to that poll on CF where a lot of YECs said that if evolution was really true they'd lose their faith, or something like that? If evidence contradicts what the Bible "says" (according to you) then you may be misinterpreting the evidence. But you cannot write a new scientific perspective. You can only say "well, screw science" and step outside the scientific way of looking at it. "Misinterpreting the evidence" is not really a possibility in science, at least for the field we are discussing here.

To PaladinValer:

"Good" is an imperfect translation. The actual Hebrew implies something else. "Good" is a very rough translation.

I'm curious. what exactly does the Hebrew imply?

 

[jaybee]

Misinterpreting the evidence" is not really a possibility in science, at least for the field we are discussing here.

Really ? As far as I know science isn't the be all and end all... let me ask everyone a question. If science one day stated they had proved conclusively that God does not exist would you believe science above the bible then ?

 

[jaybee]

Hi all,

No, it isn't. Invalid argument.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

No, you are wrong.

How so ?

You've contradicted yourself.

Let me recap the argument, as I don't think I have contradicted myself..

Artybloke said

I mean the church as a whole. Not some poxy little demonination. And no we don't get a vote. That's how it happened in the early church: they decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which was and wnich wasn't scripture.

and you agreed by saying

The Holy Spirit told the Church even in the early years that not everything is literal. It told the Church that Scripture is inerrant on matters of salvation, faith, and doctrine. Not anything else.

But I am saying that according to 2 Peter 1:20,21 the Holy Spirit led holy men to write the bible. 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that all scripture is God breathed, so my question is.
Since when did the Holy Spirit start contradicting God ? Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them"

Also where are the references for the Church being told by the Holy Spirit that not everything is literal, as I would like to have a look at it.

I define it as it is properly defined, not how some non-expert does.

Not sure if this makes you the expert and me the non expert but I am curious how you define it, from your argument you are implying that humans didn't evolve from apes according to an evolutionist point of view, is this correct ? Am I right in stating that the current view is that both apes and man descended from a common ancestor ? I am interested in knowing..

Who said I was talking about all YECs? You?

No, you did actually...in this quote...

As I often say to most YECs, why don't you:

I've been posting on CF long enough to know this is not so.

What I am saying is that creation science and evolution science all have the same physical evidence, the same earth, the same dinosaur bones, the same everything, but one piece of evidence can be looked at from 2 different viewpoints, surely you understand this...

"Good" is an imperfect translation. The actual Hebrew implies something else. "Good" is a very rough translation.

- towb {tobe}
Meaning:
adj
1) good, pleasant, agreeable
a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
c) good, excellent (of its kind)
d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
e) good, appropriate, becoming
f) better (comparative)
g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)
h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)
i) good, kind, benign
j) good, right (ethical)

n m
2) a good thing, benefit, welfare
a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
b) good things (collective)
c) good, benefit
d) moral good

n f
3) welfare, benefit, good things
a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
b) good things (collective)
c) bounty


So your argument is that God meant something different from good when m2ntioned in Genesis 1 as its a rough translation? From what I could find in my Strongs concordance ( see above ) it seems a lot like good to me. Would God, a God of love, life and joy, let so many creatures suffer before the fall ? What then is the difference between life after the fall and before it ? Doesn't Christ also say that God is good ?

The reason I persist with this is that I really believe that Gods word is eternal and we cannot change what the bible means. I don't believe Genesis is a metephor, or rhetoric, or a parable, simply because it was what God told Moses to write down. If we doubt our origins how much else do we doubt in the bible ?

God Bless all.

 

[notto]

Really ? As far as I know science isn't the be all and end all... let me ask everyone a question. If science one day stated they had proved conclusively that God does not exist would you believe science above the bible then ?

Science can't prove conclusively that God does not exist. This is a silly question. If a scientist would say they could, those that accept science would simply identify that the person isn't doing science anymore.

Nobody is believing science above the bible. We are accepting the reality of the direct creation of God that we can touch, feel, and examine. The creation cannot lie.

 

[shernren]

Really ? As far as I know science isn't the be all and end all... let me ask everyone a question. If science one day stated they had proved conclusively that God does not exist would you believe science above the bible then ?

jaybee, how do you define science? If you could define science properly you would see that it is impossible to devise or perform a (even theoretical) scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God as we know Him.

 

[artybloke]

What I am saying is that creation science and evolution science all have the same physical evidence, the same earth, the same dinosaur bones, the same everything, but one piece of evidence can be looked at from 2 different viewpoints, surely you understand this...

Sorry, but no. Science doesn't work like that; it isn't literary criticism and it isn't philosophy. 2+2 always = 4, whatever way you look at it.

If every dating method gives you a date of, say, 2.2 billion years, then the overwhelming probability is that 2.2 billion years is its date. When you have the evidence clearly observed, then and only then can you apply a theory to explain why the evidence is saying that it's 2.2 billion years old. And that theory must fit all the evidence, including explaining why the dating methods used can't be wrong. If it doesn't explain all the evidence, then it is an invalid theory, not just an alternative reading.

If there is still more than one possible explanation for the evidence, then what you have is a hypothesis. An example might be the Documentary Hypothesis for the authorship of the Penteteuch: the idea that there are 4 major strands of writing throughout the 5 books. It's based on evidence, namely the different writing styles, different uses of the words for God, etc. but the evidence can never rule out alternative explanations because we don't have enough evidence to rule out other theories (such as the the original manuscripts.)

But a theory explains all the evidence, and is the only viable theory that does so. It ceases to be a valid theory when it no longer does so (ie when new evidence is brought to light.)

Theological, philosophical and literary questions often have several possible answers; scientific questions only have one. What does E equal? Mc2

 

[jaybee]

Hey all,

thanks for the interesting reading all, I have a few more questions though..

Nobody is believing science above the bible. We are accepting the reality of the direct creation of God that we can touch, feel, and examine. The creation cannot lie.

Isn't that what theistic evolution does though ? Put science above the bible? The bible says that the earth was created in 6 days, but when some scientist says that it isn't true then people decide that certain portions of the bible are just a morality tale.

If every dating method gives you a date of, say, 2.2 billion years, then the overwhelming probability is that 2.2 billion years is its date. When you have the evidence clearly observed, then and only then can you apply a theory to explain why the evidence is saying that it's 2.2 billion years old. And that theory must fit all the evidence, including explaining why the dating methods used can't be wrong. If it doesn't explain all the evidence, then it is an invalid theory, not just an alternative reading

So why can't the dating methoeds be wrong ? What if they were flawed because we make certain assumptions ? Wouldn't that lead to false results ? All I am saying is that we have another kind of evidence.. the bible...

jaybee, how do you define science? If you could define science properly you would see that it is impossible to devise or perform a (even theoretical) scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God as we know Him.

Thats a tough one...so heres a good definition for science that I found...

"a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study"


So the scientific method is just one way of explaining the physical universe.
Another way is through faith in the revelation of a loving God in his bible.

Just because ( and let me try and say this properly ), just because most people like the scientific method does not mean it is right in all things. Just because it has easily reproducible results does not mean it is more right than what I learn from the bible.

This was a big concept for me when I converted to YEC. People put faith in science as they would in a religion ! And sometimes people in science are wrong ! Doctors never used to wash thier hands and wondered why so many people were dying, they didnt have knowledge of microscopic germs. Sometimes we don't know everything. A question for the scientists out there, tell me, has there ever been a belief in a scientific theory that was common knowledge and taken as true, then new evidence turned up and the whole theory was turned on its head ?

Just because the current and most popular theory states something is no reason to doubt the word of God.

 

[notto]

Isn't that what theistic evolution does though ? Put science above the bible? The bible says that the earth was created in 6 days, but when some scientist says that it isn't true then people decide that certain portions of the bible are just a morality tale.

No, we look at the actual creation and compare it to what the bible says. If our interpretation of the bible is in direct conflict with God's creation, guess which one is wrong. The creation can not lie. It's not putting science above the bible, it is interpreting the bible to be in line with what the creation actually reveals. Why deny what the creation tells us?

 

[gluadys]

Isn't that what theistic evolution does though ? Put science above the bible? The bible says that the earth was created in 6 days, but when some scientist says that it isn't true then people decide that certain portions of the bible are just a morality tale.

First, what is wrong with being a morality tale?

No, it is not a matter of putting science above the bible. It is a matter of putting God’s truth above all. Scientists go to a lot of work to make sure their interpretations of the natural world line up with reality. So when they come to a consensus, they are pretty sure (not 100% sure, but very close to it) that what they present does describe reality as it is. Only new evidence will change the model.

So if what we read in the bible appears to be in conflict with that we have very few choices:
a) the bible is flat out wrong.
b) science, in spite of all its cross-checking and testing, is wrong.
c) I am wrong in my interpretation of the bible.

Opt for a) and you are no longer a Christian.
Opt for b) and you write off science as a source of truth. Along with it you write off your senses and your rationality, given by God, as sources of knowing the world, and you write off God as the rational creator of a rational, knowable universe.
Opt for c) and you recognize your own limitations and open yourself up to understanding both God’s world and God’s word at a deeper level.

So why can't the dating methoeds be wrong ? What if they were flawed because we make certain assumptions ? Wouldn't that lead to false results ? All I am saying is that we have another kind of evidence.. the bible...

If the dating methods had not proved reliable in the first place, scientists would not be using them. Do you think scientists adopt dating methods without checking out their reliability first? In fact they continue to check out the reliability of dating methods regularly.

Another reason we know dating methods, used properly, are reliable, is because they agree with each other. Suppose you have several people timing a race, and you rig their timing devices to give false results? How many false results will you get? If you have 5 people timing the race, you will get five different results. But if you fix the timing devices so that they work properly, you will get one result—the correct one. When you question the reliability of the dating methods, you are not only suggesting that they give false results, but that they conspire together to give the same false result. That just does not make sense. Faulty methods would each give a different false result, because there are zillions of different ways of being wrong. There is no way a radioactive isotope is going to influence the movement of tectonic plates. Yet whether you measure the formation of the Hawaiian islands by radioisotope testing of volcanic lava flows, or by the movement of its plate over a Pacific hot spot, you get the same dates. That would not be possible if one or both of these measurements was wrong.

So the scientific method is just one way of explaining the physical universe.
Another way is through faith in the revelation of a loving God in his bible.

Just because ( and let me try and say this properly ), just because most people like the scientific method does not mean it is right in all things. Just because it has easily reproducible results does not mean it is more right than what I learn from the bible.

No, but you do have to consider that your understanding of the bible may be faulty, just as scientists assume our understanding of nature is incomplete and possibly faulty.

This was a big concept for me when I converted to YEC. People put faith in science as they would in a religion !

And they are wrong to do so. Science is based on evidence, and if the theory does not fit the evidence, it should not be believed.

And sometimes people in science are wrong ! Doctors never used to wash thier hands and wondered why so many people were dying, they didnt have knowledge of microscopic germs. Sometimes we don't know everything.

There is a big difference between being wrong and being ignorant. No scientific study ever said it was safe not to wash hands. It was just habit and tradition. It took science to make the case that hand-washing was important.

A similar thing is happening in parts of Africa today in regard to female “circumcision” aka genital mutilation. Do you think science ever advocated this? Not at all. It is an old cultural tradition. But health workers see the damage it does to girls and women and have convinced many governments to launch education programs and legislation to eradicate the pratice.

A question for the scientists out there, tell me, has there ever been a belief in a scientific theory that was common knowledge and taken as true, then new evidence turned up and the whole theory was turned on its head ?

Yes. Of course. The geocentric theory of the universe which was overturned by helio-centricity. Also the humour theory of disease that was connected with it. You can also check out the phlogiston theory of fire. And the theory of the infinite universe which was overturned by relativity and big bang theory.

So, if evidence ever turns up that stands evolution on its head, you can rest assured that scientists will junk the theory of evolution just as they junked the phlogiston theory of fire.

In the meantime, it is the best scientific explanation we have for many biological observations.

Just because the current and most popular theory states something is no reason to doubt the word of God.

TEs don’t doubt the word of God. But they do expect the word of God in the bible to be a true word that is consistent with the word of God in creation.

Also, scientific theories don’t get to be theories through popularity. They get to be theories by explaining and successfully predicting evidence.

 

[jaybee]

Hey gluadys,
thanks for your thoughtful reply....

First, what is wrong with being a morality tale?

No, it is not a matter of putting science above the bible. It is a matter of putting God’s truth above all.

For me, the problem with it being a morality tale is this. And I will talk about creation just as an example, I am sure there are others.
- Gods word tells me that the earth was created in 6 days.
- Gods word tells me that Jesus died an atoning sacrifice for my sins.
If Gods word is wrong about one, isn 't it possible that Gods word is wrong about the other ? And I am not saved ?
Therefore, for me ( however illogically ) let Gods word be true and man a liar, because without the bible being right about it all, it could be wrong about it all as well.

a) the bible is flat out wrong.
b) science, in spite of all its cross-checking and testing, is wrong.
c) I am wrong in my interpretation of the bible.

b) and you write off science as a source of truth. Along with it you write off your senses and your rationality, given by God, as sources of knowing the world, and you write off God as the rational creator of a rational, knowable universe.

I disagree with your interpretation of b, its an extreme. I am not saying we should throw all science out the window at all ! I love science, studied science at university and think its a great way of methodically testing and interpreting data... but if Gods word tells me something different then we have misinterpreted the data...

As for the c option.

c) I am wrong in my interpretation of the bible.

I agree that everyone interprets scripture differently, hence the difference between denominations, but, for me I find it hard to think of another interpretation for Genesis 1 that says after a day of creation that "the evening and the morning were the first day". Thats very plain to me and I would be interested in knowing where in Genesis 1 we can find verses that talk about evolution from microbes over millions of years. If we can't find it then it means we are taking what science says above God.

When you question the reliability of the dating methods, you are not only suggesting that they give false results, but that they conspire together to give the same false result. That just does not make sense

I understand what you are saying here, but what if, to follow your example of the false results, you go on the assumption that the watches always run at a certain rate, or that the watches will continue to run at a certain rate. Then if after the race you threw away data that contradicted your expected results because it was obviously in error then you will get consistant results. Heres what one scientific website I found has to say about radio dating.

Radio-Dating
The principle of radio-dating is based upon two concepts, one factual and the other theoretical. Factually, radioactive isotopes degrade = decay = over time as they lose energy and subatomic particles. They are by nature unstable. Theoretically, we are assuming that rate is constant over time and always has been. If that assumption is incorrect, then all of our time boundaries for geologic periods would be incorrect and our perceptions and calculations for the age of the earth and its geological components would all need adjustments.

We will proceed as if all of our assumptions are correct

Its the last sentence I have a problem with.

There is a big difference between being wrong and being ignorant.

I agree - back then they didn't know they were wrong, they were ignorant. Which is how I see it now. People don't know they are wrong unless they compare their beliefs with the word of God.

No, but you do have to consider that your understanding of the bible may be faulty

I am certainly not holding myself up as an expert, but as I said, how else can we interpret passages in Genesis for example, without changing what happened entirely ? God says there was a worldwide flood, I believe Him !

TEs don’t doubt the word of God. But they do expect the word of God in the bible to be a true word that is consistent with the word of God in creation

I haven't heard that phrase put that way before, the word of God in creation. Don't you mean , the interpretation of the word of God in creation ? I may have a different interpretation.

This is my point. We take what man says about creation and take it as 100% right, but doubt what God says....

If you actually read all the above, thanks !

jaybee

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree that everyone interprets scripture differently, hence the difference between denominations, but, for me I find it hard to think of another interpretation for Genesis 1 that says after a day of creation that "the evening and the morning were the first day". Thats very plain to me and I would be interested in knowing where in Genesis 1 we can find verses that talk about evolution from microbes over millions of years. If we can't find it then it means we are taking what science says above God.

read framework interpretation stuff.

that is the great power of the common sense, man in the pew, 19thC biblical hermeneutic, it seems so natural to modern people that they are seduced by its simplicity. Yet understand that your common sense is completely culturally based. and an enormous part of that cultural basis is modern science.
helio centric, spherical earth, all men are created equal, you get what you deserve, etc etc. these are the big notions that so many people take not just for granted but as universals, through both time and place. but they are NOT universals, far from it.
not only are they not universals, but they were not the common sense ideas of 2000 years ago when the NT was written (slavery was common place and a very accepted notion, life was fatalistic on the most part, there was no notion of technological or cultural progress etc) nor were they the common sense notions of 5K years ago when Genesis (or pieces of it) was first an oral tradition.
Not only do you address modern questions to Gen 1 (in what scientific order did God create the universe), you use the vocabulary of modern science-universe(Gen uses arez which just means the land, they never thought any bigger than the immediate eastern Med context, no globe, no China, no Australia, just Israel and its environs was the whole earth). Thus never really understanding how very different the textual context is from what you imagine it to be.

Radio-Dating
The principle of radio-dating is based upon two concepts, one factual and the other theoretical. Factually, radioactive isotopes degrade = decay = over time as they lose energy and subatomic particles. They are by nature unstable. Theoretically, we are assuming that rate is constant over time and always has been. If that assumption is incorrect, then all of our time boundaries for geologic periods would be incorrect and our perceptions and calculations for the age of the earth and its geological components would all need adjustments.

We will proceed as if all of our assumptions are correct

from: http://www.athensacademy.org/instruct/upper/science/jkridler/radio_dating/Radio_dating.htm
you describe it as a scientific site, it is a college prep day school. the actual assumption is more like the weak force has not changed since creation, which is the basis for radioactivity's timing. but i'd hardly describe this site as a scientific powerhouse....*grin*


.....

 

[jaybee]

helio centric, spherical earth, all men are created equal, you get what you deserve, etc etc. these are the big notions that so many people take not just for granted but as universals, through both time and place. but they are NOT universals, far from it.
not only are they not universals, but they were not the common sense ideas of 2000 years ago when the NT was written (slavery was common place and a very accepted notion, life was fatalistic on the most part, there was no notion of technological or cultural progress etc) nor where they the common sense notions of 5K years ago when Genesis (or pieces of it) was first an oral tradition.

So are you saying that I will never be able to understand the bible unless I travel back in time ? Has Gods word become irrelevant now ?

Not only do you address modern questions to Gen 1 (in what scientific order did God create the universe), you use the vocabulary of modern science-universe. Thus never really understanding how very different the textual context is from what you imagine it to be.

Which is all well and good to say but how else am I supposed to interpret it ? If you have a deeper understanding don't keep it to yourself !

I believe that Gods word endures and is relevant today, thats part of the uniqueness of the bible, but I still can't find anywhere in the bible that says we evolved, and I would rather believe what the bible has to tell me than man...

cheers !

jaybee

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So are you saying that I will never be able to understand the bible unless I travel back in time ? Has Gods word become irrelevant now ?


Which is all well and good to say but how else am I supposed to interpret it ? If you have a deeper understanding don't keep it to yourself !

I believe that Gods word endures and is relevant today, thats part of the uniqueness of the bible, but I still can't find anywhere in the bible that says we evolved, and I would rather believe what the bible has to tell me than man...

cheers !

jaybee

i really don't understand this radical polarization of thinking that seems to be so common in the conservative evangelical churches. it is not a question of YECism and scottish common sense 19thC hermeneutic vs modern neo-orthodox liberalism. Hey look, there are lots of good theologians working on the questions for a conservative God-fearing viewpoint. I appreciate the historical work by G. Marsden, D. Wells, M. Noll that point to the specific problems with this hermeneutic that relies so heavily on common sense, man in the pew reasonings. Read their stuff, look at the history of the 19thC and the rise of evangelicalism and what happened. Just because you understand part of your community's past doesn't invalidate it and throw you into the polarized oppositions arms. why are things so black and white with people?

The grammatical-historical hermeneutic is working ok on recapturing the past culture and history of the times the Scripture is written in. Fully orthodox theologians are giving the Church the tools it needs to combat not just unbelief but the particular forms of unbelief that our age sponsors so strongly, Scientism, evolutionism, progressivisms of all flavors.

But to misuse the Bible and efficiently try to use it as a modern scientific textbook doesn't help combat modern unbelief, for it isn't using God's Word as He intended it, but as a modern man wishes to use it. Read H. Van Til's _Fourth Day of Creation_ learn the packaging motif, it will help distinguish between what Scripture is teaching and what Scripture is using to transmit its message to us. Read Warfield and see the issue of that first generation of theologians to encounter unbelief in the form of Darwinian evolutionism and use that knowledge to distinguish between the science of evolution and a world view like Darwin which creates a metaphysics out of TofE.

The answers are around us, but we will not get them by putting our hands over our ears and chanting that the Bible is inerrant and God said it and i believe it and that settles it. You must study to show yourself approved to handle well the Word of God. and part of that is to learn and study good conservative hermeneutical principles.

rant over. sorry. i just really think that the evangelical church's are really messing up on the issues of science and theology. abandoning the field to unbelievers OTOH and to theological liberals OTO. which is simply unnecessary and doesn't do God justice as the Creator, Providential provider and Judge of this world.


....

 

[gluadys]

Hey gluadys,
thanks for your thoughtful reply....



For me, the problem with it being a morality tale is this. And I will talk about creation just as an example, I am sure there are others.
- Gods word tells me that the earth was created in 6 days.
- Gods word tells me that Jesus died an atoning sacrifice for my sins.
If Gods word is wrong about one, isn 't it possible that Gods word is wrong about the other ? And I am not saved ?
Therefore, for me ( however illogically ) let Gods word be true and man a liar, because without the bible being right about it all, it could be wrong about it all as well.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You are not talking about morality tales. You are talking about God's word being wrong. Biblical morality tales are not about God's word being wrong. What are you driving at?

I disagree with your interpretation of b, its an extreme. I am not saying we should throw all science out the window at all ! I love science, studied science at university and think its a great way of methodically testing and interpreting data... but if Gods word tells me something different then we have misinterpreted the data...

So we re-check the data and we get the same results. And we recheck it again and still get the same results. And we recheck it again and still get the same results. How often do we need to recheck the data before we decide it is not our interpretation of the data that is wrong? It is our interpretation of scripture that is wrong.

No one has said we should just roll over and throw traditional interpretations of scripture out the window as soon as science says "maybe it ain't so...". It is sound science, science that has been tested over and over and over again, and only sound, tested science, that can call our interpretation of scripture into question.

And even then, it is only the interpretation of scripture that is questioned, not God's word in scripture.

I agree that everyone interprets scripture differently, hence the difference between denominations, but, for me I find it hard to think of another interpretation for Genesis 1

So? No one promised you that thinking would be easy.

Thats very plain to me and I would be interested in knowing where in Genesis 1 we can find verses that talk about evolution from microbes over millions of years.

The bible does not discuss evolution.

If we can't find it then it means we are taking what science says above God.

The bible is not an encyclopedia. We can and do discover lots of knowledge the bible never speaks of. The bible does not speak of organs (musical instruments) either. Organs were not invented until the 15th century. Some Christian denominations say we ought not to use organs in churches because the bible never speaks of them.

If you really believed that any knowledge from outside the bible is taking science above God, you would not be typing at a computer. And you would not take any modern medicine either, because none of that is in the bible.

I understand what you are saying here, but what if, to follow your example of the false results, you go on the assumption that the watches always run at a certain rate, or that the watches will continue to run at a certain rate. Then if after the race you threw away data that contradicted your expected results because it was obviously in error then you will get consistant results. Heres what one scientific website I found has to say about radio dating.

You just ignored everything I said about testing the reliability of dating methods before using them, didn't you? Do you know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion? Dating methods are not assumed to be reliable. Scientists have concluded they are reliable as a consequence of testing their reliability.

Its the last sentence I have a problem with.

Why? We are talking universal constants here. Don't you think you would need some very strong evidence that a constant that has proved reliable over much testing is not a constant?

And would we not also have to figure out the parameters under which it is not constant? It is entirely possible that the situation under which radio-active decay is not constant only occurs in the earliest few seconds of the big bang, and is not relevant to earth-based measurements.

Let me remind you that all these dating methods have been tested for every possible earth-like condition. Scientists have tried every known method to influence the rate of decay. They have not found any--at least not any that occur on earth.

So barring a miracle, they are as accurate as anything we know when used properly.

Of course, a miracle can never be ruled out, but letting in a miracle means you are not dealing with science any more.

I agree - back then they didn't know they were wrong, they were ignorant. Which is how I see it now. People don't know they are wrong unless they compare their beliefs with the word of God.

And where in the bible does it tell doctors to wash their hands before going from one patient to another?

I am certainly not holding myself up as an expert, but as I said, how else can we interpret passages in Genesis for example, without changing what happened entirely ?

You are not getting to the root of the question. Does Genesis describe what happened at all? Or does it present God as creator through a story?

God says there was a worldwide flood, I believe Him !

If God actually said that, God is either lying in scripture or lying in his creation.

But of course, God did not say that. God did not dictate the bible. He inspired human beings to write it. And if the whole world known to the story-teller is destroyed by a flood, that is the way a story-teller will tell it. The fact that we know the world is much bigger than the story-teller dreamed of doesn't mean that we or he or God are lying when we note that from our perspective the flood was not global.

I haven't heard that phrase put that way before, the word of God in creation. Don't you mean , the interpretation of the word of God in creation ? I may have a different interpretation.

No, I mean the word of God in creation. Doesn't scripture say that the universe was created by God speaking it into existence? Doesn't it say that Christ, the Word of God is the creator of all things, and that in him all things hold together? It is a common theme of theology about science that the creation is a "book" written by God. And that is even more true of creation than of the bible, for with creation, God did not delegate others to do the writing, but "wrote" it directly himself.

Science is indeed an interpretation of the word of God in creation, and a very imperfect interpretation since we are very far from having read the whole book of nature yet. We are like readers part way through a mystery novel making guesses about what the rest of the story will tell.

But God's book of nature is not the only book that requires interpretation. The bible also requires interpretation. So when the books seem to conflict, we can be certain the conflict is not between the word of God in the bible and the word of God in creation. It is between our interpretation of the bible and our interpretation of creation.

Our interpretations, both of the bible and of creation, can be faulty. It is a question of determining case by case which one is faulty.

This is my point. We take what man says about creation and take it as 100% right, but doubt what God says....

We do not doubt what God says. We doubt, even reject, what some people claim God says.

 

[gluadys]

So are you saying that I will never be able to understand the bible unless I travel back in time ? Has Gods word become irrelevant now ?

In a sense. But you don't actually need a time machine. You need to be familiar with the world-view of the biblical writers and the people they were writing too. That only takes a bit of study. The important thing to remember is that the bible was not written directly to 21st century Americans. Using the world-view that is familiar to you when reading the bible is an almost certain way of misunderstanding it.

It's not that God's word changes, but that our ways of speaking and thinking do. Most of us don't read Hebrew, so we translate the bible into English. Most of us don't speak Shakespearian English, so we update the KJV to make it understandable to the present generation. Most of us take most of modern science for granted. But biblical writers knew nothing of it, and wrote according to the pre-scientific cultural norms of their time. Most of us are heirs of the Enlightenment and of cultural ideals of individualism that were totally foreign to the biblical writers. They thought of God making his covenant with a nation, not with individuals. For a good section of OT history, they thought of the gods of the nations as being real (though lesser) gods. It was not until the Babylonian exile that the Israelites were truly convinced monotheists.

To understand the bible as the author and those he was writing to understood it, means making a mental transition into their world view. Only then can we truly appreciate its timeless treasures.

 

[memroyroad]

good point, really

 

[shernren]

i really don't understand this radical polarization of thinking that seems to be so common in the conservative evangelical churches. it is not a question of YECism and scottish common sense 19thC hermeneutic vs modern neo-orthodox liberalism. Hey look, there are lots of good theologians working on the questions for a conservative God-fearing viewpoint. I appreciate the historical work by G. Marsden, D. Wells, M. Noll that point to the specific problems with this hermeneutic that relies so heavily on common sense, man in the pew reasonings. Read their stuff, look at the history of the 19thC and the rise of evangelicalism and what happened. Just because you understand part of your community's past doesn't invalidate it and throw you into the polarized oppositions arms. why are things so black and white with people?

Well, because we have the Bible in Westerner-friendly English it's easy to begin to imagine that it was written in Westerner-friendly English, especially when everything else around us is. Combine that with modern laziness and ultra-paraphrase editions like the whatever-Living Bible and the Message and we get the typical modern congregation who believes that the Gospel steps into their cultural paradigm. Which is true, of course: but first they have to take the initiative to step into the cultural paradigm of the Gospel and understand it inside out, before they can fully digest its meat.

It is rather ironic that evangelicals are the strongest believers of full-blown verbal inspiration - that God was holding the pen dictating down to the smallest dot - and yet (as far as I know) they prefer phrase-to-phrase translations like the NIV, or even sentence-to-sentence translations like the Message, over word-to-word translations like the NKJV. If you really believed every word has God's guidance in it why would you settle for a translation that covers up some of those God-guided words?

 

[Scholar in training]

For a good section of OT history, they thought of the gods of the nations as being real (though lesser) gods. It was not until the Babylonian exile that the Israelites were truly convinced monotheists.

A little off-topic, but I see this claim a lot, and it seems to rely a lot on personification of the word "god" in the Bible. If we can trust 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles, then can't we assume that - while the majority of Israel was eventually pulled into henothistic or polytheistic worship (IOW, it didn't start out that way, if the Israelites really did travel in Sinai, which is an ongoing debate) - a remnant of monotheistic Israelites (Elijah, a few of the kings, all of the prophets) remained throughout history?

 

[gluadys]

A little off-topic, but I see this claim a lot, and it seems to rely a lot on personification of the word "god" in the Bible. If we can trust 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles, then can't we assume that - while the majority of Israel was eventually pulled into henothistic or polytheistic worship (IOW, it didn't start out that way, if the Israelites really did travel in Sinai, which is an ongoing debate) - a remnant of monotheistic Israelites (Elijah, a few of the kings, all of the prophets) remained throughout history?

It is hard to decide if there was an original monotheism from which the Israelites departed and had to be called back to by the prophets, or an original henotheism which developed into monotheism via the prophetic witness.

It is clear that from at least the time of Moses on, the Israelites understood Yahweh to be their God, the one who had made a covenant with them and the only God they were to worship. It is clear they believed Yahweh to be a more powerful God than the gods of surrounding nations.

But that is not logically inconsistent with believing other gods are gods.

Even Elijah's witness is not so much that the God of Israel is the only god, as that the God of Israel is greater than Baal and claims the allegiance of Israel. OTOH deutero-Isaiah is a clear denunciation of the very claim of other gods to be gods at all.

Nor should we be surprised that to some extent strict monotheism was "read back" into the understanding of earlier generations, so that we have a confused witness on this point about the actual beliefs of the people of Israel at various time periods.

But the Exile was a turning point. Right up to and even after the fall of Jerusalem, idol worship was part of daily life in Judah. But after the return from Babylon, it never re-appears.