Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Justatruthseeker]

Why would anyone assume that I was only blaming the Church when I made a passing reference to Galileo's view of the Bible? Does everyone on here just start up their "Eisegesis Machine" and run with it?

Didn't say "you" were assuming that. I said others would assume that.

My words.

"like quite a few on here would assume you were."

Don't put words in my mouth please. You and I both know that strawman of the Church refusing to look in the telescope was sure to follow - even if it was the philosophers - not the Jesuit Priests that refused to look. If you want to believe they wouldn't have you are certainly entitled to your belief. I just know better. But I am glad you have such faith in your fellow man. But do we need to go to other posts where this same subject eventually turned into an attack on the Church itself????

I am sorry if you assumed my sarcastic debating style - like Galileo was an attack on you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Didn't say "you" were assuming that. I said others would assume that.

My words.

"like quite a few on here would assume you were."

Don't put words in my mouth please. You and I both know that strawman of the Church refusing to look in the telescope was sure to follow - even if it was the philosophers - not the Jesuit Priests that refused to look. If you want to believe they wouldn't have you are certainly entitled to your belief. I just know better. But I am glad you have such faith in your fellow man. But do we need to go to other posts where this same subject eventually turned into an attack on the Church itself????

I am sorry if you assumed my sarcastic debating style - like Galileo was an attack on you.

Ok.

So, what is you're evaluation of the following excerpt?

Taken from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists

Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a “Two Book” concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the “Book of Nature” and the “Book of Scripture” are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The “Book of Scripture” must yield to and accommodate the “Book of Nature”. Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology.

For example, Galileo said, “The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics.” Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”​

Just thought I'd ask since you have an interest in the Galileo affair.

2PhiloVoid

 

[SkyWriting]

Probably because you've never really studied biology.

I practically have a minor degree in Science-Fiction. Likely that's what you are referencing.
That's were you create fiction based on well accepted scientific principals.

 

[lesliedellow]

Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a “Two Book” concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the “Book of Nature” and the “Book of Scripture” are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The “Book of Scripture” must yield to and accommodate the “Book of Nature”. Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

Not true. Archaeologists are notorious for having to unsay their overly confident pronouncements, but for the YECs to stand any chance of being right, too many people would have to be too wrong about too many things. Their position simply isn't tenable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok.

So, what is you're evaluation of the following excerpt?

Taken from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists

Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a “Two Book” concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the “Book of Nature” and the “Book of Scripture” are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The “Book of Scripture” must yield to and accommodate the “Book of Nature”. Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology.

For example, Galileo said, “The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics.” Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”​

Just thought I'd ask since you have an interest in the Galileo affair.

2PhiloVoid

You have my take on that already.

The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.

I'm not sure what you believe, but I certainly believe the Works were penned by the same Author that penned the Words.

I certainly believe that a "correct" understanding of what has been made and a "correct" understanding of the Word, leads one to discern those invisible attributes of God.

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So why are you know making excuses for ignoring or attempting to understand what has been made? When "BOTH" are correctly interpreted - they will lead to harmony. If they don't it is simply an incorrect interpretation of either the Words or the Works by MEN. Because a "correct" understanding of both will remove all excuses for ignoring God.

The end will come when science has finally advanced enough to gain a "correct" understanding of what has been made - then all excuses will be swept away and judgement will ensue.

The physical world operates by those very laws God set into motion. Laws so consistent we can predict the orbits with amazing accuracy. But science, despite being able to comprehend these laws, still attempts to tell you it is all random, even if they are so consistent that nothing random is included in the calculations.

Only when we get to the quantum scale - the scale at which an understanding of those things made begins to become comprehensible - do all our scientific laws fly out the window and we are unable to explain anything with any accuracy whatsoever - at this present time.

There is nothing "random" to it - just laws put into motion our limited minds and knowledge can not comprehend at this point in time or technology.

So you tell me what that invisible power is that makes up all things and to which all things will return? That very substance of God from which all things are and He exists in all things? Science will give you nothing but the same answer the bible does - invisible power - energy. Because we do not yet understand it at this point in our scientific knowledge.

But fear not, we will some day - and when we do all the excuses will be removed and then the end will come. Or the beginning. I guess it just depends on whether the glass is half empty of half full?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have my take on that already.

The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.

I'm not sure what you believe, but I certainly believe the Works were penned by the same Author that penned the Words.

I approach Christian belief in a similar way to that of the BioLogos group, as opposed to that of the Discovery Institute (I.D.), or Creation Science, or traditional six-day Creationism.

I certainly believe that a "correct" understanding of what has been made and a "correct" understanding of the Word, leads one to discern those invisible attributes of God.

I don't, but I won't hold it against you if you do.

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

And this is just the trick, isn't it. To assume that Paul's meaning comports with today's paradigms about the physical universe, not to mention what we think we understand about reality on a more local level on our own planet. I don't think Paul was as specific about so-called 'evidences' of God's Divinity Seen in Nature as we, today, like to impute to his thought.

So why are you know making excuses for ignoring or attempting to understand what has been made? When "BOTH" are correctly interpreted - they will lead to harmony. If they don't it is simply an incorrect interpretation of either the Words or the Works by MEN. Because a "correct" understanding of both will remove all excuses for ignoring God.

Excuses? What excuses? I simply asked you what you thought of the excerpt I cited; I didn't say anything about my agreement or disagreement with it. But, since we're at it ... yes, I do think the Bible represents, in most respects, a different field of human thought than does natural science. And if you disagree with me, that's fine by me.

The end will come when science has finally advanced enough to gain a "correct" understanding of what has been made - then all excuses will be swept away and judgement will ensue.

Maybe. Maybe not. What does it matter? The world in its sinful inclinations will not accept Christ, and no Natural Theology will pull it out of its spiritual funk.

The physical world operates by those very laws God set into motion. Laws so consistent we can predict the orbits with amazing accuracy. But science, despite being able to comprehend these laws, still attempts to tell you it is all random, even if they are so consistent that nothing random is included in the calculations.

Right; by those laws of God that are NOT mentioned in the Bible (because that's not the Bible's purpose).

Only when we get to the quantum scale - the scale at which an understanding of those things made begins to become comprehensible - do all our scientific laws fly out the window and we are unable to explain anything with any accuracy whatsoever - at this present time.

Why not? Didn't Paul "say" that we should see God's hand in the cosmos? Why not at the Quantum Level as well. You're hedging.

There is nothing "random" to it - just laws put into motion our limited minds and knowledge can not comprehend at this point in time or technology.

Nothing random? Isn't Quantum Theory reflective of randomness at some level?

So you tell me what that invisible power is that makes up all things and to which all things will return? That very substance of God from which all things are and He exists in all things? Science will give you nothing but the same answer the bible does - invisible power - energy. Because we do not yet understand it at this point in our scientific knowledge.

The invisible power is God; but we only know this because of God's Revelation, not because our minds are so brilliant.

But fear not, we will some day - and when we do all the excuses will be removed and then the end will come. Or the beginning. I guess it just depends on whether the glass is half empty of half full?

I don't doubt that. God is Sovereign.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I approach Christian belief in a similar way to that of the BioLogos group, as opposed to that of the Discovery Institute (I.D.), or Creation Science, or traditional six-day Creationism.

Men are prone to error - no matter who they are.

I don't, but I won't hold it against you if you do.

Nor do I hold it against you you don't believe the same Author penned both the Words and the Works even if the Bible told you God's invisible qualities are to be observed by the things made.

That will be between you and Him sometime in the future.

And this is just the trick, isn't it. To assume that Paul's meaning comports with today's paradigms about the physical universe, not to mention what we think we understand about reality on a more local level on our own planet. I don't think Paul was as specific about so-called 'evidences' of God's Divinity Seen in Nature as we, today, like to impute to his thought.

And this is just the trick, isn't it. To assume that Paul's meaning doesn't comport to today's paradigms about the physical universe. Even if those same people will tell us the Bible was meant for and is valid in all times and ages? If it isn't you might as well treat it as nothing but a history book.

Excuses? What excuses? I simply asked you what you thought of the excerpt I cited; I didn't say anything about my agreement or disagreement with it. But, since we're at it ... yes, I do think the Bible represents, in most respects, a different field of human thought than does natural science. And if you disagree with me, that's fine by me.

Not at all. But it is not just a static history book. Either it is valid for all times and ages or it isn't. If it isn't throw it in the trash because it is useless for today. If it is, then accept it for the things it try's to tell you.

Maybe. Maybe not. What does it matter? The world in its sinful inclinations will not accept Christ, and no Natural Theology will pull it out of its spiritual funk.

Natural philopshy is of God, since God created all the natural things around us and they work according to His will. If we can't understand the things made in able to discern His invisible attributes, we will of course fail to understand God.

Right; by those laws of God that are NOT mentioned in the Bible (because that's not the Bible's purpose).

But can be discerned by understanding the things made, yes? So understanding those things made leads to a better understanding of the One who made them. Just as understanding how a car works leads to a btter understanding of humans and the way we think.

Why not? Didn't Paul "say" that we should see God's hand in the cosmos? Why not at the Quantum Level as well. You're hedging.

Nope you are hedging. Our lack of understanding of those laws does not reflect on the fact that they exist. We once believed in epicycles - until out knowledge advanced. One can not equate lack of knowledge of those principles as meaning they do not exist. We simply do not understand them at this time. Just as the Jews lack of understanding of the Messiah at their point of knowledge during the time of Christ led them to incorrect conclusions about Jesus. They thought they knew what the coming of the Messiah meant - but they were wrong. Their knowledge was simply not complete in this subject as jesus tried to make clear to them.

Nothing random? Isn't Quantum Theory reflective of randomness at some level?

And such is why quantum physics still fails to describe it - because they "believe" in randomness. They must - for belief in randomness is what leads to the belief in evolution.

Not sure about you - but I certainly believe if you stick a cat in a box and the poison goes off - it's dead right there and then - not a year later when we open the box and observe it. It's not both alive and dead waiting on us to observe it to determine it's outcome.

The invisible power is God; but we only know this because of God's Revelation, not because our minds are so brilliant.

Because we can't comprehend it yet. But Genesis 3:22 should tell you what made us like unto Him.

I don't doubt that. God is Sovereign.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Undoubtedly - but God works "through" and "in" mankind for salvation. That invisible aspect most of mankind chooses to ignore. That invisible aspect that made us like unto Him. A mere shadow or image of the Knowledge that He is for sure - but it's that very Knowledge that separates us from the animals and gives us dominion over them.

 

[smaneck]

Nor do I hold it against you you don't believe the same Author penned both the Words and the Works even if the Bible told you God's invisible qualities are to be observed by the things made.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.

And this is just the trick, isn't it. To assume that Paul's meaning doesn't comport to today's paradigms about the physical universe. Even if those same people will tell us the Bible was meant for and is valid in all times and ages?

If you are referring to 2 Timothy (which I don't believe Paul wrote) it says all scripture is "profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Doesn't say anything about being reliable in matters of science and history.

If it isn't you might as well treat it as nothing but a history book.

It seems to me the problem here is that you want to treat it as a history book.

 

[RickG]

If you are referring to 2 Timothy (which I don't believe Paul wrote) it says all scripture is "profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Doesn't say anything about being reliable in matters of science and history.

Not to mention who decides what scripture to include and what scripture to exclude. Daniel comes to mind. There are three different versions to it. Or the Gospel of Mark which makes no mention of a virgin birth or resurrection. I'm not rejecting anything, just noting that there are discrepancies.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not to mention who decides what scripture to include and what scripture to exclude. Daniel comes to mind. There are three different versions to it. Or the Gospel of Mark which makes no mention of a virgin birth or resurrection. I'm not rejecting anything, just noting that there are discrepancies.

The way that the Gospel of Mark abruptly cuts off makes it difficult to believe that the original end hasn't gone missing.

 

[RickG]

The way that the Gospel of Mark abruptly cuts off makes it difficult to believe that the original end hasn't gone missing.

Definitely a possibility.

 

[Butterfly99]

Well how far does the literalness thing go for fundamentalists. That's what confuses me. Cause one person will say if you believe the Bible literally & you're a true Christian you can't believe in evolution, NASA, a spherical earth, the rotation of the earth. That's what a fellow here wrote to me. I'm being for real. Then there are Christians who say science shows that the earth isn't flat. Then with science that shows evolution is fact they're like science isn't dependable or whatever. They don't believe it. I've noticed the fundamentalists pick & choose on other stuff too. Like women being a minister. They were downright mean about it for real. Saying this verse says women can't be ministers and that settles it. Well so then I asked somebody who said that about slavery cause there's a ton of verses about that.They don't don't take those verses literally (thank God) but yeah the thing about women needing to be meek & not be ministers, they take literally. Good grief.

 

[bhsmte]

The way that the Gospel of Mark abruptly cuts off makes it difficult to believe that the original end hasn't gone missing.

Well, all the originals of the gospels are missing and we only have copies. But, considering the copies had the abrupt ending, it is possible something got lost along the way and they went ahead and added to it, so it would align better with the other gospels.

 

[Rod Carty]

Christianity is NOT opposed to evolution; it's just creationists cannot respect hermeneutics, the science of understanding how the original audience would have read this passage.

If it's just a matter of understanding how the original audience would have understood Genesis, then there should be no other problems, no other contradictions. This is, after all, part of hermeneutics: interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

If Genesis is only allegory, then the message of death coming into the world through Adam's sin is only allegory. If death is normal (or in the case of evolution, required) then Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is not necessary (or not even welcome). I cannot see any way to make evolution compatible with special creation without throwing out the central message of the whole Bible, that man sinned and cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts, but God made a way through Jesus.

 

[bhsmte]

If it's just a matter of understanding how the original audience would have understood Genesis, then there should be no other problems, no other contradictions. This is, after all, part of hermeneutics: interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

If Genesis is only allegory, then the message of death coming into the world through Adam's sin is only allegory. If death is normal (or in the case of evolution, required) then Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is not necessary (or not even welcome). I cannot see any way to make evolution compatible with special creation without throwing out the central message of the whole Bible, that man sinned and cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts, but God made a way through Jesus.

Does this then mean, you are required to deny the mountains of evidence to support evolution?

 

[Rod Carty]

The first few chapters of Genesis are what's known as a creation myth. A creation myth is an ancient peoples' attempt to explain how the world was formed and how they came to be on it. Every ancient culture has a creation myth. None of them are literal.

There is absolutely NO contradiction in accepting evolution and being a believer. Evolution is HOW. God is WHY. The largest "proof" I can come up with that meshes evolution and faith is that systems tend to move from more organized to less organized...entropy. What I see in the universe around me is the opposite...which leads me to believe that there is intelligence behind the development of the universe.

Don't get sucked into the creationist arguments...

Interpret Scripture with Scripture. If an interpretation of one Scripture passage is contradicted by other Scripture passages then we know that interpretation is wrong. The claim that the creation account is myth is contradicted by, for example, the passage that says all Scripture is God-breathed, or God-inspired. It would make the creation account purely man's ideas.

 

[RickG]

Interpret Scripture with Scripture. If an interpretation of one Scripture passage is contradicted by other Scripture passages then we know that interpretation is wrong. The claim that the creation account is myth is contradicted by, for example, the passage that says all Scripture is God-breathed, or God-inspired. It would make the creation account purely man's ideas.

You are aware that this is a science forum, are you not?

 

[Rod Carty]

Does this then mean, you are required to deny the mountains of evidence to support evolution?

It's not the evidence itself but the interpretation of the evidence. Interpretation done by people who deny God exists is immediately suspect. For example, the geologic evidence, literally "mountains of evidence", is used by evolutionists/long agers and creationists/YECs. It's the same evidence. Thus any claim implying evolutionists have mountains of evidence but creationists do not is at best misinterpreting the nature of evidence itself.

 

[Rod Carty]

You are aware that this is a science forum, are you not?

I wasn't the one who started talking about the Bible. I don't see you complaining about others doing so - only it seems when I gave an answer to the claim of evolution and the Bible being compatible.

 

[smaneck]

If it's just a matter of understanding how the original audience would have understood Genesis, then there should be no other problems, no other contradictions. This is, after all, part of hermeneutics: interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

If Genesis is only allegory, then the message of death coming into the world through Adam's sin is only allegory. If death is normal (or in the case of evolution, required) then Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is not necessary (or not even welcome). I cannot see any way to make evolution compatible with special creation without throwing out the central message of the whole Bible, that man sinned and cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts, but God made a way through Jesus.

Here is the thing. Genesis is part of the Tanakh, the Jewish scriptures and they have never understood the story of Adam and Eve the way you take it.