is creation outside of science's scope?

[crawfish]

As far as God dealing with cultural differences: read the "elder qualification" passages in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Notice that the qualifications in the former are much more stringent than those for the latter. When we study culture, we realize that in 1 Timothy he is talking to converted Jews who had lived by a strict moral standard their entire lives, so to stand out in that community one must be especially good; Crete, on the other hand, was a notorious pagan/pirating outpost, and most came from not-so-holy backgrounds, and the stringent restrictions were lifted somewhat.

Culture DOES make a difference.

 

[gluadys]

i read the same thing here as laptop. this says on science and scientists have the capibility to understand the world.

All humans have the capacity to understand the physical world. That is a gift of God to all. Scientists are those humans who have developed that gift more than most. But all of us understand the physical world to some degree, as far as necessity and interest impel us.

Also worth noting is that none of us, not even the great geniuses of science, understand the physical world totally.

my initial response would be--- and scientists are ot human thus they have no fallibility or limitedness?

Of course not. That is why all scientific knowledge is provisional.

Let me ask you a question. Are students of scripture not human? Do they have no fallibility or limitedness? Can we trust that any scholar, academic, preacher or teacher in the church has full and absolute understanding of the bible?

so now you are saying that science is like God--without error?

No, but we can often determine where the errors are and where they are not.

It is nature that is without error, not science. Nature was made by God and so is free from error.

Science is without error when it correctly describes nature. But scientific descriptions of nature are not faultless, and need to be scrutinized for error.

sorry but science has o ight to nor authority to be seen as the go to field for all understanding.

I have already agreed with this statement several times, so I don't know why you keep raising it.

Science is the go to field for understanding physical nature. No student in any other field has the expertise born of dedication to the study of nature that scientists do.

Similarly, art is the go to field for understanding artistry and artistic creativity. Mathematics is the go to field for understanding numerical relations. And hermeneutics is the go to field for understanding scripture.

None of these areas of expertise is the go to field for all understanding.

you want to trust a field that is incapable of omnipresence?

Is physical reality omnipresent? If it is not, there is no problem with science studying it, and being the field to which we turn to develop our understanding of physical reality.

 

[gluadys]

God's active intervention is sometimes present and sometimes absent at different levels. We can beg the question of where and how, but God's intervention is not a "steady state."

Well, now you are making qualifications. What is meant by "active intervention". Is there any intervention that is not "active". How do you know that God's intervention is not a steady state? What of God's sustaining activity by which creation is kept in existence? Does this not count as "active" or does this not count as "intervention" or does it not count as either? Is there any reason we should see it as not steady? Is there any reason we should equate it with God being idle and not doing anything at all?


I have more questions, but I think I need some answers to these first.

Does God have to provide anything to the scientist?

No, of course not. But if God chooses not to signal to the scientist when he is present, we can hardly fault the scientist for not noting God's presence.

If nothing in an observation of nature or in an experiment or in an equation differs with the presence or absence of God, the only conclusions possible are: 1) God is always present, 2) God is always absent or 3) the presence or absence of God makes no difference. In the latter case, as a variable, the quantification of God is zero.

So how do you take account of God as a variable?

So, the question of desire remains for all of us in all of our professional undertakings, regardless of how practical it would appear to us. If we don't desire Him to be in what we are doing, it will indeed appear less and less practical.

We can desire all we like, but if God is not a variable (always or never present) or a null variable, nothing will show up in our science. If God is not a null variable, that will show up in our observations whether or not the scientist is a theist. The atheist may choose not to identify the cause of the changed observation as God, but he cannot describe the observation as unchanged.

 

[archaeologist]

Science is just a process for arriving at the truth

let me quote soemthing from a booki have used before by Dr. Ratzsch, pg. 118:

"indeed, Kuhn argued that truth had no relevance to science at all."

Kuhn is not the only one who holds to this idea. but let me ask you a question; since science is looking for answers via the natural way through naturalmethods, etc., how can they find the truth when they omit God and Jesus, who said I am the Truth?

if you leave them out of the picture how canyou determinewhat is true considering one does not factor in the workings of the evil one? the book of 1 John lays it out very clear about where people stand and if they are not believers they are not following God and if one is not following God, how will they find the truth?

can't do it without God's help or involvement.

He knows he can discredit us by having such focus put on the literal words of Genesis, so that the underlying spiritual meaning is lost or lessened

How is the literal way the deceived way,when it follows all the scriptures that pertain to creation found throughout the Bible? those who accept secular constructs are the ones opening the door toallow evil to work and deceive.

Science has forced us to rethink our understanding of certain scripture from that standpoint, at least.

How? not at all. Jesus and the apostles did not need science to understand the scriptures, so you are saying that science is greater than them? and can shed more light on the issue than they?

you have a false view of science as its limitedness is compounded by the lackof information and investigation. if you are following the secular ways of doing things, which God is not a part of, how canyou be sure you have the right answer?

why does science have so many conflicting opinions on the same subject? if science is so good, then why do not all scientists agree or see the same thing as initial researchers? let me quote from pg. 123, same book;

"in the 1880' Thomnas Huxley...worked on a newly discovered entity known as Bathybius haeckelii. Huxley and others believed that there had tobe such an organism and its discovery was no particular surprise. Indeed it was considered a triumph of a general evolutionary paradigm. There were numerous observational confirmations concerning this quasi-organism. Its existence was ot even controversial in some circles. BUT other scientists with the same equipment and techniques but without Huxley's mindset, could see nothing like an organism at all and indeed categorized is as purely mineral--which...scientists now do also."

how can one trust science whenits 'objectivity' is so compromised?

we should definitely consider that our understanding of scripture might be wrong. When I look at the facts that show that the universe cannot possibly be 6,000 years old, I find I must reject the YEC belief.

BUT how canyou think that evidence is correct? most 'evidence' used by science is done through inferreance and not actual fact. it is pure conjecture. take for example the 'walking fish' skeleton found recently. scientists found only half a skeleton and no other evidence to support their conclusion that fish used to walk. is that the science you want to believe in? or the Lucy skull. that is all they found, yet they built a whole theory upon ONE skull no remaining skeleton.

science is not what you think it is.

It's nice to see that you are consistent on this point. What about head coverings?

first we make sure what is meant by hed coverings then the womenwould be given the choice. after all everyone does have the freedom to choose.

It seems to me to be fundamentally flawed to ignore the cultural context in which anything was written -- including the Bible.

not at all. if we look to culture to interpret the Bible we have then raised culture to god-like status and elevated it above God's word which is wrong. If God said soemthing was wrong 2ooo years ago then it must be wrong today or God and His word, His morality could not be trusted nor would it be followed.

It seems that Jesus did just that.

no Jesus said, i come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. the verse 'do unto others...' does not change the law nor usurp it but reinforces it by saying , if youdonot wnat tobe killed, do not kill. fits with the law quite perfectly if you ask me.

Science and archaeology do not dictate, prescribe, or proscribe ... they describe

no they don't. that would only be the case if 1005 of all workers in those fields agreed and the evidence fits with what they are saying but they don't and the evidence is grossly interpretated by those who do not believe in God.

you cannot omit the secular factor here, which so many in defense of science, culture and other fields do. why would those who do not believe proclaim evidence that would support and verify the Bible? they want to avoid its message not make it so they have to change their life's work or their lives.

Notice that the qualifications in the former are much more stringent than those for the latter.

i see no difference. please provide credible commentary sources to back up your point.

Scientists are those humans who have developed that gift more than most.

i find that insulting toall the people of the world who are not scientists yet have a keener insight than most scientists do. besides you are leaving out the evil factor. here is what 2 tim 3:12-13 says:

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse deceiving and being deceived."

untill you apply such scriptures to science and start discerning what is of God and whatisn't, you will always have the worng answer. Con men always put an element of truth intheir cons. if they didn't, they couldn't con anyone.

this works for science as well.
the believer needs to be aware of the working of the evil one as he wants to destroy God's people, God's message and what better way to do it than through those who do not exercise good judgement evenin the scientific field.

i amnot saying you can't use science, i am saying you need to remove all evil influences and listen to what God wants you to do.

Science is without error when it correctly describes nature

that is just stupid. i am without error when i correctly discribe something as well. that doesn't make science the ultimate determiner of what transpired at creation and throughout history. anyone is without error when they do it correctly.

 

[busterdog]

Well, now you are making qualifications. What is meant by "active intervention". Is there any intervention that is not "active". How do you know that God's intervention is not a steady state? What of God's sustaining activity by which creation is kept in existence? Does this not count as "active" or does this not count as "intervention" or does it not count as either? Is there any reason we should see it as not steady? Is there any reason we should equate it with God being idle and not doing anything at all?

We speak largely of our perception. Obviously the idea of dispensations is fraught with peril.

There is no "all other things being equal" where God is concerned. There is more than just a sustaining force. There is intervention that varies with the situation. God is not a constant in the mathematical sense.

I think the point is that the actions of God are qualitatively different at different times -- loaves and fishes are multiplied, fig trees are cursed and die.

No, of course not. But if God chooses not to signal to the scientist when he is present, we can hardly fault the scientist for not noting God's presence.

Whether we attribute fault to the scientist or not, we can certainly infer that by failing to invoke this intervention, that the scientist has passed by an available blessing. And whether we speak in the language of fault or missed blessing, the point has to do with determining what is real and what isn't. Regardless of how it plays, God is a mighty big reality to leave aside.

If nothing in an observation of nature or in an experiment or in an equation differs with the presence or absence of God, the only conclusions possible are: 1) God is always present, 2) God is always absent or 3) the presence or absence of God makes no difference. In the latter case, as a variable, the quantification of God is zero.

How do you go from an observation (or even a series) to "always"? Now we are getting to Adam's problem and the nature of the fall.

So how do you take account of God as a variable?

As an infinite quantity, in terms of mercy and love and possibility, speaking those things that are not as if they were. Not always in my time, in what expect, but with certainty.

2Cr 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

We can desire all we like, but if God is not a variable (always or never present) or a null variable, nothing will show up in our science. If God is not a null variable, that will show up in our observations whether or not the scientist is a theist. The atheist may choose not to identify the cause of the changed observation as God, but he cannot describe the observation as unchanged.

There are any number of examples of scientists who were gifted professionally because of their faith and reliance upon God. I think George Washington Carver was one example. Alexander Fleming, possibly another. Of what benefit is their testimony to secular science? Many simply won't accept them.

How one regards your "variable" is of course a very interesting problem. It causes huge fights in churches, since if you put forth some kind of equation or hypothesis and you don't get the blessing, someone has to get blamed apparently, whether it is God or the person praying with no results. Again, we come to a moral problem that is like the tail wagging the dog. But, once again, the reality of a God of infinite love remains and no amount of worry about who gets blamed if He doesn't do a trick will suffice to remove infinite love and infinite power as something potential or available or hidden or whatever. No equation can contain it.

Personally, I think the problem that science has with God is often a problem of bad scientists. Once you open the door, you create the potential for guys like Timothy Leary out there "touching the infinite with LSD" or whatever. Yes it is hard to contain fruitcakes, even Christian ones. But, again, does worry about that problem make the power of God less real?

As for the need to have a disciplined approach to testable hypotheses, yes, I understand why discipline is good. But, if God doesn't work well within that discipline, its not like we can impose more displine to get around the problem. Science wants to determine what is real or what is possible. God is the I AM. And that means tough noogies on such discipline.

 

[crawfish]

let me quote soemthing from a booki have used before by Dr. Ratzsch, pg. 118:

"indeed, Kuhn argued that truth had no relevance to science at all."

Kuhn is not the only one who holds to this idea. but let me ask you a question; since science is looking for answers via the natural way through naturalmethods, etc., how can they find the truth when they omit God and Jesus, who said I am the Truth?

if you leave them out of the picture how canyou determinewhat is true considering one does not factor in the workings of the evil one? the book of 1 John lays it out very clear about where people stand and if they are not believers they are not following God and if one is not following God, how will they find the truth?

can't do it without God's help or involvement.

Are we talking "spiritual truth" or "factual truth"? Because both are different. Science has no concern with the former, much concern with the latter.

It IS possible to probe the universe with no designs on gaining further spiritual truths, you know.

How is the literal way the deceived way,when it follows all the scriptures that pertain to creation found throughout the Bible? those who accept secular constructs are the ones opening the door toallow evil to work and deceive.

When the passage wasn't meant to be literal, the literal way is the misleading way. The Genesis creation story wasn't meant to be literal. The scriptures pointing to the creation story are ALWAYS there to support a theological truth, and never to proclaim a scientific truth.

Let me put it this way: If I interpret Matthew 5:29 literally and cut out my right eye, am I reading the scripture correctly? Could satan mislead me into self-mutilation by convincing me that Jesus was being literal in that passage?

How? not at all. Jesus and the apostles did not need science to understand the scriptures, so you are saying that science is greater than them? and can shed more light on the issue than they?

Jesus and the disciples were concerned with spreading the spiritual truth - the truth behind the metaphors. Being well-known, those metaphors communicated their point in a way that could be understood. I doubt any of them ever pondered whether or not those events actually happened as written, because there was no context to challenge it.

you have a false view of science as its limitedness is compounded by the lackof information and investigation. if you are following the secular ways of doing things, which God is not a part of, how canyou be sure you have the right answer?

why does science have so many conflicting opinions on the same subject? if science is so good, then why do not all scientists agree or see the same thing as initial researchers? let me quote from pg. 123, same book;

"in the 1880' Thomnas Huxley...worked on a newly discovered entity known as Bathybius haeckelii. Huxley and others believed that there had tobe such an organism and its discovery was no particular surprise. Indeed it was considered a triumph of a general evolutionary paradigm. There were numerous observational confirmations concerning this quasi-organism. Its existence was ot even controversial in some circles. BUT other scientists with the same equipment and techniques but without Huxley's mindset, could see nothing like an organism at all and indeed categorized is as purely mineral--which...scientists now do also."

how can one trust science whenits 'objectivity' is so compromised?

I do not put my faith in science. I put my faith in God and his creation - knowing that over time, the truth of how things are will eliminate the bad theories and support the good ones. The example above only strengthens this claim - a false conclusion was challenged and eventually discarded.

I think you misunderstand the implications of science. It's not an absolute truth, it's a process by which we learn about the nature of the universe around us. If God is the creator then how can any discovery lead against what He has planned? Different scientists reach different conclusions, but as they are all challenged the weak ones are thrown away. There is no atheist conspiracy that will allow scientists to pursue a weak theory simply to disprove the existence of God.

Anyway, I'm not sure I could still be a Christian if the "objectivity" of theologians was my basis for my trust in it.

BUT how canyou think that evidence is correct? most 'evidence' used by science is done through inferreance and not actual fact. it is pure conjecture. take for example the 'walking fish' skeleton found recently. scientists found only half a skeleton and no other evidence to support their conclusion that fish used to walk. is that the science you want to believe in? or the Lucy skull. that is all they found, yet they built a whole theory upon ONE skull no remaining skeleton.

science is not what you think it is..

We have proven the nature of the speed of light. We are seeing light from stars that are so far away it takes that light billions of years to reach us. THAT ALONE disproves the literal creation account. You either accept that the universe is more than 6K years, or that God is making it appear that way; with a literalist view, God is being deceptive about one or the other. There is no way around that.

There are lots of scientists with lots of theories. It doesn't mean that all of them are accepted. There is a process by which any idea must undergo to become accepted on a larger scale; that process, when done correctly, gets rid of 99% of the chaff.

first we make sure what is meant by hed coverings then the womenwould be given the choice. after all everyone does have the freedom to choose.

not at all. if we look to culture to interpret the Bible we have then raised culture to god-like status and elevated it above God's word which is wrong. If God said soemthing was wrong 2ooo years ago then it must be wrong today or God and His word, His morality could not be trusted nor would it be followed.

As I showed earlier, God was open to changes due to cultural differences back in the first century. Read Romans 14 - why would Paul indicate that some things are sinful for some people but not for others if context is not important?

We aren't re-interpreting the bible. We are apply it to our culture. This is wise - the first-century church didn't deal with TV, the internet, mass publishing, worldwide communication or many of the issues we deal with today. A strict, non-cultural aware scripture would become irrelevant very fast.

 

[archaeologist]

Are we talking "spiritual truth" or "factual truth"?

there is only one truth. anything that disagrees with God,the rest of the Trinity and the Bible is not true.

When the passage wasn't meant to be literal, the literal way is the misleading way. The Genesis creation story wasn't meant to be literal. The scriptures pointing to the creation story are ALWAYS there to support a theological truth, and never to proclaim a scientific truth

so you are saying God lied in Gen and Exodus where he says He created everything in 6 days? are you saying that science can say that God lied in the Bible?

there is NO scientific truth if it denies what God says, then science is wrong.

do you no think that God would havce said He used a process if He used a process? why does every scripture reference throughout the Bible refer to God creating, making , hanging etc., there is only ONE truth and science is not it.

if science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong it is obvious you need to factor into your life the working of the evil one and learn to discern what is of God and what isn't.

your omissions corrupt your conclusions, your lack of data, undermines your research. Gen. was meant to be literal as it is a revelation from God. and describes what He did in the beginning.

you are certainly very arrogant to think you can change God's revlation via science and culture.

so one last question--if science says creation was done through evolution and God says it was done in 6 days by Him, whom do you believe?

if you pick the former, please do not say you are a christian becaus eyou do not believe God. If you pick the latter then you must remove the former from your thinking.

there is no middle ground with God. in His word he said--you are either for me or against me. so choose which side you are on.

there is no theistic evolution, there is no big bang, there is no evolution or progressive creationism (and so on) there was only God creating. so make up your mind. for the ramificationsof your choice is immense.

there is more at stake here than just believing how things got started.

 

[archaeologist]

God was open to changes due to cultural differences back in the first century

where in scripture do you see God or Jesus saying they are open to change to their word? this is a slippery slope you are mounting, as whewre do we stop applying the changes? does the way of salvation change due to cultural acceptance of alternatives?

if God says salvation is through Jesus Christ and women are to be silent in the church...guess what, that doesn't change because of the culture. culture is as deceived and influenced by evil as anything else.

culture, like science, does not have the authority granted to it to make any changes to what God has said in the Bible.

at no time do we read Jesus changing the statement 'all power is given unto me' do you see where culture and science were receipients of such authority? NO!

the Bible dictates to man not vice versa.

 

[laptoppop]

Are we talking "spiritual truth" or "factual truth"? Because both are different. Science has no concern with the former, much concern with the latter.

Say what? Ultimately there is one Truth. Its not new to try to segregate it into pieces, to make it relative or partitioned - but it is wrong. Check out the word "truth" throughout the entire scriptures. Check out the number of times Jesus said Truly truly or truly I say unto you, etc. It is rampant with post-modernism, but it is not new. Even Pilate asked Jesus - "What is truth?" (and then walked away before Jesus answered) This dichotomy of truths is not scriptural, or real. It is similar to folks who sing nice hymns in church and then live differently during the week at their job, or with their family.

When the passage wasn't meant to be literal, the literal way is the misleading way. The Genesis creation story wasn't meant to be literal. The scriptures pointing to the creation story are ALWAYS there to support a theological truth, and never to proclaim a scientific truth.

The Genesis account is seamlessly blended into the rest of the historical account, in events, in ages, in genealogy. It is presented as historical. It is referred to as historical in the New Testament, with references to the creation and to Noah, etc. etc. God taught His people to understand *real* history as opposed to the mythologies around them. They were called out to be separate, to remember specific historical events with altars, piles of stones, festivals, etc. God wanted them to remember that these events really happened, and to teach their children so as well.

Let me put it this way: If I interpret Matthew 5:29 literally and cut out my right eye, am I reading the scripture correctly? Could satan mislead me into self-mutilation by convincing me that Jesus was being literal in that passage?

Whole different circumstance. Jesus was teaching with imagery through the whole section, He was not presenting it as history.

Jesus and the disciples were concerned with spreading the spiritual truth - the truth behind the metaphors. Being well-known, those metaphors communicated their point in a way that could be understood. I doubt any of them ever pondered whether or not those events actually happened as written, because there was no context to challenge it.

Oh, so because "modern" man can challenge the historicity of something we should drop all belief and adopt the modern worldview? You are on a very slippery slope where you start defining even the words of Jesus as representing nothing more than a man's viewpoint.

I do not put my faith in science. I put my faith in God and his creation - knowing that over time, the truth of how things are will eliminate the bad theories and support the good ones. The example above only strengthens this claim - a false conclusion was challenged and eventually discarded.

I think you misunderstand the implications of science. It's not an absolute truth, it's a process by which we learn about the nature of the universe around us. If God is the creator then how can any discovery lead against what He has planned? Different scientists reach different conclusions, but as they are all challenged the weak ones are thrown away. There is no atheist conspiracy that will allow scientists to pursue a weak theory simply to disprove the existence of God.

And yet we are to trust in the consensus view of scientists over the testimony of Scripture? "Science" does not speak with a single voice, but even where there is consensus, it has been wrong over and over and over. If we have two descriptions of reality (for example the geologic strata), and one agrees with Scripture (the flood) and the other does not - we should always prefer the one consistent with the revelation of an omniscient God.

Anyway, I'm not sure I could still be a Christian if the "objectivity" of theologians was my basis for my trust in it.

I would not want you to base your faith on something from someone else. The Scriptures were written to communicate with people, not just theologians. The Holy Spirit is given for us to understand and comprehend the Truth of spiritual reality.

We have proven the nature of the speed of light. We are seeing light from stars that are so far away it takes that light billions of years to reach us. THAT ALONE disproves the literal creation account. You either accept that the universe is more than 6K years, or that God is making it appear that way; with a literalist view, God is being deceptive about one or the other. There is no way around that.

Actually, there are several different explanations available - if you care to look. For me, the most fascinating ones involve the Scriptures where God is referred to as stretching out the heavens -- and looking at that from a relativistic time/space viewpoint.

There are lots of scientists with lots of theories. It doesn't mean that all of them are accepted. There is a process by which any idea must undergo to become accepted on a larger scale; that process, when done correctly, gets rid of 99% of the chaff.

I still trust God more than popular vote.

As I showed earlier, God was open to changes due to cultural differences back in the first century. Read Romans 14 - why would Paul indicate that some things are sinful for some people but not for others if context is not important?

We aren't re-interpreting the bible. We are apply it to our culture. This is wise - the first-century church didn't deal with TV, the internet, mass publishing, worldwide communication or many of the issues we deal with today. A strict, non-cultural aware scripture would become irrelevant very fast.

Paul was talking about how sin is really related to our own hearts and knowledge -- that something may be technically OK, but if we don't act in accordance with our own faith it is sin for us. A particular action can be sin for one person and not for another. God is marvelously concerned with our hearts, not just our physical actions.

God and Truth do not change -- they are eternally consistent and pure.

I agree that we should always strive to apply the Truth to the current culture -- to recognize the presuppositions, and to stand against any lies.

 

[crawfish]

there is only one truth. anything that disagrees with God,the rest of the Trinity and the Bible is not true.

Then you're referring to spiritual truth. Anything that God does not address is obviously open for debate. Now, we get down to business.

so you are saying God lied in Gen and Exodus where he says He created everything in 6 days? are you saying that science can say that God lied in the Bible?

Are you saying that God lied in Psalms 19:1? "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." In fact, the heavens do NOT declare His glory; they mislead us into disbelieving His word.

Either God is lying in the bible, or God is lying through the works of His creation. Or God is not lying, and you just misapply what you are reading.

there is NO scientific truth if it denies what God says, then science is wrong.

Granted. Your view of what God says is mistaken, though.

do you no think that God would havce said He used a process if He used a process? why does every scripture reference throughout the Bible refer to God creating, making , hanging etc., there is only ONE truth and science is not it.

Absolutely not. He would have spoken to the ancient people using simple terms and ideas they could understand. He would make sure to preserve the theological message behind what he wanted in a way that would keep value through the ages.

if science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong it is obvious you need to factor into your life the working of the evil one and learn to discern what is of God and what isn't.

If science disagrees with the bible then it's either a) bad science, or b) bad theology. All things God created are good; God created the universe and the laws that run it, therefore they are good. Why would it be evil to study those things that God has made? You should not be so scared of science and discovery.

your omissions corrupt your conclusions, your lack of data, undermines your research. Gen. was meant to be literal as it is a revelation from God. and describes what He did in the beginning.

You see, there is tons of evidence to the contrary. Solid scientific evidence shows that its order and timescale are impossible. Solid study of language shows that it was written as an oral story, poetic in its delivery. Solid study of ancient cultures shows how it fits into the culture of the times, and illuminates us to its purpose. It was NEVER MEANT TO BE LITERAL. It is a work of man, inspired by God for the purpose of communicating His purpose in creating us.

you are certainly very arrogant to think you can change God's revlation via science and culture.

I don't want this to get nasty, so I'm going to bite my tongue a bit here. The metaphor does not change, but the knowledge behind it does. The bible tells us the sun sets and rises, but that's not really true; the earth turns and the sun stays relatively still. We understand what the bible meant, though; it has the appearance of setting and rising, and that fits the metaphor well. Has that changed the meaning of the passage? Not really. But now we understand God was not making a scientific statement with that passage.

so one last question--if science says creation was done through evolution and God says it was done in 6 days by Him, whom do you believe?

I think God didn't mean the six days literally. I choose to believe that God had better things to do than to explain science to people who had barely invented language. He made his point in the best way possible. If evolution proves to be the mechanism God used to create man, then so be it.

if you pick the former, please do not say you are a christian becaus eyou do not believe God. If you pick the latter then you must remove the former from your thinking.

there is no middle ground with God. in His word he said--you are either for me or against me. so choose which side you are on.

there is no theistic evolution, there is no big bang, there is no evolution or progressive creationism (and so on) there was only God creating. so make up your mind. for the ramificationsof your choice is immense.

there is more at stake here than just believing how things got started.

Now you have truly offended me, and probably many of the members of this board. You claim you cannot believe in God if you don't hold a literal view of scripture; yet, I have studied this for years, going from a view similar to yours, through OEC, through ID and now into what is loosely described as TE. Prayer, study and meditation on God's word led me down this path. My faith is stronger than even because now it isn't required to ignore reality. I pray regularly, trust in God to guide my life and obey His commandments. I love the Lord my God, and I love my neighbor as myself. I love you, despite the fact you hold me in such contempt, and I pray that you let God open your heart someday.

There are certainly huge ramifications to this belief. It is inevitable that we will have to change the way we interpret Genesis. The tide of evidence and discovery is firmly against the literal view. As sure as we know the world is a sphere, as sure as we know the earth isn't the center of the universe, we know that creation did NOT take place in six days. That one fact alone led me to re-evaluate how I understood Genesis, and to my shock, Genesis is still as valid as it was before.

You do your best to hold onto those whose faith is tied up in believing in the way they always have. I will do my best to keep their faith once they find that view is no longer possible.

God bless.

 

[crawfish]

where in scripture do you see God or Jesus saying they are open to change to their word? this is a slippery slope you are mounting, as whewre do we stop applying the changes? does the way of salvation change due to cultural acceptance of alternatives?

if God says salvation is through Jesus Christ and women are to be silent in the church...guess what, that doesn't change because of the culture. culture is as deceived and influenced by evil as anything else.

culture, like science, does not have the authority granted to it to make any changes to what God has said in the Bible.

at no time do we read Jesus changing the statement 'all power is given unto me' do you see where culture and science were receipients of such authority? NO!

the Bible dictates to man not vice versa.

Did you miss my reference to 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1? The qualifications are DIFFERENT in both passages. Either they conflict with each other, or Paul was applying a cultural context when giving those qualifications because both cultures were so different.

I'll repeat what I said earlier - the NT doesn't talk about TV, internet, mass media, cell phones or any modern technologies. The ONLY way we can discern what is right and wrong about them is to APPLY SCRIPTURE USING A CULTURAL/TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXT.

I'm not dictating the bible. I am showing how its meaning gets reapplied over and over again through the years into the current culture, sometimes in different ways. Sometimes, a passage takes on more meaning in one culture than it does in another culture. This is undeniable.

 

[Digit]

Heya Gluadys, I really appreciate your posts as they often contain a great deal of good info. So thanks for that.

I just want to reply to a few points of your post here, as I think by and large we agree on the fundimentals, and I don't see any real issue with that.

Of course not. That is why all scientific knowledge is provisional.

Let me ask you a question. Are students of scripture not human? Do they have no fallibility or limitedness? Can we trust that any scholar, academic, preacher or teacher in the church has full and absolute understanding of the bible?

I think we agree here that all people are fallable. That doesn't make us incapable of doing something perfectly. For example, I can write a perfect letter to my Mum, it will take me a few tries though. So yes, both scientists and scholars and animators and presidents and everyone are all imperfect. That's not the issue I think we can agree yes? If anything, that's just a fact.

The problem I feel arises when we see that man is referencing a man-made system, and placing it's findings and results over what God has told us. This is what we see as happening.

None of these areas of expertise is the go to field for all understanding.

Why is the Bible not our base-reference for understanding everything. It's our handbook for life isn't? Ok, I understand it's not a scientific journal, it doesn't explain the how. That's ok, I am perfectly happy accepting photosynthesis as explained by biological science. IF however, scripture specifically explained that photosynthesis occurred in a fashion that completely and unreconcileably contradicted biological science, I would accept scriptures version of it. Right there is the problem that we can't agree on. I would do so, because it came from God, because God does not lie and because man is prone to mistakes. Perhaps that mistake would not be evident for some years, but I would put faith and trust in God and His account of things. Not mans.

Is physical reality omnipresent? If it is not, there is no problem with science studying it, and being the field to which we turn to develop our understanding of physical reality.

The only issue I have with turning to science to study these things is that we are doing so without taking into account that God exists. We are doing this, because by and large, science is secular isn't it? Or am I wrong here? I know there are some believers working in the field, but by no means the majority or even close to equalling non-believers. Perhaps you don't see this as an issue or important, because the results are judged on their own merits, but I don't see this happening.

The Flood can offer explanations to few things that science has also tried to answer, I'm not going to say to what degress as I don't want to debate that here but my point is, it's not considered. You may say yes, because it's a myth but that just brings us back to my point above, you only think that because of secular science. If science was really truly neutral, there would be no discrimination against creationist scientists, or even those that simply believe in God Almighty.

Our lifespans are pretty short on this planet in comparison to the history of mankind, and our accumulated knowledge, and to place faith in something other than God's Word I feel is dangerous and unneccesary.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[crawfish]

Say what? Ultimately there is one Truth. Its not new to try to segregate it into pieces, to make it relative or partitioned - but it is wrong. Check out the word "truth" throughout the entire scriptures. Check out the number of times Jesus said Truly truly or truly I say unto you, etc. It is rampant with post-modernism, but it is not new. Even Pilate asked Jesus - "What is truth?" (and then walked away before Jesus answered) This dichotomy of truths is not scriptural, or real. It is similar to folks who sing nice hymns in church and then live differently during the week at their job, or with their family.

Err, you're talking "spiritual truth". The truth science shoots for is the truth of how things happen - HOW were we created, where we came from. It does NOT search the truth of "why are we here? what is our purpose?"

In other words, facts. Evidence. Patterns.

The Genesis account is seamlessly blended into the rest of the historical account, in events, in ages, in genealogy. It is presented as historical. It is referred to as historical in the New Testament, with references to the creation and to Noah, etc. etc. God taught His people to understand *real* history as opposed to the mythologies around them. They were called out to be separate, to remember specific historical events with altars, piles of stones, festivals, etc. God wanted them to remember that these events really happened, and to teach their children so as well.

Well, I think you're wrong. God taught His people to believe in One God over many gods; God made and altered stories to explain these theological points to His people. There WAS no ancient concept of "history" - that wasn't invented until the 200's BC. What existed were the stories that were passed down from generation to generation, stressing a point God wanted to make.

Whole different circumstance. Jesus was teaching with imagery through the whole section, He was not presenting it as history.

I agree - believe me, I agree - but my point is still valid.

Oh, so because "modern" man can challenge the historicity of something we should drop all belief and adopt the modern worldview? You are on a very slippery slope where you start defining even the words of Jesus as representing nothing more than a man's viewpoint.

I hate the "slippery slope" comment, it usually means "you're challenging me in a way that makes me uncomfortable".

I'm defining them as making a theological point. Whether the stories are literally true or not does NOT affect the theological point.

And yet we are to trust in the consensus view of scientists over the testimony of Scripture? "Science" does not speak with a single voice, but even where there is consensus, it has been wrong over and over and over. If we have two descriptions of reality (for example the geologic strata), and one agrees with Scripture (the flood) and the other does not - we should always prefer the one consistent with the revelation of an omniscient God.

Our interpretation of scripture has ALSO been wrong "over and over". I'm not going to make you wince by repeating the obvious. It's also true that consensus is rarely reached (thus the 10 jillion denominations we have today).

I don't have faith in science. I don't have faith in our interpretation of the bible. I have faith in God - and if it is shown that things happened differently that we've felt the bible was saying, then I'm going to trust that God wasn't saying what we thought He was.

I would not want you to base your faith on something from someone else. The Scriptures were written to communicate with people, not just theologians. The Holy Spirit is given for us to understand and comprehend the Truth of spiritual reality.

The message of salvation is quite simple. If God had left it at that, we'd have a few dozen pages, tops.

God provided a level of understanding for us all; we can study it all our lives and never get the full measure of it. We can argue and see things differently. It is a COMPLICATED piece of literature, and calling it "simple to comprehend" just doesn't give it justice.

Actually, there are several different explanations available - if you care to look. For me, the most fascinating ones involve the Scriptures where God is referred to as stretching out the heavens -- and looking at that from a relativistic time/space viewpoint.

I still trust God more than popular vote.

I think that is stretching out a rationalization.

Paul was talking about how sin is really related to our own hearts and knowledge -- that something may be technically OK, but if we don't act in accordance with our own faith it is sin for us. A particular action can be sin for one person and not for another. God is marvelously concerned with our hearts, not just our physical actions.

God and Truth do not change -- they are eternally consistent and pure.

Again, that doesn't change my point.

I agree that we should always strive to apply the Truth to the current culture -- to recognize the presuppositions, and to stand against any lies.

I know, and I love you for it.

But I'm still gonna disagree on the details.

 

[Digit]

let me quote soemthing from a booki have used before by Dr. Ratzsch, pg. 118:

"indeed, Kuhn argued that truth had no relevance to science at all."

Kuhn is not the only one who holds to this idea. but let me ask you a question; since science is looking for answers via the natural way through naturalmethods, etc., how can they find the truth when they omit God and Jesus, who said I am the Truth?

if you leave them out of the picture how canyou determinewhat is true considering one does not factor in the workings of the evil one? the book of 1 John lays it out very clear about where people stand and if they are not believers they are not following God and if one is not following God, how will they find the truth?

can't do it without God's help or involvement.



How is the literal way the deceived way,when it follows all the scriptures that pertain to creation found throughout the Bible? those who accept secular constructs are the ones opening the door toallow evil to work and deceive.



How? not at all. Jesus and the apostles did not need science to understand the scriptures, so you are saying that science is greater than them? and can shed more light on the issue than they?

you have a false view of science as its limitedness is compounded by the lackof information and investigation. if you are following the secular ways of doing things, which God is not a part of, how canyou be sure you have the right answer?

why does science have so many conflicting opinions on the same subject? if science is so good, then why do not all scientists agree or see the same thing as initial researchers? let me quote from pg. 123, same book;

"in the 1880' Thomnas Huxley...worked on a newly discovered entity known as Bathybius haeckelii. Huxley and others believed that there had tobe such an organism and its discovery was no particular surprise. Indeed it was considered a triumph of a general evolutionary paradigm. There were numerous observational confirmations concerning this quasi-organism. Its existence was ot even controversial in some circles. BUT other scientists with the same equipment and techniques but without Huxley's mindset, could see nothing like an organism at all and indeed categorized is as purely mineral--which...scientists now do also."

how can one trust science whenits 'objectivity' is so compromised?



BUT how canyou think that evidence is correct? most 'evidence' used by science is done through inferreance and not actual fact. it is pure conjecture. take for example the 'walking fish' skeleton found recently. scientists found only half a skeleton and no other evidence to support their conclusion that fish used to walk. is that the science you want to believe in? or the Lucy skull. that is all they found, yet they built a whole theory upon ONE skull no remaining skeleton.

science is not what you think it is.



first we make sure what is meant by hed coverings then the womenwould be given the choice. after all everyone does have the freedom to choose.



not at all. if we look to culture to interpret the Bible we have then raised culture to god-like status and elevated it above God's word which is wrong. If God said soemthing was wrong 2ooo years ago then it must be wrong today or God and His word, His morality could not be trusted nor would it be followed.


no Jesus said, i come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. the verse 'do unto others...' does not change the law nor usurp it but reinforces it by saying , if youdonot wnat tobe killed, do not kill. fits with the law quite perfectly if you ask me.



no they don't. that would only be the case if 1005 of all workers in those fields agreed and the evidence fits with what they are saying but they don't and the evidence is grossly interpretated by those who do not believe in God.

you cannot omit the secular factor here, which so many in defense of science, culture and other fields do. why would those who do not believe proclaim evidence that would support and verify the Bible? they want to avoid its message not make it so they have to change their life's work or their lives.



i see no difference. please provide credible commentary sources to back up your point.


i find that insulting toall the people of the world who are not scientists yet have a keener insight than most scientists do. besides you are leaving out the evil factor. here is what 2 tim 3:12-13 says:

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse deceiving and being deceived."

untill you apply such scriptures to science and start discerning what is of God and whatisn't, you will always have the worng answer. Con men always put an element of truth intheir cons. if they didn't, they couldn't con anyone.

this works for science as well.
the believer needs to be aware of the working of the evil one as he wants to destroy God's people, God's message and what better way to do it than through those who do not exercise good judgement evenin the scientific field.

i amnot saying you can't use science, i am saying you need to remove all evil influences and listen to what God wants you to do.



that is just stupid. i am without error when i correctly discribe something as well. that doesn't make science the ultimate determiner of what transpired at creation and throughout history. anyone is without error when they do it correctly.

Wow, I can't agree with this more really. Nicely said.

Digit

 

[Digit]

do you no think that God would havce said He used a process if He used a process? why does every scripture reference throughout the Bible refer to God creating, making , hanging etc., there is only ONE truth and science is not it.

This is a very good point, as I keep getting told that God used a metaphorical tale to explain how He created, to a simple people. Yet on the other side I am also told that evolution just isn't that hard to understand, it's actually quite simple. I certainly can't see why God wouldn't say it plainly, for some reason people seem to think that by explaining evolution, you need to detail it in scientific terms and people back then wouldn't understand.

Are you sure it needs to be that way?
Snippet:
... but the core of [evolution] is really simple: Populations adapt to environmental changes over time; these adaptive changes accumulate into the development of new biological features, developmental sequences or behavioral patterns, which are cumulatively responsible for the generation of presently-observed biodiversity from primeval life.

That's a fairly wordy explanation, I would say you can cut it down without losing it's meaning to, "Over a great length of time, creatures have adapted to the world and changed to form new, diverse creatures." That, in scripture, I would wager would be enough to explain creation of life to the author and would give us a massive boost in our understanding as we use science today to go about finding out the hows of it.

I admit, that may not be perfect, so please don't jump down my throat about it, I'm merely pointing out it's hardly difficult to explain this, and so I don't feel that this reason used to validate Genesis as metaphorical is actually valid.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[gluadys]

that is just stupid. i am without error when i correctly discribe something as well. that doesn't make science the ultimate determiner of what transpired at creation and throughout history. anyone is without error when they do it correctly.

Did I say that it did? Did anyone say that it did? Why do you persist in throwing around accusations of claims that no one has made?


Yes, anyone is without error when they do it correctly. And this has relevance to your earlier question.

since science is looking for answers via the natural way through naturalmethods, etc., how can they find the truth when they omit God and Jesus, who said I am the Truth?

How can science NOT find the truth when it describes nature correctly? How can the natural way "omit God" when it is God's creation? How can natural methods "omit God" when it is God who made them and sustains their operation? What is science discovering when it discovers natural ways and natural methods if not the nature God made? How does that "omit God"?

Do you really believe that nature blinds us to God? That where nature operates God is absent and inactive?

That seems a very strange belief in a someone defending God as creator.

 

[Digit]

How can science NOT find the truth when it describes nature correctly?

Isn't this the point, it's that we don't feel it's doing it correctly. That the results may contain error in them, that our interpretation of the results leads us on a course that does not coincide with scripture and that we place these results as the determining fact, and re-examine scripture, as opposed to wondering why these results came about and looking for alternate frameworks to fit them too, such as the historical creation account.

Digit

 

[Mallon]

Isn't this the point, it's that we don't feel it's doing it correctly. That the results may contain error in them, that our interpretation of the results leads us on a course that does not coincide with scripture and that we place these results as the determining fact, and re-examine scripture, as opposed to wondering why these results came about and looking for alternate frameworks to fit them too, such as the historical creation account.

If that's the case, then the peer-reviewed, self-correcting nature of science will inevitably lead us closer to truth of the YEC interpretation of Genesis.

But assuming that science has got it right, what sort of protocol does YECism have in place to correct its mistaken interpretation?

 

[laptoppop]

How can science NOT find the truth when it describes nature correctly? How can the natural way "omit God" when it is God's creation? How can natural methods "omit God" when it is God who made them and sustains their operation? What is science discovering when it discovers natural ways and natural methods if not the nature God made? How does that "omit God"?

Science is fine for what it does - - but while it can help figure out natural processes and characteristics it cannot find the Truth by itself. Science cannot describe all of nature properly because it uses methodology that specifically excludes God by restricting it to only natural, repeatable processes. (Yes, God typically works that way -- but not always.) Because it (properly) limits itself to repeatable processes, it cannot speak to the complete Truth of a reality where God is real and exists -- it can only speak to a very small part.

We must recognize the limits of our techniques, and the presuppositions involved in them. Scientific methods are fine, but they presuppose only natural processes (i.e. no supernatural intervention by God), and so their results will always reflect their presuppositions.

 

[gluadys]

Isn't this the point, it's that we don't feel it's doing it correctly. That the results may contain error in them, that our interpretation of the results leads us on a course that does not coincide with scripture and that we place these results as the determining fact, and re-examine scripture, as opposed to wondering why these results came about and looking for alternate frameworks to fit them too, such as the historical creation account.

Digit

But why the double standard? Consider that hermeneutics is without error when it correctly interprets scripture. Just as science is without error when it correctly describes nature.

But when it comes to an apparent discrepancy of scripture with nature, you assume that the error is in the description of nature rather than in the interpretation of scripture.

Note I am not saying the error is in scripture. But hermeutics, the guidelines we use to understand and interpret scripture, a just as human and open to falliblity and even the effects of the fall as science is.

Why not then apply an equal standard of investigating the adequacy of your hermeneutics to intepret scripture correctly as to the adequacy of science to interpret nature correctly?

The problem I always find in these conversations is that literalists always gloss over two factors. On the one hand they seem to forget that science has a base in nature and that nature is God-given. Science is not a study pursued in a vacuum divorced from God's reality.

On the other hand they also seem to forget that while scripture, like nature, is rooted in the truth of God himself, human interpretations of scripture, like human interpretations of nature don't have that unlimited freedom from error that God himself has.

Is it so awful to contemplate the possibility that we can be just as wrong about how we read scripture as about how we read nature?

We do not need science to correct scripture. It is not in scripture that we find a source of error. But we may well need to correct how we, as limited, fallible, corrrupt human beings interpret scripture.

Misrepresenting this need to check the accuracy of our hermeneutics as elevating science above scripture is a slanderous and untrue accusation.

No one is saying science can judge scripture. But in appropriate circumstances good science can correct our understanding of nature, and through a better understanding of nature also improve our understanding of scripture. (see the second quote in my signature)

I agree, we first have to be confident that it is a better understanding of nature. We can't decide that simply by asserting that a traditional interpretation of scripture must be correct. We decide that by checking and double-checking what we find in nature. When we have the confidence that the science is correct--and not before--, it is perfectly reasonable to hold that God's creation (nature) can correct human misunderstanding of scripture.

In short the direction of judgment always puts God first, and subjects the human element to the decision of God.

It is God's creation, nature, that judges the truth of human science. And when that truth is well understood, it is God's creation (not human science per se), that judges the adequacy of human interpretations of inspired scripture.

This is not a judgment of scripture. It is a judgment of human thought about scripture. Nor is it a matter of one field of human thought (science) wrestling with another field of human thought (theology). It is God's creation judging both.

Of course, to hear that word of God in God's creation, one must have the humility to recognize that one may be wrong in one's hermeneutics. It seems that for many literalists, it is too much to ask for that measure of humility in the face of God's own handiwork.