New early hominid fossil...

[Mallon]

Why would god *have* to accomodate himself to man's understanding?

Because He is infinite and we are not. He is infallible and we are not. When fathers speak to their children, they do not speak to them as though they were grown-ups. They get down on one knee and speak to their children using language and imagery they can understand. Why would the same not apply to our heavenly Father speaking to His earthly children?

It doesnt take a lot of proving to show people that the earth goes around the sun.

Maybe not now, but it did in the days of the early Hebrews. They thought the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked to them from their earthly perspective. And it shows that's how they thought in the Bible.

This is why i cannot accept it as truth right now

I'm sorry to see that you've accepted the YEC misconception that the Bible was intended to convey scientific truth. The Bible never makes such a claim. The Bible claims itself to infallible insofar as it touches on issues of salvation ([FONT=&quot]2 Timothy 3:15, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]John 20:23, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]John 5:39, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ephesians 2:20, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Romans 15:4). The Bible isn't a book of science; nor was it meant to be. Expecting it to speak authoritatively on matters for which it wasn't meant to is tragic, particularly as it affects your faith in Christ. I would suggest that your problem isn't with science or evolution; it's with the assumptions you bring to the Bible.[/FONT]

 

[<3God]

"I'm sorry to see that you've accepted the YEC misconception"
In my post I said that I couldnt find any truth in any conception of Genesis 1

[FONT=&quot]"The Bible isn't a book of science; nor was it meant to be."
Yes, but it tries to be. This is why you hear so many people saying that the bible is the most important science book ever.
Why just not tell them nothing about what earth's movements and position in the universe, rather than tell them something that was just untrue? Telling people what they already thought they knew would just reinforce their lack of knowledge.

[/FONT]"Maybe not now, but it did in the days of the early Hebrews. They thought the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked to them from their earthly perspective."

Send me back in time with the power of God and I could have taught the hebrews.

 

[Mallon]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, but it tries to be. This is why you hear so many people saying that the bible is the most important science book ever.
[/FONT]

Why do you say the Bible "tries to be" a book of science? Where does it ever make that claim?

 

[<3God]

It gives explanations for things in the natural world. This is a rough definition of what science is.

Im not saying your ignoring the rest of my post, but i really am interested in your response to the other parts of my last post

 

[JudaicChristian]

If all Apes have had always walked upright, would that be proof that they are part Human? If all Humans have had always walked bent over, would it be proof that they are related to Apes? Why must Apes and Humans be related at all? If Apes and Humans were closely related, then they would be able to produce offspring.

 

[Mallon]

Why must Apes and Humans be related at all?

Because they share similarities exclusive to all other animal life. This pattern can only be explained by heredity, as is the case of why you look more like your siblings than your distant cousins.

If Apes and Humans were closely related, then they would be able to produce offspring.

You sound confused. For one, humans aren't just closely related to apes, humans ARE apes. But that doesn't mean we should be able to interbreed with all other apes. That's a characteristic befit of species. Only animals of the same SPECIES (a rank less inclusive than "apes") can interbreed, and no one is saying that humans and other apes (chimps, gorillas, etc.) are the same species. The argument is that humans and other apes are more closely related to one another than to other forms of life.

 

[<3God]

sent u a pm mallon

 

[Drekkan85]

Mallon... having more patience than I for explaining things since forever.

 

[Mallon]

It gives explanations for things in the natural world. This is a rough definition of what science is.

The Bible attributes the wonders of the natural world -- as understood by the ancient Hebrews -- to God, but that's not the same thing as attempting to provide a scientific explanation for those wonders. Science as we know it wasn't invented until the Enlightenment, so I don't know why you think the Bible should speak to issues of 21st century science. That's highly anachronistic.

Im not saying your ignoring the rest of my post, but i really am interested in your response to the other parts of my last post

Sorry I didn't answer them earlier. You seem to have edited your post to include more after my last response to you.

Why just not tell them nothing about what earth's movements and position in the universe, rather than tell them something that was just untrue? Telling people what they already thought they knew would just reinforce their lack of knowledge.

Because, again, the point of the Bible isn't to deliver scientific knowledge. The point of the Bible is to reveal spiritual truths and God's plan for the salvation of humanity. The Bible's description of the workings of the universe is incidental to its message that God is in control of the universe. When the Bible talks about the sun going around the earth, it doesn't do so for the sake of telling us about astronomy. It does so for the sake of telling us about the orderliness that God has established in the universe. THAT'S the point that is intended. To read the Bible for isolated nuggets of science is to miss the point of the Bible.

Send me back in time with the power of God and I could have taught the hebrews.

God could have, too, but that wasn't His intention. God is more interested in teaching us about how to be saved from sin than about the shape of the earth.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon... having more patience than I for explaining things since forever.

gluadys wins there, hands down.

 

[<3God]

"so I don't know why you think the Bible should speak to issues of 21st century science."

If you aren't gonna tell people what actually happened why would you just reinforce their already incorrect ideas? God could have advanced them slightly, or at least not set them back by reinforcing them. If God wouldn't have said the sun revolves around the earth, knowledge wouldnt have been held back by the church when Galileo found his truth out. God knew that he would be holding science back in the future. If he hadn't, perhaps all our technology would be 50 years more advanced and millions of people would live better lives.

//Sorry I didn't answer them earlier. You seem to have edited your post to include more after my last response to you//

The way i think is scatter-shot, thoughts occur to me and I link them up, its not a linear progression, this sometimes makes my posting style erratic.

"cause, again, the point of the Bible isn't to deliver scientific knowledge"
It seems to me the point of the god shoving incorrect explanations of the natural world was to deceive man about scientific knowledge. If your point isnt to deliver scientific knowledge then why are you (God) attempting explanations for the world which we know were wrong?

As an aside, do you think my conclusions are reasonable?

 

[laconicstudent]

Do you not get it yet. I will reiterate, again, that if you try and find a 1-to-1 correspondence with Genesis to historical fact it will not work. Attempting such a literal interpretation of the text is silly.

And also, you are making the mistake in assuming that God cares to give us the answers to how the natural world works. He didn't tell us about Evolution in Genesis, because he wants us to use our brains and figure it out ourselves instead of handing us the answers (which aren't relevant in any way to the core tenets of Christianity) on a silver platter.

 

[laconicstudent]

"so I don't know why you think the Bible should speak to issues of 21st century science."

If you aren't gonna tell people what actually happened why would you just reinforce their already incorrect ideas?

God isn't. Its your own fault for taking it literally. No where in the Bible does it claim that Genesis 1 was describing the mechanics of what God did. Its an allegorical tale.

God could have advanced them slightly

Why should he? Why do you think God should just hand things to you?

or at least not set them back by reinforcing them.

Only the case if you are interpreting it all literally.

If God wouldn't have said the sun revolves around the earth, knowledge wouldnt have been held back by the church when Galileo found his truth out.

You have the reference for this verse that says the sun revolves around the earth? I believe that the earth-centric dogma arose from Aristotelian influences on theology, not actual Scripture.

God knew that he would be holding science back in the future.

Why should that necessarily concern God? Even to us mere humans, you think 50 years is anything but a blip in history?

If he hadn't, perhaps all our technology would be 50 years more advanced and millions of people would live better lives.

That's just conjecture. Its doubtful, frankly.

"cause, again, the point of the Bible isn't to deliver scientific knowledge"
It seems to me the point of the god shoving incorrect explanations of the natural world was to deceive man about scientific knowledge.

ONCE AGAIN, an assumption that is only valid if you interpret Scripture literally. No where does God claim to be concerned with our understanding of science.

If your point isnt to deliver scientific knowledge then why are you (God) attempting explanations for the world which we know were wrong?

He doesn't. Now you are just putting words in God's mouth.

As an aside, do you think my conclusions are reasonable?

Yes. You are still operating under the assumption that there is a basis for taking Genesis 1 literally. You also claim that God is interested in our scientific understanding, when in reality Scripture was written with a more spiritual objective.

 

[<3God]

I was kinda talking to Mallon.
Laconic, I dont feel like we are on the same wavelength, I dont think we can get much from talking to each other on this subject

"Even to us mere humans, you think 50 years is anything but a blip in history"
Tell that to a poor african dying of AIDS, in 50 years there's a good chance we will have a cure, or at least cheap treatment that would improve his life

"Why do you think God should just hand things to you?"
Because he can, it would take no effort from him and it would greatly improve lives.
For example, if i could snap my fingers and cure cancer i would.

"That's just conjecture. Its doubtful, frankly."
Yea it is conjecture, but it's informed conjecture. Advancement in one part of science often leads to advancement in others.

 

[Mallon]

If you aren't gonna tell people what actually happened why would you just reinforce their already incorrect ideas? God could have advanced them slightly, or at least not set them back by reinforcing them. If God wouldn't have said the sun revolves around the earth, knowledge wouldnt have been held back by the church when Galileo found his truth out. God knew that he would be holding science back in the future. If he hadn't, perhaps all our technology would be 50 years more advanced and millions of people would live better lives.

But life is worthless without Christ. Sure, God could have provided us as much detail as we could ever want to know about how the natural world operates, but again, this wasn't His stated purpose in the Bible. God's purpose was to tell man about his relationship to God and about how to be saved from sin through faith in the Christ. God delivered these truths to the Hebrews using the language and imagery that were familiar to them, despite the fact that some of their views about how the universe works were wrong. But God doesn't care whether we understand every detail about how the world works; He cares that we live with Him forever in heaven.

It seems to me the point of the god shoving incorrect explanations of the natural world was to deceive man about scientific knowledge.

Why? If a child were to ask me where babies come from, would I be deceiving them if I didn't explain every gory detail about human copulation.
Besides, the message is from God -- the medium simply reflects the traditions and limitations of man.

If your point isnt to deliver scientific knowledge then why are you (God) attempting explanations for the world which we know were wrong?

Because God accommodates His message to the minds of men in history. His message isn't wrong, even though the vessel in which He delivers the message may become outdated (but He does so in order that His immediate audience might understand Him).

As an aside, do you think my conclusions are reasonable?

No. I think you are conflating the medium and the message. You should read that link I gave you earlier.

 

[<3God]

"But life is worthless without Christ"
Are you saying without a belief in christ you cant live a fullfiling life? - just clarification

"God could have provided us as much detail as we could ever want to know about how the natural world operates, but again, this wasn't His stated purpose in the Bible."

He could have gave us *some* new knowledge about how the world works in order to alleviate suffering on earth. Why didnt he unless he doesnt care about our pain on earth?

more coming...

 

[<3God]

"why? If a child were to ask me where babies come from, would I be deceiving them if I didn't explain every gory detail about human copulation."

Well there several issues I have with this statement. Man of the time could have understood new knowledge and not be horrified by it the way a child might. If a child came to me asking where babies came from i would tell them man puts his seed in a woman and 9 months later a baby comes out of the woman. If you were to do what God did in the bible it would be like telling the child that the stork brings it. But, that's not even an adequate comparison because where as a child knowing at the age of 5 exactly how a baby is made wouldn't help him much in his life, If God would have, for example not said that diseases are just devils and instead gave us some hints at the germ theory of disease it would have saved many people.

 

[<3God]

"because God accommodates His message to the minds of men in history. His message isn't wrong, even though the vessel in which He delivers the message may become outdated (but He does so in order that His immediate audience might understand Him)."

We aren't any smarter than we were 2000 years ago. Our culture has simply accumulated more knowledge. God could have gotten us started on this knowledge and helped millions, but instead he reinforced what we already thought we knew

 

[laconicstudent]

He could have gave us *some* new knowledge about how the world works in order to alleviate suffering on earth. Why didnt he unless he doesnt care about our pain on earth?

more coming...

But you are the only one who thinks he is obligated to do so. He does care, but he lets us manage our own affairs. He isn't a cosmic nanny. The fact that he isn't handing us a perfect world on a silver platter does not make him malicious. I think you have an enormous sense of entitlement.

 

[<3God]

"But you are the only one who thinks he is obligated to do so"

If you could snap your fingers and cure cancer would you?
God wouldn't.
Yes i think any being that can instantly save someone from suffering with no effort is obligated.

"He does care, but he lets us manage our own affairs."

That's a deist view.