Origins of the Universe and Science investigated

[Piet Strydom]

Don't know if this helps, but it is my understanding that at the beginning of earth being created there was no land, then God formed land in one place (sometimes referred to as "Pangea") on day 3. The word "void" is likened to also represent chaos, so I imagine this is describing a state of the earth where God was in the process of organizing matter to His purposes.

And I am the most grateful for your input.
You are a Bible believing Christian that can only add to the investigation to the truth.
I promise you that within 2 weeks you will be one of the strongest contenders to destroy any Atheist about what the Bible teaches on the Origins of the Universe.

 

[God bless Joshua]

View attachment 218525

As i hv mentioned earlier regarding Day 1, Moses was writing about the boundless SPACE from which earth was formed.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the DEEP.

void and darkness = the infinite space (DEEP)

 

[Piet Strydom]

As i hv mentioned earlier regarding No. 1, Moses was writing about the boundless SPACE from which earth was formed.

keep in mind that what I will show you will be explained lateron.
However, as I progress, keep on criticizing.

 

[Oldmantook]

Well, It might be because I am not reading Genesis with any preconceived ideas of what it says.
The reasoning is quite simplistic.
the Bible say, God separated Land and sea on the 3rd day, therefore any one can grasp that land and sea was mixed up before God separated both.
It MUST have formed from a MUD BALL EARTH!

This is the key to the description of the origins of the Universe, and this was how Newton and Kant also understood it. Give it some time and I will show you incredible insight on how Kant and Newton came to their theories.
Do you have any other explanation that if one separate soil and water from mud that it can occur any other way?
I dont know of any other scenario if we read the verse.

Next, I asked what was this firmament the Bible speaks about,
Well, it was the surface of this mud ball earth.
Look at the description. God made a firmament between waters below and waters above the firmament.
This is something we should envision before we can go further.
The Earth was a Mud Ball, and due to gravity heavier matter was collecting in its center creating a Mud ball with water seeping out into the lowest areas of its surface. Land and sea.
but prior to this, on Day 2, gas and moisture precipitated out of a huge collection of Matter and water infused with gas.

Nice, the atmosphere was created on day 2, with a mud ball Earth in its center.
View attachment 218525

You presume much. Verse 9 states: And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
A solid land mass need not be composed of mud. It may be but not necessarily so. There are corals, beaches and other land masses which become exposed when the ocean waters separate and recede from the land. That could have well been the case in Genesis. Thus your conclusion of mud is not one of necessity.

The firmament was the surface of the mud ball??
If the firmament was the surface as you claim then how are v.14-17 possible?
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.
Obviously, God did not put the sun, moon and stars on the surface of the earth which you claim is the firmament. Instead, the firmament is located in the heavens as I wrote earlier - ABOVE THE EARTH.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
Bird fly above the earth; not on the surface of the earth therefore your claim regarding the firmament is again contradicted.

 

[Piet Strydom]

If the firmament was the surface as you claim then how are v.14-17 possible?

Well, we are still getting to that point.
You are stating that the firmament is the outer reaches of the Atmosphere, and then dont understand how God could place the Sun, Moon and Stars in the Firmament.
If this is the case, the whole of Genesis is incorrect.
So, lets get to that discussion when I get there, not before I dissect the description from my analysis.
I do not want to jump from one argument to the next without first showing you what the Bible say.

So far we established that on the 3rd day Land and ocean was separated.
That rendered the only conclusion that on the morning of the 3rd day, the earth was a mixture of matter and water. The Mud ball earth.
Am I correct?
or do you disagree?

 

[Oldmantook]

You plainly wrote that the firmament was the surface of the earth and I plainly cited the applicable verses that demonstrate that the firmament cannot possibly be the surface of the earth. Do you retract your statement or do you still insist that the firmament is the surface? I do understand that the sun, moon and stars are inside the firmament (outer atmosphere) as the Bible states. Genesis according to science is therefore wrong as science adheres to the heliocentric model. The Bible on the other hand teaches a geocentric model. I suggest you further study the controversy between the heliocentric and geocentric views of the earth which is currently abounding on the internet including on youtube to familiarize yourself with the subject.

Did you read what I posted? Mud is not the only option. Water and solid land can be in two places at the same time and not be mixed together as is mud. When waters recede and separate, land appears, corrals appear, beaches appear, etc. Mud is not the sole alternative answer thus your own conclusion is an overreach.

 

[Piet Strydom]

I do understand that the sun, moon and stars are inside the firmament (outer atmosphere) as the Bible states.

Well, if you refuse to look at what I have told you up until now, it is your error.
And as I said, we will still come to day 4, and by the way, the description of day 4 is also a scientific description that I will use to prove that science and the Biblical description correlates exaclty with each other.

Now, If you refuse to admit that the Bible clearly states that on the 3rd day God separated the water and matter from each other, and therefore the step previous to that would render that the earth was a Mud Ball, sorry, then I can not help you on a simple and logical explanation.

The fact is,
1. the Earth was a collection of Matter, Liquid and Gas before day 1.
2. on day 2 the gasses escaped from this collection and rendered an Atmosphere.
3. On the morning of the 3rd day the Earth would therefore have been a Mud Ball, for which I already showed you that science now agrees with a statement which I claimed in 2008 already.
Now we will discuss the firmament as well as what was this light before the first day, and why the Bible say that the Sun Moon and stars were made on the 4th day.

Please do not stay hooked on your question, it will be answered.
Just keep in mind that what I am telling you here is what I discovered what Kant described in 1755.
And this very same science was later discarded when La-Place came up with his spinning solar system theory, only to be proven incorrect whereby all later scientific discoveries correlated with the findings of the Nebular theory.
Guess what?
All the scientists today don't know that the scientific descriptions on the origins of the Universe they are claiming as fact, came out of Genesis.

Therefore, if you stay patient for a day or so, I will tell you what and how the nebular theory was developed from Genesis, then you can come back about the firmament, and critisize it.
I will appreciate your criticism then, but to try to force me into some admittance about a misconcepted idea you have on what the Bible say, does not validate any argument or answer.

 

[Piet Strydom]

When waters recede and separate, land appears, corrals appear, beaches appear, etc.

And please note that you are making assumptions that does not carry weight on my description I supplied. if I claim that the earth was a collection of Matter, Liquid, and Gas that developed into an atmosphere and a mud ball earth and then into land and ocean, where did you come by coral reefs?
We are still not there at all.

 

[Vicomte13]

But I saw that before day 1 God say the Earth was water and darkness into its depth?
Then it is clear that water existed on the earth before this firmament was created.

"Water" is our word. Think of the natural world and remember your chemistry. Also, please, remember that if God really did inspire, dictate or write Genesis 1, he was inspiring, dictating to, or writing for, Levantine bedouins 4000 years ago. They were the audience. Their minds had to grasp what was being said, which means that God, in his inspiration, had to limit himself to their vocabulary, things they understood, in their language.

What is "water" to an ancient Levantine bedouin? It is not di-hydrogen oxide. It is not the polar ice caps - those were unknown to the bedouin, and would not be recognized as "water".

Water was liquid, that which flowed clear. As I said, remember your chemistry. At ambient temperature, what visible things are liquid? Only one element, just one: mercury. And mercury does not sit around in pools on the surface, it has to be extracted from rocks using a process that was unknown in 2000 BC.

So right there you realize something: the RARITY of different types of liquid in the world. Sure, WATER is common, and visible - in the rain, in the rivers and in the sea - we need it to live. But besides water, what other LIQUID is visible to a bedouin? Blood: there's a word for that. Milk: there's a word for that. "Seed" - and that's not really a liquid. Wine. My point is that liquids, other than water are rare in nature. Today, with chemical processes and knowledge we have all sorts of chemical mixtures and and compounds that are liquids: none of these existed 4000 years ago.

Therefore, there is no word in the ancient bedouin Hebrew for "liquid". The word is "water", because water is the only liquid that existed in their world. Mixtures of water had their own name. Nothing else was liquid. Big bodies of water were "seas" (in English - the Hebrew word for this incorporates the pictograph "M" which, in its original form, showed waves and is the root pictograph in the Hebrew word that we translate as "water".

So, what you must realize when you read the bedouin and read "waters" and "water", that word does not simply mean H2O. We have imposed a precision on the word "water" that did not exist back then. Case in point: when mercury was discovered, and its peculiar property of binding with elements and releasing gold from rocks, it was dubbed "aqua regia": "royal water" - because it was a liquid that, when poured, caused gold to precipitate out. The point is that a liquid was "water" - aqua - even 2000 years after the Hebrews.

So, when you read of the original conditions, and you read the word "water", you have to remember that that is an English word that has acquired a specific chemical meaning that it did not have before recent centuries. WE distinguish between "water" and "liquid". To the ancient world those are the same words, and every particular sort of liquid has its own specific name. "Water" is the generic word for flowing liquid.

With that in mind, consider what the universe was on the FIRST day, before energy was created. Again, the Hebrew word "light" is a pictographic sentence "AWR" - OR - and is the root of "order". Energy, of course, brings light out of the chaos, and the only way that energy can be seen by the ancients was in the form of light, including firelight.

Further, remember that there is no Hebrew word for "earth" - the planet. The word we translate as "earth" is the Hebrew word "land". And "heavens" is skies.

So, in the beginning there was the land and the sky, and the land was invisible - there was nothing, no light, no energy, just the breath (spirit is breath) of God on the surface of the great deep.

So, then, what were the conditions? 96% or so of the universe is hydrogen. When hydrogen is clumped together at absolute zero - no energy, it has not been created yet - what is it? It is not a solid, because it lacks the structure to form crystals. The same is true of Oxygen and Nitrogen and Helium. At absolute zero, the gases are not solids, they are LIQUIDS, which is to say, WATER in ancient Hebrew.

We cannot retroject Water is H2O on the language of the bedouins. "Water" means "liquid", and before energy, that is what is described: a proto universe of elemental hydrogen, with the other elements dissolved in it and invisible, in darkness without energy. And they are clumped as an abyssal "sea" of liquid hydrogen: water.

Then God said "Energy Exist!" and it did, and that energy blasted into the elemental "water" the blob of liquid hydrogen with all of the rest dissolved in it, "tohu vavohu" - which is not "formless and void" - that's formalistic language. That phrase in Hebrew is playful. It should be translated as "higgledy-piggledy" - chaotic. The land was DISSOLVED into the abyssal sea. Then energy came, the water - which is to say the liquid hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen/ everything else ball, activated with energy, attenuated, spread out, matter clumped, and "land" (solid elements) began to clump - these are your planets.

But where did the "light" go, the energy? It disappeared INTO the elements, which WERE at absolute zero but were not animated by internal energy.

The "firmanent" is another one of those words. The Hebrew bedouin word is "sheet", like the black goathair sheets that form the tents in which the bedouins live to separate them from the sky. If you ever go inside one on a sunny day (I have) you discover they are cooler and darker than the outside, but that the weave of the cloth leaves little gaps between the threads through which the light pokes - like stars in the dark night.

So on the second day, with light and the further attenuation of the abyssal sea, God stretched a sheet between the "waters" - the attenuating plasma of hydrogen in space, and the clump of water and dissolved solid elements below. And the continents emerged from the water.

Genesis is the formation of the planets as explained by the most brilliant of all astrophysicists using only the language of 4000 BC. It's true, but you have to translate the key words: "water", "light", land (NOT "Earth"), "seas", "sheet" (NOT "firmament") into modern terms for your modern, educated, scientifically precise mind to get it. It's not particularly hard to do, but it does require not being stubborn about things like "H20", "Earth" and "firmament" - which are, remember, ENGLISH words used to try to indicate to us what a Hebrew word is.

Take out the hocus-pocus, and you have a remarkably clear explanation of the physics of the Big Bang, in the language of cave men. And a pretty good indication of the overmind that was talking to them, because they were obviously not capable of knowing any of these things. It is difficult for us to see what God is saying in Genesis unless we retroject OUR highly precise language back to what the "cavemen" knew, and then try to express astrophysics using exclusively the language and familiar concepts of 4000 years ago. God had the patience to do that, and did a remarkable job, we might notice. Few humans have the patience to even attempt such a thing, and get annoyed when somebody (like me) tries to show it to them.

Anyway, there is your answer.

 

[Piet Strydom]

Now, lets see what we have here.
1. The Earth was without form and dark and deep and water that changed into a sphere turning on its axis, else there would not have been an evening and Morning.
2. This mixture of matter, Liquid and Gasses started to separate into an Atmosphere and left a Mud ball Earth, which on the 3rd day separated into land and Ocean.
3. When light was created, the first seconds, minutes, hours and day was measured.
4. The first day started!, before the first day there was no days to measure time with.

Therefore, before the first day, Time did not exist as we measure it.
We use an Earth turning on its axis, a sun shining on the earth, an earth turning around the Sun etc to measure time.
Therefore, the Biblical description actually say...

Before the first day, there was no solar system time mechanism to measure time. It was Zero Time!
Even scientists measures 18 Billion years with the use of our earth and Sun that never existed for 10 billion years according to their calculations.
Scientists say the Solar System is only 4.5 billion years old and the Universe 18.5 billion, so how do they measure something with the clockwork that did not exist?
With the perception of "imaginary time"!
Good, so the Bible say the Earth is 6000 Years and 6 days AND ZERO TIME OLD!!!
IF SCIENCE WANTS TO CALL THIS "TIME" BILLIONS OF YEARS, AND THE BIBLE CALLS IT "IN THE BEGINNING", THEY ARE WELCOME TO DO SO! IT DOES NOT PROVE THE BIBLE WRONG AT ALL!

Tomorrow I will discuss the source of Light of the first day, and if time allows, what was this lights that God placed in the firmament.
Greetings

 

[Piet Strydom]

Also, please, remember that if God really did inspire, dictate or write Genesis 1, he was inspiring, dictating to, or writing for, Levantine bedouins 4000 years ago.

...and these descriptions were taken into the European Christian philosophers and scientists' writings and eventually proven to be 100% correct by all the latest scientific studies we have today.
fact is that the nebular theory is plagiarism from Genesis, and atheists wants to die when they hear about it.
Call the liquid whatever you want.
I am talking about Ice and Water mixed with Gasses and Space dust as one will find in ancient nebular clouds.
But, everything will come clear in a few days.

 

[Piet Strydom]

God had the patience to do that, and did a remarkable job, we might notice. Few humans have the patience to even attempt such a thing, and get annoyed when somebody (like me) tries to show it to them.

By the way, you gave an excellent informative study.
I wonder what you will do with the Kantian nebular theory in future.

 

[dqhall]

I decided to open this thread to discuss something I learned almost 10 years ago when I investigated the claim of Atheists that the Author of the Bible does not know how the Universe came into existence due to His description not correlating with Scientific discoveries. At that stage I was still Agnostic, or shall I say a cowardly Atheist that thought it sounds nicer to be called an Agnostic in stead of an Atheist.
Well, let me show you what I learned.
Up until now no "Atheist" Scientist could show me that the information here was incorrect.
The best response I received was...
...I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS...
I WILL LEAVE A POST ONCE A DAY ON THIS FORUM TO ALLOW CHRISTIANS TO INVESTIGATE MY CLAIMS AND TO CRITICIZE WHAT I SAY.

I know God exists. I took several courses in geology at a state university. I find your ideas about the formation of the earth lack depth and description. It does not record the cycle of volcanic eruptions going back millions of years, nor plate tectonics, nor the history of zoology or mankind. How many species are there. Who can count them? A summary of the history of the universe in a few easy sentences is nothing that will bring a non-believer to his knees in total awe. A mud ball with a hot high pressurized interior does not explain it all to this Christian. I think man has oversimplified the works of God.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The story of 6 day creation comes in part from the ancient story that Adam and Eve, who incarnate from heaven on an evolved, populated, previously fallen earth, spent their first 6 days surveying the garden which had been prepared for them in anticipation of their arrival. On the 7th day they rested.

Also, for ages the sun was obscured by a cloudy haze in the earths atmosphere. When that finally dissipated it was a significant event for mankind.

Genesis contains human speculation and conjecture. It’s a human creation based on the fragments of ancient traditions from far distant days.

No, Colter. There is nothing that suggests that there was a previous fallen earth. You may want to re-read Genesis again.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I know God exists. I took several courses in geology at a state university. I find your ideas about the formation of the earth lack depth and description. It does not record the cycle of volcanic eruptions going back millions of years, nor plate tectonics, nor the history of zoology or mankind. How many species are there. Who can count them? A summary of the history of the universe in a few easy sentences is nothing that will bring a non-believer to his knees in total awe. A mud ball with a hot high pressurized interior does not explain it all to this Christian. I think man has oversimplified the works of God.

The problem is that you want to have one foot in the world's "it can't start with God" theology and one foot in the idea of a God with the strong lean on what man says over what God says. You won't believe what God says if it conflicts with what the world is telling you. But our observation is not the standard of our faith. God's Word is the Truth Standard. God's Word doesn't change. Our understanding is limited, no matter how smart we think we are. Either we believe what God said or we don't. It really is that simply.

Jesus tells a few stories in particular that should really concern someone who claims to be a Christian; but is steeped in the world's thinking. In Matthew 7, He shares of the two builders; in Matthew 25, He shares the story of the 10 virgins. They have a similar theme in that both times people are calling Jesus Lord who are told by Him "I never knew you" despite their claims to the contrary. In Matthew 13, He shares about the Sower and the soils. He talks about three soils that produce some growth; but only one is good soil. The growth on the other two dies--and more scary--one is said to "believe for a season" and then die when trials, tribulation and persecution that forces them to take a stand comes. Jesus did say "if you deny Me before men, I will deny you before the Father" and that can't be a good outcome if Jesus denies you. Jesus also spoke to churches in Rev 2 & 3 and yet only made promises to those who overcame, insinuating (at least) that not everyone (in those things He was recognizing as churches) would. In Revelation 3:5, He goes so far as to say that He won't blot them out from the Book of Life, again insinuating (at least) that other would be.

"State university"--yep. "Millions of years"--yep that is the only way they can conceptualize things, because they won't accept the idea that there is a God that they will have to answer to. But, why couldn't He do what He said in a day--if He is God? And, if He is God, their choice to not accept Him only limits and hurts them and those who are affected by their lies. God is still going to do with them exactly what He warned He would--whether it makes sense in their relative-to-Him "speck-brains" or not. I'm happy to look stupid to man, because I know God and wouldn't trade that for the world.

But, what if God's Word really is living and active, not just words? (Heb 4:12) What happens if it really never returns void, but accomplishes all that God sent it forth to do? (Isa 55) What if God really is watching over His Word to perform it? (Jer 1:12) What if what Jesus said about "being like a child" really means just trusting what God says and doing it? (Mar 10:15, Matt 18:3)

For me, I would much rather be on the right side of eternity than on the right side of man's version of science--which doesn't believe in such a thing as eternity. Call it naive or simplistic, if you will. Maybe so, from the position that what man offers as knowledge. But, I will gladly make my bed in God's World over man's any day!

 

[Colter]

No, Colter. There is nothing that suggests that there was a previous fallen earth. You may want to re-read Genesis again.

Genesis was written by Israelite holy men and for an Israelite audience. Not only did they not know the history of the earth, they didn’t claim that they were inspired by God to write the pseudo-biographical narratives. The scriptures were intended for religious instruction and guidance, not idolatry!

The beast had already fallen by the time two educated adults, who spoke the same language, arrived from heaven. Cain knew there were people out in the world as well. Read Genesis again.

 

[Vicomte13]

By the way, you gave an excellent informative study.
I wonder what you will do with the Kantian nebular theory in future.

I'll tell you. It all evolved, driven by natural principles (which are, of course, the opinions - which is to say - laws of God) to what we have. When the wind blows, that is the breath of God.

The physical world is the visible manifestation of God's law. I know that.

Then I move to what I consider to be the central aspect of religion: human conduct.

 

[NobleMouse]

The problem is that you want to have one foot in the world's "it can't start with God" theology and one foot in the idea of a God with the strong lean on what man says over what God says. You won't believe what God says if it conflicts with what the world is telling you. But our observation is not the standard of our faith. God's Word is the Truth Standard. God's Word doesn't change. Our understanding is limited, no matter how smart we think we are. Either we believe what God said or we don't. It really is that simply.

Jesus tells a few stories in particular that should really concern someone who claims to be a Christian; but is steeped in the world's thinking. In Matthew 7, He shares of the two builders; in Matthew 25, He shares the story of the 10 virgins. They have a similar theme in that both times people are calling Jesus Lord who are told by Him "I never knew you" despite their claims to the contrary. In Matthew 13, He shares about the Sower and the soils. He talks about three soils that produce some growth; but only one is good soil. The growth on the other two dies--and more scary--one is said to "believe for a season" and then die when trials, tribulation and persecution that forces them to take a stand comes. Jesus did say "if you deny Me before men, I will deny you before the Father" and that can't be a good outcome if Jesus denies you. Jesus also spoke to churches in Rev 2 & 3 and yet only made promises to those who overcame, insinuating (at least) that not everyone (in those things He was recognizing as churches) would. In Revelation 3:5, He goes so far as to say that He won't blot them out from the Book of Life, again insinuating (at least) that other would be.

"State university"--yep. "Millions of years"--yep that is the only way they can conceptualize things, because they won't accept the idea that there is a God that they will have to answer to. But, why couldn't He do what He said in a day--if He is God? And, if He is God, their choice to not accept Him only limits and hurts them and those who are affected by their lies. God is still going to do with them exactly what He warned He would--whether it makes sense in their relative-to-Him "speck-brains" or not. I'm happy to look stupid to man, because I know God and wouldn't trade that for the world.

But, what if God's Word really is living and active, not just words? (Heb 4:12) What happens if it really never returns void, but accomplishes all that God sent it forth to do? (Isa 55) What if God really is watching over His Word to perform it? (Jer 1:12) What if what Jesus said about "being like a child" really means just trusting what God says and doing it? (Mar 10:15, Matt 18:3)

For me, I would much rather be on the right side of eternity than on the right side of man's version of science--which doesn't believe in such a thing as eternity. Call it naive or simplistic, if you will. Maybe so, from the position that what man offers as knowledge. But, I will gladly make my bed in God's World over man's any day!

Amen to that! 1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV) states: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Every debate around biblical creationism and the age of the earth/universe goes the same: skeptics of biblical creationism tend to stay away from what the Bible states and instead quickly delve into highly technical scientific discussions operating under the naturalism/uniformitarianism paradigm/framework. I think this is usually driven by two motives: (1) prideful arrogance, or (2) a desire to be accepted by those labeled in our society today as the intellectually elite (scientists/philosophers).

The Christian can just as easily fall into either trap, though I'd like to believe most skeptics here are falling into the 2nd category of wanting to believe the Bible is true but fear that doing so will portray them in a light of stupefaction... as if they were committing intellectual suicide. I would argue to the contrary that intellectual suicide is better demonstrated when we say we place our eternal future in God's hands and what Jesus has done for us on the cross, but ardently insist we cannot believe His word is just as true about our past.

This is a bit of a side-step to the discussion thread here - just intended to be a note of encouragement, especially to those who are riding the fence and have, as has been well-stated, one foot in the world's "it can't start with God" theology and one foot in the irrefutable truth of God's word. I am enjoying this thread and look forward to the additional posts that follow.

 

[Colter]

Amen to that! 1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV) states: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Every debate around biblical creationism and the age of the earth/universe goes the same: skeptics of biblical creationism tend to stay away from what the Bible states and instead quickly delve into highly technical scientific discussions operating under the naturalism/uniformitarianism paradigm/framework. I think this is usually driven by two motives: (1) prideful arrogance, or (2) a desire to be accepted by those labeled in our society today as the intellectually elite (scientists/philosophers).

The Christian can just as easily fall into either trap, though I'd like to believe most skeptics here are falling into the 2nd category of wanting to believe the Bible is true but fear that doing so will portray them in a light of stupefaction... as if they were committing intellectual suicide. I would argue to the contrary that intellectual suicide is better demonstrated when we say we place our eternal future in God's hands and what Jesus has done for us on the cross, but ardently insist we cannot believe His word is just as true about our past.

This is a bit of a side-step to the discussion thread here - just intended to be a note of encouragement, especially to those who are riding the fence and have, as has been well-stated, one foot in the world's "it can't start with God" theology and one foot in the irrefutable truth of God's word. I am enjoying this thread and look forward to the additional posts that follow.

"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic."

Lacking the visible presence of God believers are tempted to make a fetish out of scripture. Also, Holy men use the scripture as the foundation for their authority. Because of fear and pride they wont concede faults in the Bible books. Science is forced to concede faults when confronted with facts.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic."

Lacking the visible presence of God believers are tempted to make a fetish out of scripture. Also, Holy men use the scripture as the foundation for their authority. Because of fear and pride they wont concede faults in the Bible books. Science is forced to concede faults when confronted with facts.

Wow, you mean like "big bang" without a cause? Or the heavily propagated lie and indoctrination of evolution? I will stick with the foolishness of God instead of what men call wisdom, thanks!

I will look forward to you explaining to God how loving the Word He exalted above His Name is a fetish.

Fear and pride? Really? Are you listening to yourself? When I was an arrogant unbeliever, I was subjugated to abundant fear by the world, because of all the control it had over me. Yet, I set and kept my own version of morality--obviously one that suited me and allowed me to freely justify myself as a good person or as being right. So, if it isn't my Word, but God's Word, and I didn't speak any of it, how on earth is prideful to trust what God says as opposed to you trusting your wisdom and the wisdom of man over what God says? Fear of the One who can destroy both the body and soul in hell? I do. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Amen.