Scienceism, Is there such a thing?

[nephilimiyr]

There is creationism, those who want to prove creation by scientific methods. Is there such a thing as Scienceism? those who want to prove what scripture says by scientific evidence?

 

[Jet Black]

Fundamentally that is what creationism is... it is not merely the attampt of proof of the method of creation, but the validation of scripture by scientific methods.. from the creation itself through to Noah's floods and so on. The danger of doing this is that it immediately opens scripture to falsification, since that is essentially what the scientific method does. The fundamental requirement of creationism is that the scripture is literally true. True statements cannot return false consequences, so if something the scripture says is proven to be wrong, then the statement that the scripture is true, is a false one.

However do not despair just yet. Science is in itself agnostic and has nothing to say really on the idea of "Creation". hence what is wrong is not really the "fact" that God created, but How he created.

In short, Science can falsify a literal interpretation, but that is all it falsifies; just one of the interpretations.

 

[nephilimiyr]

That's a good answer but what about those who believe that scripture isn't to be taken literally but just a poetic story? They first believe in science before they believe what the word of God says. In other words if they view a conflict in what science says and what the word of God says they believe science first and then interptret the scripture to follow along with it.

If they see two possible meanings or interpretations of scripture they move too fast to see what science says before looking further into the word.

Most people read the Bible in their own language but since most people don't read the Bible in the language that it was originally written they miss alot of the meaning the original author wanted to convey. But instead of keeping this in mind they see errors and judge wrongly about what God wants to tell them because they don't study the Hebrew. They see these errors and want to look to what science says instead of learning what God really wants to tell them.

You see I see it fundamentally wrong for creationists to use scripture to prove a scientific fact but I also see it equally wrong for theistic evolutionists to prove through science what the word of God means through scientific evidence. And some do do this.

If there are several possible meanings to what a word means in the Hebrew they stop their research and look towards what the scientific evidence shows to see what the meaning of it is in stead of useing what the context shows in the passage and also ignoring what the circular logic tells them. To me this is scienceism.

 

[lucaspa]

That's a good answer but what about those who believe that scripture isn't to be taken literally but just a poetic story? They first believe in science before they believe what the word of God says.

1. Not ALL of scripture is viewed as a poetic story. We are talking ONLY about Genesis 1-8.

2. It is not "just a poetic story" but rather a very deep THEOLOGICAL treatise, teaching about theological truths.

3. What is science? It is the study of the physical universe. What is the physical universe? IT IS GOD'S CREATION!!! So science studies the word of God just as much as any Biblical scholar.

In other words if they view a conflict in what science says and what the word of God says they believe science first and then interptret the scripture to follow along with it.

Can God contradict God? Can God's Creation contradict the Bible? However, the INTERPRETATION of the Bible is a man-made thing. So, Christians did decide that "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

IOW, God's Creation is more reliable than OUR interpretation of God's word.

Most people read the Bible in their own language but since most people don't read the Bible in the language that it was originally written they miss alot of the meaning the original author wanted to convey. But instead of keeping this in mind they see errors and judge wrongly about what God wants to tell them because they don't study the Hebrew. They see these errors and want to look to what science says instead of learning what God really wants to tell them.

Then why were the Jews (who read Genesis in the original Hebrew) the first to drop a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8? I have been to services in 5 different synagogues of all 3 general denominations within Judaism. I have looked at the commentary to Torah in the pew copies of Torah in all of them. ALL of them have a non-literal Genesis 1-8.

I also see it equally wrong for theistic evolutionists to prove through science what the word of God means through scientific evidence. And some do do this.

Really. What I see theistic evolutionists do is show which interpretations of scripture MUST be wrong. I have seen several different interpretations of scripture among TEs.

If there are several possible meanings to what a word means in the Hebrew they stop their research and look towards what the scientific evidence shows to see what the meaning of it is in stead of useing what the context shows in the passage

Everyone uses extrabiblical evidence to decide what the text means. In Genesis 1:1 when the Bible says "heavens and the earth" don't you immediately use extrabiblical evidence to know what "heavens" and "earth" is? Do you really read thru all the rest of the text to determine the "meaning from context"?

What you are saying is that you object to having YOUR interpretation superceded by extrabiblical evidence (science). You want to tune out part of God so that your interpretation isn't challenged.
and also ignoring what the circular logic tells them. To me this is scienceism.[/QUOTE]

 

[nephilimiyr]

1. Not ALL of scripture is viewed as a poetic story. We are talking ONLY about Genesis 1-8.

2. It is not "just a poetic story" but rather a very deep THEOLOGICAL treatise, teaching about theological truths.

3. What is science? It is the study of the physical universe. What is the physical universe? IT IS GOD'S CREATION!!! So science studies the word of God just as much as any Biblical scholar.

Ok but when I see the science community studying the Bible I tend to see it as an oxymoron. I mean how does their study in the field of science make them Hebrew scholars? How does a Hebrew scholar become expert in science? How does their expertise make them as good or better than a Hebrew scholar? Science doesn't tell us the truths in the Bible, only the Holy Spirit can give us the truth, not scientific evidence. All the scientific evidence can do is reflect what the word of God says but if you don't understand what the word of God says you shouldn't use science first in your determination.

Can God contradict God? Can God's Creation contradict the Bible? However, the INTERPRETATION of the Bible is a man-made thing. So, Christians did decide that "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

IOW, God's Creation is more reliable than OUR interpretation of God's word.

From my experience here in these forums I would say not all scientists believe the evidence says what other scientists say the evidence says. Yeah I'm talking about creationist scientists. Now I understand the arguements theistic evolutionists have against creationists scientists but when I read what they have to say I must say they make just as much sense to me as the theistic evolutionists but yet the views are wholly different.

I admitt I don't have a scientific mind but my belief is that none of us has to in order to see what Genesis 1-8 is saying. Yes one can study the scientific evidences of creation but that has nothing to do with the study of Gods word. The two are very different things. The study of Gods word is just that, the study of words; the study of the scientific evidence's of creation is just that, the study of physical evidences.

How did you come to the belief that Genesis 1-8 is a theological treatise? If you say because you studied the scientific evidence I see you putting your belief in science above the word of God. See I don't see how anyone can read Gen. 1-8 for the first time and say that it's a theological treatise unless they have already been influenced by what science has told them.

No, God can't contradict himself and no, Gods word can't contradict his creation for it was his word that created all things. If our interpretion of Genesis 1-8 is different than what the scientific evidence says then I believe we should either look to possible other interpretations of the Hebrew or other interpretations of the scientific evidence or maybe both. I see some jumping to the conclusion that their interpretation of the scientific evidence is infallible but the word of God isn't. This is the problem I have with theistic evolutionists because I believe there is an interpretation that does not contradict what science says about how old the earth is but does not use scientific evidence to prove this.

Then why were the Jews (who read Genesis in the original Hebrew) the first to drop a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8? I have been to services in 5 different synagogues of all 3 general denominations within Judaism. I have looked at the commentary to Torah in the pew copies of Torah in all of them. ALL of them have a non-literal Genesis 1-8.

Well it is the Jews also who reject that Jesus was the Christ but yet mainly only study the OT scriptures. Are they therefore correct in their interpretations of the scriptures in the OT that promise his comeing and that he hasn't come yet? If one can believe in their interpretations of Genesis 1-8 why not also believe in their interpretations of prophesy concerning the christ? After all, since they know the language so well, if they get one thing right they should be able to get it all right but yet we believe their wrong about Jesus. I say that odviously there are problems even in the Jewish community of understanding what the original ancient Hebrew is saying.

This belief of their's in Gen. 1-8 today is not an age old belief of their's but one of fairly recent times as a result of finding alternative interpretations to harmonize the scriptures with scientific evidence's. I garantee you that before the theory of evolution their beliefs in a literal reading of Genesis 1 were different than what they are today. They have become scientistic which is the adjective to scientism.

You say that the wording in the commentary of Torah. What exactly does this mean? Are you saying they have changed the word of God to reflect what they wanted it to reflect? Or is this just a prelude to the actual text?

Really. What I see theistic evolutionists do is show which interpretations of scripture MUST be wrong. I have seen several different interpretations of scripture among TEs.

I agree but what I object to is that they only see those interpretations as being wrong because of their belief in what the scientific evidence tells them, not because they believe the belief in a interpretation isn't correct because of not useing the correct Hebrew. This tends to get me thinking that they believe in science first and then the bible. I do a 180 and believe the bible first, then science.

Everyone uses extrabiblical evidence to decide what the text means. In Genesis 1:1 when the Bible says "heavens and the earth" don't you immediately use extrabiblical evidence to know what "heavens" and "earth" is? Do you really read thru all the rest of the text to determine the "meaning from context"?

I disagree. Alot of people don't bother to look but only listen to what their pastor has to say about it or what others might say with similar beliefs. When I became a christian I believed my one and only bible was good enough to read, I didn't see any reason to use extrabiblical evidence untill I became a serious student of the bible.

When I started out reading the bible and I read "heavens and earth" I took it for granted that the translation I was reading was saying the heavens and earth the same way I viewed the literal meaning of them. And yes sometimes you must read through the whole text to find the meaning of the word. Sometimes you have to go to other books in the bible to find the meaning of the word (circular logic). And even sometimes it's helpful to look at other ancient writtings to get a deeper meaning of the story.

What I see as the problem with Genesis 1 is that much of the meaning of the original Hebrew has been lost. Not only in translations through other languages but even in the modern use of the Hebrew spoken today. If you ask any Hebrew scholar about this he will tell you that the same Hebrew spoken today is unlike that which was spoken in the days Genesis was first penned. Even our English language has gone through many changes over just the last 1,000 years that it would be very hard to understand each other if we had a time machine and could go back and talk to someone there. Words change their meaning, sometimes words develop extra meanings.

What you are saying is that you object to having YOUR interpretation superceded by extrabiblical evidence (science). You want to tune out part of God so that your interpretation isn't challenged.
and also ignoring what the circular logic tells them. To me this is scienceism.

I agree that what you just wrote can be another form of sciencism but what you say I'm saying isn't really what I'm saying. I see the scientific evidence in creation as being a help not an end all to end all. I use this scientific evidence as a side note to my beliefs in Genesis 1, not as the main thrust of my arguement. What I object to is when people look to science first after their beliefs in their interpretation has been challenged by what scientific evidence suggests. And then that belief in what science says on the matter becomes paramount to them.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The Webster's New World Dictionary does give meaning to this word. Appartently I was right the first time I spelled it, lol, I never should have changed it! Anyway here's what it says

Scientism
1 the techniques, beliefs, or attitudes characteristic of scientists

2 the principal that scientific methods can and should be applied in all fields of investigation: often a disparaging usage

LOL, well I certainly use it disparagingly here! I do give my reasons though!

So yes there is such a thing.

 

[nephilimiyr]

This thread will not die.

 

[lucaspa]

The Webster's New World Dictionary does give meaning to this word. Appartently I was right the first time I spelled it, lol, I never should have changed it! Anyway here's what it says

Scientism
1 the techniques, beliefs, or attitudes characteristic of scientists

2 the principal that scientific methods can and should be applied in all fields of investigation: often a disparaging usage

LOL, well I certainly use it disparagingly here! I do give my reasons though!

So yes there is such a thing.

Yes, there is a philosophy called scientism. It is not what you said in your OP, however.

Scientism is the philosophy that science is the final arbiter everywhere.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The reason it is disparaged is because science is a limited form of knowledge. Those practicing scientism are taking science out of its proper domain and trying to apply it everywhere. This is invalid.

Now, definition #1 is something else.

The hypothetico-deductive method used by science -- what some call the "scientific method" -- can indeed be applied everywhere people agree as to what constittues data. In religion, the HD method was used to formulate the Documentary Hypothesis because everyone agreed that the text of the Pentateuch constituted data.

Also, the idea of Trinity was arrived at by the HD method because the Church Fathers agreed that the scriptures and their personal experiences of salvation constituted data.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok but when I see the science community studying the Bible I tend to see it as an oxymoron. I mean how does their study in the field of science make them Hebrew scholars? How does a Hebrew scholar become expert in science? How does their expertise make them as good or better than a Hebrew scholar? Science doesn't tell us the truths in the Bible, only the Holy Spirit can give us the truth, not scientific evidence. All the scientific evidence can do is reflect what the word of God says but if you don't understand what the word of God says you shouldn't use science first in your determination.

Where does the "science community" study the Bible? The scientific community studies the physical universe. What they have tested are scientific theories that people based on their literal interpretation of the Bible.

From my experience here in these forums I would say not all scientists believe the evidence says what other scientists say the evidence says. Yeah I'm talking about creationist scientists.

That's because creationist scientists misrepresent the data, ignore data, have a faulty view of what science is and how it works, and use faulty methods in their experiments.

Remember, nephilmeyer, that YEC used to be THE accepted scientific theory. It was shown to be false by Christians who were also scientists by 1831. What we have in modern creationists is a group of people who refuse to admit that the theory is falsified.

I admitt I don't have a scientific mind but my belief is that none of us has to in order to see what Genesis 1-8 is saying. Yes one can study the scientific evidences of creation but that has nothing to do with the study of Gods word. The two are very different things. The study of Gods word is just that, the study of words; the study of the scientific evidence's of creation is just that, the study of physical evidences.

But they do interact becaues the physical evidences were put there by God.

What Biblical literalists ignore is that God wrote two books. Creation is just as much a book written by God as the Bible. What studying God's Creation does is tell us if we have a wrong interpretation of the Bible.

How did you come to the belief that Genesis 1-8 is a theological treatise? If you say because you studied the scientific evidence I see you putting your belief in science above the word of God. See I don't see how anyone can read Gen. 1-8 for the first time and say that it's a theological treatise unless they have already been influenced by what science has told them.

1. Because Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1. Therefore we can't be dealing with literal history here.
2. Genesis 1 is neatly divided into 2- 3 day creation halves with each day having exactly 2 creation events. History is never that neat.
3. Genesis 5 contradicts Genesis 1 and 2.
4. The names for God change between Genesis 1 and 2.
5. Plants are created before the sun in Genesis 1.
6. Finally, the Bible is meant to teach THEOLOGY, not science. As a pope said "The Bible is meant to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." So I first look to see what the theological messages are.

Now, remember a "belief in science" is simply having a belief in God's second book.

No, God can't contradict himself and no, Gods word can't contradict his creation for it was his word that created all things. If our interpretion of Genesis 1-8 is different than what the scientific evidence says then I believe we should either look to possible other interpretations of the Hebrew or other interpretations of the scientific evidence or maybe both.

Good. Well, other interpretations of the scientific data have been tried. None of them worked. So, the alternative is looking at the interpretation. Now, I don't think anything is lost in reading the theological messages in Genesis 1 and 2 and instead much is gained.

I see some jumping to the conclusion that their interpretation of the scientific evidence is infallible but the word of God isn't. This is the problem I have with theistic evolutionists because I believe there is an interpretation that does not contradict what science says about how old the earth is but does not use scientific evidence to prove this.

This is the problem I have with Biblical literalists. They are so focussed on a literal interpretation that they have made a false god out of it. They stop looking at what God intended and substitute what they want.

What is your interpretation?

Well it is the Jews also who reject that Jesus was the Christ but yet mainly only study the OT scriptures. Are they therefore correct in their interpretations of the scriptures in the OT that promise his comeing and that he hasn't come yet? If one can believe in their interpretations of Genesis 1-8 why not also believe in their interpretations of prophesy concerning the christ?

Changed the subject. Your original claim that reading Genesis 1-8 in Hebrew would inevitably lead you to a literal interpretation. Well, Jews do read Genesis in Hebrew and they don't have a literal interpretation.

It's not that they don't believe the prophecies, it's that they don't think Jesus fulfilled them. IOW, they have no trouble with the OT, but they don't believe the authors of the NT. They simply don't trust them that Jesus was divine. Nor did most of the Jews of the time think that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. We can agree to disagree on whether Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but we don't disagree about what the prophecies were.

This belief of their's in Gen. 1-8 today is not an age old belief of their's but one of fairly recent times as a result of finding alternative interpretations to harmonize the scriptures with scientific evidence's.

No, it's ancient.

I garantee you that before the theory of evolution their beliefs in a literal reading of Genesis 1 were different than what they are today.

Then you will have to document what you "guarantee". Their interpretation of Genesis hasn't changed. See the book Genesis by Nahum Sarna. They noticed the same contradictions between the two creation stories that I did. Also, St. Augustine of Hippo wrote in 400 AD against a literal interpretation of Genesis. Long before evolution. John Calvin didn't accept a literal Genesis, either, and he was also before evolution.

You say that the wording in the commentary of Torah. What exactly does this mean? Are you saying they have changed the word of God to reflect what they wanted it to reflect? Or is this just a prelude to the actual text?

Pew copies of the Torah have the Hebrew on one page and the English translation plus commentary on the opposite page. Much like concordances in Christianity. The commentaries note that there are 2 creation stories, that the main point of the text is that Yahweh created but that the specific how of creation was in terms the audience of the time could understand.

I agree but what I object to is that they only see those interpretations as being wrong because of their belief in what the scientific evidence tells them, not because they believe the belief in a interpretation isn't correct because of not useing the correct Hebrew.

Look, science is also studying God's word. That's what you keep ignoring. You want to use ONLY the Bible. You can't, and still say you are listening to God. God speaks thru Creation as well as thru the Bible. Creation is more reliable because God got to put the evidence directly and didn't have to work thru the limitation of the humans who actually had to write the Bible. Therefore, if the two contradict -- our interpretation of the Bible and God's evidence in Creation -- we know it is our interpretation that is wrong.

This tends to get me thinking that they believe in science first and then the bible. I do a 180 and believe the bible first, then science.

I submit that you believe YOU first and then God. You see, when you say "I ... believe the bible first" what you mean is "I believe MY interpretation of the bible first". That means you believe YOU before you believe God.

I disagree. Alot of people don't bother to look but only listen to what their pastor has to say about it or what others might say with similar beliefs. When I became a christian I believed my one and only bible was good enough to read, I didn't see any reason to use extrabiblical evidence untill I became a serious student of the bible. When I started out reading the bible and I read "heavens and earth" I took it for granted that the translation I was reading was saying the heavens and earth the same way I viewed the literal meaning of them.

You ducked the issue. When you first read the Bible, how did you know what the words "heavens and earth" MEANT? How did you know what a "literal meaning" was? You used your pre-existing extrabiblical knowledge and evidence to provide definitions for those words. You didn't start out in a vacuum.

And yes sometimes you must read through the whole text to find the meaning of the word. Sometimes you have to go to other books in the bible to find the meaning of the word (circular logic).

And when have you done that? Please be specific.

What I see as the problem with Genesis 1 is that much of the meaning of the original Hebrew has been lost. Not only in translations through other languages but even in the modern use of the Hebrew spoken today. If you ask any Hebrew scholar about this he will tell you that the same Hebrew spoken today is unlike that which was spoken in the days Genesis was first penned.

Not really. Hebrew hasn't been a living language since the Diaspora. Only recently has Hebrew again become a living language with the establishment of Israel. Until then Hebrew was like Latin -- frozen in time.

However, let's accept what you say as true. Then why stick with a literal interpretation when you have no idea what the literal interpretation even is because of the langugae problem? It seems to me that you just gave an excellent argument to drop a literal interpretation.

[lucaspa] What you are saying is that you object to having YOUR interpretation superceded by extrabiblical evidence (science). You want to tune out part of God so that your interpretation isn't challenged. and also ignoring what the circular logic tells them. To me this is scienceism.

I agree that what you just wrote can be another form of sciencism but what you say I'm saying isn't really what I'm saying. I see the scientific evidence in creation as being a help not an end all to end all. I use this scientific evidence as a side note to my beliefs in Genesis 1, not as the main thrust of my arguement.

See? "side note to my beliefs in Genesis 1". You put YOU ahead of God. You ignore the extrabiblical evidence when it contradicts with YOUR interpretation.

What I object to is when people look to science first after their beliefs in their interpretation has been challenged by what scientific evidence suggests. And then that belief in what science says on the matter becomes paramount to them.

And why do you object? Unless you say that science does not study God. But then, if you do that you reject that God created.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Where does the "science community" study the Bible? The scientific community studies the physical universe. What they have tested are scientific theories that people based on their literal interpretation of the Bible.

See when you say that science studies the word of God, I thought you were saying that scientists open up the Bible and read it and study the word to come to conclusions on how to interpret evidence. I was saying that I don't see this as true.

But they do interact becaues the physical evidences were put there by God.

They do interact, I agree but my point is I believe the word of God in Genesis doesn't contradict the evidence that the universe as well as the earth is very old but it could contradict that an evolutionary process was used. Actually I haven't put this to bed yet. I tend to see the theory of evolution lacking in evidence or in other words, I'm not totally convinced either way about it.

When I say the study of the Bible I mean also the study of the original Hebrew. Now yes, I can see the study of the physical world as being that of an extra biblical source if need be.You've helped me understand this part of it better . The whole point in my makeing this thread however is that I do see some people who don't study the word in depth but only enough so that it fits in with their beliefs about evolution or their beliefs in an old universe. If I first sounded like I was accuseing all theistic evolutionists of this I really didn't mean to do that.

I was involved in a recent thread with someone here who wanted to prove in scripture that the great flood was a reginal one and not a global one and he wanted to be as literal as possible without comprmising his belief in a regional flood. I saw that once the Hebrew became unclear to him or that when the word had two or more different meanings he automatically used the meaning that fitted into his belief of what his belief in the scientific evidence tells him. This showed me that his belief in science or what his interpretation of the scientific evidence showed was paramount to that of what the Hebrew says and to me that's a form of scentism

Scientism
2 the principal that scientific methods can and should be applied in all fields of investigation: often a disparaging usage

With the second definition of Scientism I ask myself how this word is used in a disparaging way. At first glance I see nothing wrong with the definition or this belief in principal but I can see how some may see others takeing this a little too far. When a person stops a scientific method that is in use in a study because another scientific fact may prove the outcome is reckless wouldn't you say? To turn a hypothesis into a theory don't you have to cover all grounds? Don't you have to prove through the evidence that all other possibilities fail?

You see I see some theistic evolutionists doing just that with the word of God. Before they truely understand what the word of God is saying they use their interpretation of the scientific evidence and stop their further study in the word.

Case in point, when I presented my belief in what the flood story was about, that person admitted that he had never considered that possibilty. This was evidence of him stopping the scientific method of reading the bible and useing his belief in the scientific evidence to interpret Gods word before all biblical evidence and possibilities were considered. Do we all do this in similar ways, probably to a certain extend. Am I here just picking on theistic evolutionist? NO, I could've formed this thread to debate with creationists also.

What Biblical literalists ignore is that God wrote two books. Creation is just as much a book written by God as the Bible. What studying God's Creation does is tell us if we have a wrong interpretation of the Bible.

Yes I have admitted that I do see your point here about the study of creation being an extra biblical source but I only believe this can be done to a certain point in our study of the bible. I honestly believe that as long as the evidence is still in question we shouldn't use it to determine which interpretation of the bible is correct. How can we use interpretations that are in question to prove interpretations that are in question? You can't. I know you and many others believe your interpretation of the scientific evidence is the correct one but in my view there's enough doubt cast on those interpretations for me to say they shouldn't be used. And I even agree with some of those interpretations of the scientific evidence believed by theistic evolutionists!

Now, remember a "belief in science" is simply having a belief in God's second book.

Now after you saying all that may I ask this once again?

How did you come to the belief that Genesis 1-8 is a theological treatise? If you say because you studied the scientific evidence I see you putting your belief in science above the word of God. See I don't see how anyone can read Gen. 1-8 for the first time and say that it's a theological treatise unless they have already been influenced by what science has told them.

Are you sure that you have covered all the possibilities of biblical interpretations before you excluded it and came to your present belief?

Good. Well, other interpretations of the scientific data have been tried. None of them worked. So, the alternative is looking at the interpretation. Now, I don't think anything is lost in reading the theological messages in Genesis 1 and 2 and instead much is gained.

You say this as if there's only one interpretation of Genesis. In fact I have read once somewhere that there are actually 76 different interpretations of the first two verses in Genesis alone! I don't know if that's true or not but I do know there's more then two.

This is the problem I have with Biblical literalists. They are so focussed on a literal interpretation that they have made a false god out of it. They stop looking at what God intended and substitute what they want.

This can be true, I agree that alot of literalists do this also.

What is your interpretation?

I will post it after this post but to be honest with you, this is takeing me awhile just to answer this post!

It's the gap theory. Now if you've studied this before and don't believe it just please give me a chance to explain it the way I believe it.

This is on your question to me about literalism.

Let me explain. I believe once we see what the original Hebrew is saying we can read it literally and believe it literally. Since it's the gap theory, you know that I'm talking about a literal very old earth and universe but that isn't what most literalists believe.

It's not that they don't believe the prophecies, it's that they don't think Jesus fulfilled them. IOW, they have no trouble with the OT, but they don't believe the authors of the NT. They simply don't trust them that Jesus was divine. Nor did most of the Jews of the time think that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. We can agree to disagree on whether Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but we don't disagree about what the prophecies were.

Ahhh, I see, I will have to agree with you here then

No, it's ancient.

Yes, I was speaking more about the beliefs in the catholic church (universal) wasn't I.
I can't claim to know what Judaism says now, I wish I did!

Then you will have to document what you "guarantee". Their interpretation of Genesis hasn't changed. See the book Genesis by Nahum Sarna. They noticed the same contradictions between the two creation stories that I did. Also, St. Augustine of Hippo wrote in 400 AD against a literal interpretation of Genesis. Long before evolution. John Calvin didn't accept a literal Genesis, either, and he was also before evolution.

I'll try and do my best. I'll have you know however that 400 AD isn't actually proveing that the ancient Jews at the time Genesis was being written believed in a non-literal Genesis 1-2. The Jews had changed many of their beliefs and doctrines from the time Genesis was written to 400 AD. By the time of 400 AD several whole books were taken out of their canaan or scriptural readings, The Torah.

They did this because of a change in belief of what these books said. Since Genesis is such an important book I can see them keeping the book and just changing their interpretation of parts of it.

Look, science is also studying God's word. That's what you keep ignoring. You want to use ONLY the Bible. You can't, and still say you are listening to God. God speaks thru Creation as well as thru the Bible. Creation is more reliable because God got to put the evidence directly and didn't have to work thru the limitation of the humans who actually had to write the Bible. Therefore, if the two contradict -- our interpretation of the Bible and God's evidence in Creation -- we know it is our interpretation that is wrong.

Like I said though, the use of evolution evidence isn't reliable in my view to interpret the Bible. Yes creation is reliable as long as we know for a fact on how God created, but we don't. God isn't the one contradicting, it's not his creation that is contradicting, it's the humans who interpret the evidence that contradicts.

My belief in the gap theory doesn't contradict what the evidence I see in creation. I can even go as far to say that if I believed the same interpretations of the evidence as you in evolution I can still believe in the gap theory. Why? because the gap theory doesn't explain how or when God created everything to start with. See the gap theory and theistic evolution can go hand in hand very easily. For me personally though I don't believe in evolution just yet.

I submit that you believe YOU first and then God. You see, when you say "I ... believe the bible first" what you mean is "I believe MY interpretation of the bible first". That means you believe YOU before you believe God.

Good point, your right but if I may direct you above in this post where I talk about the "some" who believe theistic evolution without studying the word to it's fullest. And again this is what this thread was supposed to be about. Those who believe in theistic evolution before they study the Bible in depth. Their belief in their interpretation of what the scientific evidence tells them that they need not look further into the word so that they can rule out all the other possibilities.

And when have you done that? Please be specific.

My belief in Genesis 6:1-4. The story there is vague plus it's the first time we see in the Bible the phrase "sons of God". To tell me who these sons of God are I must search to see if the phrase is written anywhere else in the Bible and if so how is the phrase used.

I first look at the Hebrew "Ben Elohim". Elohim is one of the common names given to God throughtout the Bible. Ben can mean actual offspring, including sons and grandsons however it also means people representing a family, tribe, or nation.

Now when the search is over I find that the phrase as written in Hebrew is only found in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:4-7, and Daniel 3:24-25. In each case this phrase never refers to a human or an individual. Instead I find that it is used for angels, supernatural beings that are more powerful than humans, but not as powerful as God.

Not really. Hebrew hasn't been a living language since the Diaspora. Only recently has Hebrew again become a living language with the establishment of Israel. Until then Hebrew was like Latin -- frozen in time.

Well if that's the case I can certainly see how interpretations of the Hebrew even among the Jewish people can have errors. I'm sorry but you just proved my point about how even the Jews can have problems in knowing the language perfectly. You just made it sound like they're just as much a student of the ancient Hebrew as anyone who wants to study it.
When Moses wrote the book of Genesis he did so to a people who spoke it as their language of the day. He wrote the book so that it would be plain for them to understand it.

However, let's accept what you say as true. Then why stick with a literal interpretation when you have no idea what the literal interpretation even is because of the langugae problem? It seems to me that you just gave an excellent argument to drop a literal interpretation.

Because it is possible to find what Moses said, the actual meanings of the words haven't been lost. It's about proper usage. The Hebrew may not have been spoken for many years as you say but the way to understand it hasn't been lost.
I didn't characterize Geneisis 1 as being full of massive errors but only that much of the meaning has been lost in our translations from language to language. Even the Hebrew that is spoken today has it's difference's. Again, words sometimes change there meaning or otherwise develop new meanings that add to the definition. Sometimes the prominant meaning of the word becomes a secondary meaning, sometimes the secondary meaning becomes the prominant one etc., etc.,

See? "side note to my beliefs in Genesis 1". You put YOU ahead of God. You ignore the extrabiblical evidence when it contradicts with YOUR interpretation.

What I said there doesn't say I ignor it but only that I don't use it to fully explain my beliefs. I can and have used it at the proper time but when I explain my belief in the gap theory I sometimes don't have to use any scientific evidence. When I'm in debate with a YEC I use it more often though.

And why do you object? Unless you say that science does not study God. But then, if you do that you reject that God created.

I only object when I know or have the suspicion that that person hasn't wieghed all the evidence in the Bible and or whether if in my view he has made errors in what an interpretation actually saying.

I don't know if you've studied the gap theory or not and whether if you have you gotten the theory correct or not. My experience is that most people who have written it off never really understood it. I know when I do a web search on it there's more websites that are con then pro and what I've read on those sites gets me shakeing my head because I know they, somewhere down the line misinterpreted it and got it wrong.

I don't know if you even want to know anything about it or that if you have already written it off as bunk and don't care to hear anymore about it. I know this post took me forever to write and because it's late I won't be posting anything on it tonight.

 

[nephilimiyr]

When I submitted post #10 I had to delete quite a bit from it because I got an error message saying I had too many characters. I had 17,887 when a post is only allowed 15,000. I told you that post took a long time to write!

I'm sorry but it was hard to decide which paragraphs to delete. I deleted at least a dozen? I hope my editting job still will make sense to you. I tried to answer everything.

 

[lucaspa]

See when you say that science studies the word of God, I thought you were saying that scientists open up the Bible and read it and study the word to come to conclusions on how to interpret evidence. I was saying that I don't see this as true.

It used to be. That is, in the 1700s up to 1831 creationism was THE accepted scientific thinking and scientists thought that the evidence would back up a literal Bible -- properly interpreted. You can find that in the writings of Thomas Burnet, Whewell, and Whiston. In particular, they thought that all of geology could be explained by Noah's Flood. It turned out that the evidence showed that there never had been a world-wide Flood. NO geological feature could be explained by a world-wide Deluge.

They do interact, I agree but my point is I believe the word of God in Genesis doesn't contradict the evidence that the universe as well as the earth is very old but it could contradict that an evolutionary process was used.

In that case, the first quote in my signature applies.

When I say the study of the Bible I mean also the study of the original Hebrew. Now yes, I can see the study of the physical world as being that of an extra biblical source if need be.

I would say that the physical world is necessary always. As Francis Bacon put it:

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

I was involved in a recent thread with someone here who wanted to prove in scripture that the great flood was a reginal one and not a global one and he wanted to be as literal as possible without comprmising his belief in a regional flood. I saw that once the Hebrew became unclear to him or that when the word had two or more different meanings he automatically used the meaning that fitted into his belief of what his belief in the scientific evidence tells him. This showed me that his belief in science or what his interpretation of the scientific evidence showed was paramount to that of what the Hebrew says and to me that's a form of scentism

Many Christians have argued that the Flood was regional. However, I have never seen that done by way of scripture. But then, if you use only scripture, Luke 2:1 doesn't give you a choice but to say that the taxation was worldwide, either.

The point is that everyone allows extrabiblical evidence (science or history) to dictate which interpretation is correct. That point really isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is whether you allow the extrabiblical evidence to be used in a particular case.

With the second definition of Scientism I ask myself how this word is used in a disparaging way. At first glance I see nothing wrong with the definition or this belief in principal but I can see how some may see others takeing this a little too far. When a person stops a scientific method that is in use in a study because another scientific fact may prove the outcome is reckless wouldn't you say?

Sorry, but you lost me. Can you try again?

Science offers no guide to moral issues. However, people who advocate scientism do say that science can determine morals. Or that there can be a "scientific" politics.

[quopte] To turn a hypothesis into a theory don't you have to cover all grounds? Don't you have to prove through the evidence that all other possibilities fail? [/quote]

Hypotheses don't turn into theories. That's the position put forward in what I call "grade-school" descriptions of science. Hypotheses are rather specific statements about the physical universe while theories are more general statements. A hypothesis would be: Galapagos finches are all descended from a common ancestor. A theory would be: all birds are descended from a common ancestor. The supported hypothesis becomes part of the wider theory.

But yes, science works by falsifying ideas. Therefore the idea is to falsify all the alternative hypotheses that we can think of. For instance, YEC is falsified. So is instantaneous formation of all species in their present form.

You see I see some theistic evolutionists doing just that with the word of God. Before they truely understand what the word of God is saying they use their interpretation of the scientific evidence and stop their further study in the word.

You object to my first quote in the signature. They will not let an interpretation override the evidence in God's Creation.

Now, I'm not sure how you are using the term "theistic evolutionist" here. TE is simply saying that God created using the processes that you lump together under "evolution". It is the second quote in my signature.

Yes I have admitted that I do see your point here about the study of creation being an extra biblical source but I only believe this can be done to a certain point in our study of the bible.

My point is that God's Creation is a superior book of God that takes precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. We disagree.

I honestly believe that as long as the evidence is still in question we shouldn't use it to determine which interpretation of the bible is correct. How can we use interpretations that are in question to prove interpretations that are in question?

This is looking at only the positive theories in science. The currently valid ones. There is always going to be an amount of tentativeness in those. What you have to look at are the falsified theories. Science can absolutely show that an idea is wrong. So, when you have an interpretation that is dependent on a falsified theory, you absolutely know that the interpretation is wrong.

I know you and many others believe your interpretation of the scientific evidence is the correct one but in my view there's enough doubt cast on those interpretations for me to say they shouldn't be used. And I even agree with some of those interpretations of the scientific evidence believed by theistic evolutionists!

Here you need to remember that hypotheses/theories/ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Ideas can be falsified and it doesn't matter whether everyone agrees they have been falsified. You will always find a small group of people who will refuse to admit that ANY particular theory is falsified. Also, you will always find a small group who are perverse enough not to (provisionally) accept a theory no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. This says a lot about the psychology of the individuals but nothing about the theory.

Now after you saying all that may I ask this once again?Are you sure that you have covered all the possibilities of biblical interpretations before you excluded it and came to your present belief?You say this as if there's only one interpretation of Genesis.

There are several ways that you can interpret Genesis 1 or 2 that are consistent with the scientific evidence.
1. That God was giving the "two-year old" description of creation.
2. That it is only poetry.
3. That Genesis 1 is a statement eliminating the Babylonian gods and Genesis 2 is an allegory describing the relationship of all humans to God.

I favor #3 but have no way to falsify #1 or 2.

What I am saying is that any way I have seen trying to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis 1 or 2 with science has been falsified. Either by the physical evidence or by twisting the text to say something it does not.

It's the gap theory. Now if you've studied this before and don't believe it just please give me a chance to explain it the way I believe it.

I've seen at least 3 versions of the Gap Theory. The most common is that there is a huge gap in time between the first and second days. Another is that all life was wiped out about 10,000 years ago and God started over again.

What is yours?

By the time of 400 AD several whole books were taken out of their canaan or scriptural readings, The Torah.

Can you document this? As far as I know, the Torah as always consisted of the first 5 books of the Bible.

Like I said though, the use of evolution evidence isn't reliable in my view to interpret the Bible. Yes creation is reliable as long as we know for a fact on how God created, but we don't.

Here I see a good deal of confusion on your part. What is "evolution evidence"? I think you have things backward here. It is not as though we make evidence fit evolution. Instead, evolution was a theory suggested by the evidence in God's Creation and then tested against the evidence in God's Creation to see if it were wrong.

We do know for a fact how God created. That is what God's Creation is all about. It must contain evidence of HOW God created. From the pov of a Christian, all of science is a search to figure out HOW God created.

Creation is reliable because the Bible says God created. That, and that alone, is creation. What we then have are several ideas on HOW God created. Your Gap Theory is one. Evolution is another. Evolution is not an idea contrary to creation. It is the how of creation.

My belief in the gap theory doesn't contradict what the evidence I see in creation. I can even go as far to say that if I believed the same interpretations of the evidence as you in evolution I can still believe in the gap theory. Why? because the gap theory doesn't explain how or when God created everything to start with. See the gap theory and theistic evolution can go hand in hand very easily.

How does Gap Theory say current species got here? Direct manufacture by God or transformation from earlier species? How does Gap Theory say the sun, moon, and stars got here? Spoken into existence by God in their present form or formed thru the processes of physics and chemistry.

You see, there is a lot to discuss in the HOW than simply the age of the earth.

For me personally though I don't believe in evolution just yet.

You don't "believe in evolution". You either accept the data and accept evolution as (provisionally) true or you don't accept. Belief has nothing to do with this.

My belief in Genesis 6:1-4. The story there is vague plus it's the first time we see in the Bible the phrase "sons of God". To tell me who these sons of God are I must search to see if the phrase is written anywhere else in the Bible and if so how is the phrase used.

You also need to search thru the physical evidence and search in other accounts from the MidEast of the time. In Genesis 5-6 we have yet another independent creation story woven into Genesis by the redactor. Yes, if Genesis were written solely by Moses, why aren't these "sons of God", or "heavenly beings" as I've seen the Hebrew translated, mentioned in Genesis 1? No mention of their creation at all and then here they are.

This doesn't point to any problems with translation or interpretation, but to having separate oral or written traditions within Israel that were attempted to be woven into a single narrative.

As you can see, I think the evidence is overwhelming that Moses is not the author of Genesis or the Pentateuch. Instead, I find that the evidence falsifies that and is consistent with the Documentary Hypothesis that Genesis is a redaction of at least 3 and possibly 4 different original sources.

You just made it sound like they're just as much a student of the ancient Hebrew as anyone who wants to study it.

Then I said it wrong. The Jews know Hebrew but as a frozen language. That is, it has been passed down faithfully from generation to generation but only for liturgy or theological discussion, not everyday conversation. Therefore the changes that a language undergoes in everyday usage happened to Yiddish, Aramaic, and the other languages Jews used for everyday living. But not to Hebrew. In the last 50 years Hebrew is again a living language, but that has not affected the definitions that have been established for theological and liturgical use.

Because it is possible to find what Moses said, the actual meanings of the words haven't been lost. It's about proper usage.

Pardon me, but isn't meaning dependent on usage? I submit that you are saying that if you get the proper translation then everything will fit. It appears that you are going to be able to get congruence with the physical evidence only by making the "usage" be what you want. IOW, I have the sinking feeling that you are about to misstate BOTH the science AND the Bible. Kind of like Gerald Schroeder does for his theory of reconciliation.

 

[lucaspa]

When I submitted post #10 I had to delete quite a bit from it because I got an error message saying I had too many characters. I had 17,887 when a post is only allowed 15,000. I told you that post took a long time to write!

I'm sorry but it was hard to decide which paragraphs to delete. I deleted at least a dozen? I hope my editting job still will make sense to you. I tried to answer everything.

You know, you can always simply cut part of it off and make that a separate post. Just put "continued in next post" in the first one of the series.

 

[nephilimiyr]

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

So our task is two fold; one being that of finding the truth in God's word and one being finding the truth in Gods works. I see too many people saying they know the truth in both books when in fact they have alot more studying to do!

The point is that everyone allows extrabiblical evidence (science or history) to dictate which interpretation is correct. That point really isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is whether you allow the extrabiblical evidence to be used in a particular case.

Sure but if your interpretation in the extrabiblical evidence is flawed you come up with a flawed interpretation of the original. This is why I say the use of evolution shouldn't be used as extrabiblical evidence.

(editted) To point out that not all say that evolution is above all, not all believe in it. What I see you saying is that evolution is king and that all interpretations should start with this belief. I see your belief in evolution as much a god as you claim the creationism god is!

Sorry, but you lost me.Can you try again?

Science offers no guide to moral issues. However, people who advocate scientism do say that science can determine morals. Or that there can be a "scientific" politics.

LOL, yes I'll try again.

See the 2nd definition of scientism says that scientific methods can be used in ALL fields of investigation. Studying the word of God is an investigation is it not? Some people see the study of Gods word as a science in itself. Therefore scientism can apply to discribe the methods of some on how they study the Bible or at least I take the liberty to do so.

Hypotheses don't turn into theories. That's the position put forward in what I call "grade-school" descriptions of science. Hypotheses are rather specific statements about the physical universe while theories are more general statements. A hypothesis would be: Galapagos finches are all descended from a common ancestor. A theory would be: all birds are descended from a common ancestor. The supported hypothesis becomes part of the wider theory.

This is why I say I don't have a scientific mind! I get confused with the terms and don't understand many of the meanings of them. Science just has never been one of my favorite subjects.

My point is that God's Creation is a superior book of God that takes precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. We disagree.

Actually we don't disagree as much as you may think. I maintain that if Gods creation can be fully understood I do believe the truth in Genesis and many other stories in the Bible would become quite clear but I don't see Gods creation being fully understood yet.

You will always find a small group of people who will refuse to admit that ANY particular theory is falsified. Also, you will always find a small group who are perverse enough not to (provisionally) accept a theory no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. This says a lot about the psychology of the individuals but nothing about the theory.

I can't speak for everyone who rejects evolution but you seem to believe that everyone one of them do so without any reason other than that they may be literalists. I have problems with it mainly because of the lack of evidence. I see tons of evidence to support micro-evolution but nothing for macro-evolution.

Now I've read through some of the threads in the open forum on this and I see that the common belief in macro-evolution is based on not actual evidence where you can pick it up and show someone but it's the reasoning about how micro-evolution works. The reasoning on how it works is not evidence and it's the reasoning I don't see. You may say I just don't understand it and you'd be right but for now I can't believe evidence that just isn't there.

Can you document this? As far as I know, the Torah as always consisted of the first 5 books of the Bible.

The Israelites used more then just the Torah as divine literature. Case in point the Book of Enoch was once cherished and loved and considered divine by both Jews and christians. It actually would have been considered a best seller around the time of Jesus. The book is believed to have been first written some 200 or400 years before Christ although many believe the writtings are based on other far older manuscripts.

The book fell into disfavor with powerful theologians however because of it's controversial content. It's writtings so infuriated the later church fathers that Filastius condemned it as heresy. In the 2nd century AD Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai pronounced a curse upon those who believed the book.

James H Charlesworth, diector of the Dead Sea Studies at Yale U. says "I have no doubt that the Enoch groups deemed the Book of Enoch as fully inspired as any biblical book. I am also convinced that the group of Jews behind the Temple Scroll, which is surely pre-Qumranic, would have judged it to be quintessential Torah--that is, equal to, and perhaps better than, Deuteronomy....Then we should perceive the Pseudepigrapha as they were apparently judged to be: God's revelation to humans"

Yet today the Book of Enoch is still considered under a curse all because a group of men from 200 to 400 AD condemned it and cursed those who would believe it and all because they didn't want it to interfere or contradict with their theologies.

It was these new theologies that I contend that the Jews of today follow such as the Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally.

 

[Vance]

Neph

You are right that there is a ton of evidence of micro-evolution happening, but you are wrong that there is no evidence of macro-evolution, although not of the easily "picked up and looked at" type. The point is that macro-evolution (however it is defined) is simply enough micro-evolutions to accumulate to a macro change.

You seem to accept that the actual processes which create the micro changes are those which are described by the theory of evolution as it has been refined over the years. Well, these processes, if given enough time are of the type that *would* continue to cause changes as needed to fit the being in question to the environment. This means it would continue all the way to a "macro" change if that was needed . . . unless there was something to stop it at a "macro" limit. So, scientists have every reason, *absent such a limitation*, to believe that it occurs on the macro level.

The point is that no limitation has been presented. No one has even suggested what could possibly stop the evolutionary process you agree is occuring at some point.

And, as for the evidence of macro evolution, it is all around us. The very *nature* of the variations we see today is exactly as would happen if evolution occured on the macro level. The similarities and disimilarities are just what we would expect to see. Which is not surprising since it is this observable evidence of what HAS happened that gave rise to the theory in the first place. Since then, science has just been able to find the genetic and chemical explanations that support the theory.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The Gap theory and how I understand it.

What is translated in the English as "the beginning" in Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word reshiyth which denotes: the first in a series of things, or the first principal thing. Thus there isn't a specific starting of the heavens and earth, but a statement that they were part of the beginning period, before the creation story that follows in the subsequent verses. In other words "in the beginning" really is closer to being a "big inning" than just the point at which things started. It tells that God made the heavens and the earth, but doesn't give us a clue to when or how.

This can be seen by the fact that when Hebrew writters wanted to note the actual beginning of a time, like the time of day or week when a harvest commenced for instance, the word employed was most often techillah. This word connotes an opening or commencement. Techillah wasn't the word the author chose to tell about the beginning of the heavens and earth. In other words, this opening passage of the Bible isn't necessarily telling about the start of things as is often thought by literalists but rather denotes that a period took place during which that first state of being took place and during which God created the heavens and the earth.

This points to my idea that other events may have taken place before or during this "beginning" period. "In the beginning" was a period different from the subsequent events that come afterward in the following verses and may very well span a time many times longer than the time those following verses talk about.

This is also reflected in the gospel of John.
John 1:1-4, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

If we look at "beginning in the Greek we see the word arche. This is the same word that arch comes from and indicates not simply a beginning but a chief period of time with the idea of a rulers span of power behind it as well. John's "in the beginning also conveys the idea of a period of time, not the commencement or creation of things.

The word translated into English as "made" in this passage is ginomai. This word conveys the idea of causing something to become something else or to assemble something into a whole. So, here again the idea is not of God, through Jesus Christ, creating the universe from nothing but rather assembling and forming it into a whole, much like a potter might form a pot or a carpenter frames a house.

A similar idea of the universe was conveyed by the ancient Greeks. Their word cosmos actually suggests a creation that is fabricated from other materials, becomeing fashioned, the word doesn't suggest something created from scratch.

Only during recent times has the notion that the Genesis 1:1 passage refers to the creation of the earth from nothing caught on among theologians.

 

[nephilimiyr]

So you see, if I could believe in evolution I would see it happening within the period of time I say is the beginning period, I do see this as a possibility only. The gap in the gap theory doesn't happen untill the second verse in Genesis.

But first let me explain "In the beginning" alittle more.

If we literally wanted to translate the Hebrew phrase into the english it would read "beginning at the first" but the Hebrew conveys a lot more than just that.

If you read anything what Bible scholars say you realize that the phrase is much more complex than it might seem. In fact most Bible scholars have strugled with what the phrase means or, in the case of translators, exactly what should be conveyed. This comes about because of the Hebrew compound word used in the phrase, be-reshyth.

The noun reshyth always needs a modifier in order for it's actual meaning to be seen. It can mean "beginning" but often it means more akin to "previously" in the English.

For example in Job 42:12
So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning (reshyth)
To read this as the actual beginning of Job makes no sense. It odviously isn't talking about his conception or birth unless a literalist wants to embaras himself. It is odvious from the story that reshyth is referring to the beginning of the story covered in the book of Job, prior to his suferings.

Another example of the use of reshyth can be found in Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom tells the reader,

The Lord possessed me in the beginning (reshyth) of his way, before his works of old.
Proverbs 8 is considered a christophany of Jesus Christ appearing in the OT...Wisdom is the person of Jesus who made man in his image.
If one assumes that reshyth means "beginning" here, it must also be assumed that God also had a beginning. Since it's a basic premise of the Bible that God has no real beginning or end but is eternal, one must therefore assume that the "beginning" before his way means simply, before what can be seen in this age was created, not before God.

It's important to say though that reshyth is not the only word for "beginning" in Hebrew. And when a true beginning is implied, such as in Psalms 102:25, a different word is used.

What this means therefore is that "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 can be seen to mean not in the beginning of all time and things, but rather the start of, for human beings, the current frame of history. Thus, the earth was molded and formed at a specific point in time.

 

[nephilimiyr]

So you see I believe God created the universe but this does not mean that I believe the original event was anywhere close chronologically to the current world of today.

Hebrews 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I see this saying that the worlds were framed not from nothing but rather made of invisible things. In other words, reformed from some past materials.

I see the Genesis 1:1 passage giving a similar idea. The Hebrew word translated as "made" is asah. There are different ways this word can be used. It can be employed for appointing or designating things. For example elsewhere the word is employed when judges are appointed, when refuge cities are designated, or when evils are cataloged. The judges, cities, and evils weren't being made or created rather they were being appointed or modified to a new task.

Likewise I say it can be seen that when God "made" the heavens and the earth, he wasn't so much creating them from scratch as he was reforming and appointing them to a new task, that of a home for his new creation of creatures, plants, and humans.

Now the second verse in Genesis 1 can just as easily be translated from the Hebrew to say instead of "And the earth was without form, and void" to "Had become without form, and void". This would suggest that something had caused the old world to be wasted and uninhabitable like somekind of cataclysmic event or something like that.

The gap theory basically says there's a pause between the first two verses and as a result it would look like this "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...But eventually, much later, the earth had become without form and void".

This thought or suppossition can be sustained in the original Hebrew through the use of the verb hayah (was). From what I've read the Hebrew doesn't employ "to be" unless it is necessary to denote a changing condition. The translators inserted "was" to make the English make more sense but the Hebrew writter used hayah to denote that the earth had become.

The Hebrew word hayah means

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

In Genesis 1:2 the first "was" is ordinary type, meaning that it has come or has recently been transformed into void, formlessness. This show's that it wasn't created this way but rather than something terrible transformed it into this condition, and one that God odviously wasn't satisfied with and would soon transform into the current world we see today.

This isn't the only arguement for this however. The normal order for the Hebrew sentence is conjunction, verb, subject, object. This pattern is altered to give more power to a fact or otherwise make a point to the person reading it. And this re-ordering of words to create emphasis can be found in Genesis 1:2 to mean "had become"

Thus I say the heavens and the earth, which had been created in the beginning period, had become desolate and void.

Shall I go on? There is more I can say.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph

You are right that there is a ton of evidence of micro-evolution happening, but you are wrong that there is no evidence of macro-evolution, although not of the easily "picked up and looked at" type. The point is that macro-evolution (however it is defined) is simply enough micro-evolutions to accumulate to a macro change.

LOL, I suppose I could be wrong about the lack of evidence for macro-evolution but what I'm saying is I don't see it nor do I understand how you and others explain it. This is why I will consider theistic evolution as a possibility but only a possibilty. My point I'm trying to make with lucaspa is that since I can only see it as a possibilty I can't see useing it to determine what the scriptures say. I see what he's saying is that the evidence of creation (theistic evolution) is as good as or better than the word of God in the use to determine truth in Gods glory. I just simply disagree in his point.

You seem to accept that the actual processes which create the micro changes are those which are described by the theory of evolution as it has been refined over the years.

Sure I do because the evidence is clear and that it's there for me to see. I can relate to this evidence, I can understand it plainly.

Well, these processes, if given enough time are of the type that *would* continue to cause changes as needed to fit the being in question to the environment. This means it would continue all the way to a "macro" change if that was needed

There it is! I don't see evidence that shows a living being had changed to the point of being something totally different. I'm sorry, I apologize but I don't read that in the evidence.

For it to continue all the way to "macro" I see as a belief unfounded in the evidence. I see this reasoning based only on what we would expect, not on what we see.

. . . unless there was something to stop it at a "macro" limit. So, scientists have every reason, *absent such a limitation*, to believe that it occurs on the macro level.

They may state a reason to how this may happen but they don't provide the necessary evidence to confirm this, in my eyes. That evidence may show up yet, I don't want to suggest it won't but that evidence is what I say I see lacking.

The point is that no limitation has been presented. No one has even suggested what could possibly stop the evolutionary process you agree is occuring at some point.

Now this is a very good point you make but in my reasoning, however flawed, says that if scientists say the process never stops to the point that what started out as one animal now has become another, that evidence must be provided, that suppossition must be proven. I don;t see their suppossition proven yet.

And, as for the evidence of macro evolution, it is all around us. The very *nature* of the variations we see today is exactly as would happen if evolution occured on the macro level. The similarities and disimilarities are just what we would expect to see. Which is not surprising since it is this observable evidence of what HAS happened that gave rise to the theory in the first place. Since then, science has just been able to find the genetic and chemical explanations that support the theory.

I can't help but bring up the fact that creationism says the same thing, "just look around, the evidence is all around you", that is what they say too you know?

 

[Vance]

Neph:

Very interesting analysis of the Scripture relating to the Gap theory, I will be looking into that more. The only problem I see is that it explains why we have an old universe, but does not seem to explain why we have so much evidence of a very old earth. So much, evidence, in fact, that Creationists have to rely on "God made it look old" arguments. Still, very good Scriptural analysis. And to think that some Christians think that we can simply read a verse in English and say "That is what God said, plain as day!".

As for the evidence of macro evolution, it is indeed, all around us. We see how all mammals share a plethora of common traits, even when they are not needed anymore - just as would happen if they evolved from common ancestors. The very nature of the diversity *and* similarity between all fish, all arachnids, all bacteria, all mammals, all reptiles, etc, are all very strong proof of how evolution works on the macro level.

The fact that there are snakes with vestigal feet and the fact that whales have five "fingers" inside their fins. Heck, the fact that there are mammals in the ocean itself . . .

Now, having said all that, I will remind you that I am a Creationist, not simply a theistic evolutionist. This is because despite all the evidence, I believe that God performed a very special creative event just for humans. I believe this both for textual reasons, factual reasons and theological reasons. The exact nature of this creative event I can not be sure of (and may never be), but I believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Garden. A literal Fall. These take me well outside the usual TE concepts.