Scienceism, Is there such a thing?

Neph:

There is what looks to be a very good analysis of the Gap Theory here"

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml?main#closing_the_gap

There are a number of articles on this page and if it doesn't jump you right to it, then at the top are a list and it is easy to find. I have not read it in detail, but plan to. Given your interest in this theory, I thought I would pass it on.

Actually, there is much on that site that I disagree with, but when they hold a position which I agree with, I have no problem quoting them or including a link since I see no reason to reinvent that wheel. But yes, if I have the time to restate it in my own words, that would be preferable. I have not seriously looked at the gap theory, and have not read that article in detail (so I can't say whether I agree with them on it or not), but I thought you might be interested in it, even if not convinced by it, so as I said, I thought I would pass it on for your interest.

Another reason I refer to the Reasons to Believe site so often, though, is that they are ardent anti-evolutionists. This means that when they agree with me on a point, I can refer another anti-evolutionist to the site for them to see that it is not just those who believe in evolution who hold that position.

nephilimiyr said:

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!

Click to expand...

The supposed conflict between science and the Bible really involves very little of the Bible, since most claims in the Bible do not fall under science.

Basically, the conflict centers around Genesis 1-3, 6-8, and a passage in Joshua. Now, the physical evidence does falsify a literal reading of those passages.

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.

Click to expand...

Ideas, particularly scienific ideas, are not falsified by other ideas. They are falsified by data. The idea of evolution is not used as extrabiblical evidence. Instead, creationism was conclusively falsified by data 4 years before natural selection had even occurred to Darwin!

What happens is that the claims of creationism and the literal interpretation behind them are evaluated on their own. Ideas have to stand or fall on their own. So, the idea of a literal interpretation of the Bible has to stand or fall on its own. The data in God's Creation shows Creation Science to be false. Evolution has nothing to do with that. Even if evolution is later shown to be false, Creation Science and a literal interpretation of Genesis is going to be wrong.

(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!

Click to expand...

I am saying that God's Creation trumps human interpretations of the Bible. If the evidence/data in God's Creation (sound science in the quote) contradicts a human interpretation of the Bible, then it is the human interpretation that is wrong. What you are seeing as "evolution is king" is really "God's Creation is king" when it comes in conflict with human interpretation of the Bible. God is still king. It's just that I trust God in His Creation than I do human interpretations of the Bible.

Again, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept the data and accept evolution as (provisionally) true. Note the "provisionally". If new data were found that falsified evolution, I would drop it immediately. Same goes for Big Bang and the whole gamut of scientific theories.

But, on a deeper level, I don't see the conflict between "evolution" and the Bible that you do. God had to create some way. The Bible was never meant to tell us HOW God created. It was meant to tell us about God, how God relates to us, and how God would like us to relate to each other. All these truths are just as true if God created by evolution as if God created in a 144 hour period 6,000 years ago and poofed each species into existence.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure if I understand completely what you are saying. So if this response is not on topic, let's keep trying.

The second definition of scientism is a little vague. You and I are reading it different ways, I think.

A major method in science is the hypothetico-deductive (HD) method. In this method:
1. You make a statement.
2. You assume the statement is true in order to draw deductions from the statement. These deductions lead to observations/data. That is, data we should find because the statement is true.
3. You go looking for that evidence.
4. If you find evidence that is the opposite of what you deduce, then the statement is false. If you find the evidence, the statement is supported (but not proved).

Clear so far?

Now, I hear you saying that scientism means the HD method can be used in all fields of study. This I tend to agree with. In any area where people agree what constitutes data. Science limits data to mean the physical universe. But historians can agree that data are certain historical documents. Christians agree that the text of the Bible is data. So they can test statements about the authors of the Bible, when the Bible was written, genuine sayings of Jesus, theology, etc. The Documentary Hypothesis , Trinity, and Higher Criticism arose out of using the HD method this way.

Now, I take the second definition to mean that some people think science can decide issues in any area of human knowledge. In this role, scientism is a religion. It's not science any more. The following quote by EO Wilson is scientism asI (and others) see it:
EO Wilson, On Human Nature, p. 209
"The true Promethean spirit of science ... constructs the mythology of scientific materialism, guided by the corrective devices of the scientific method, addressed with precise and deliberately affective appeal to the deepest needs of human nature, and kept strong by the blind hopes that the journey on which we are now embarked will be farther and better than the one just completed."

Now, 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.

Click to expand...

Seriously, with all due respect and no disrespect, most of your opinions about the relationship of evolution to religion come from your confusion about what science is and how it works. I think if you will ask about science and listen to the answers many of your objections will go away.

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.

Click to expand...

Here I think we do disagree. I maintain that God's creation is understood enough to conclusively show that Genesis is not history and God did not create by any literal reading.

Now, I think the theological truths of Genesis and many other stories in the Bible are clear but are obscured by trying to read them literally and make them be literally true. IOW, I think you lose the truth in Genesis by trying to make the stories literally true.

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.

Click to expand...

Again, with respect, this is the Argument from Ignorance. The evidence is there, including tons of evidence for what you call macroevolution (common ancestry). In fact, it was macroevolution that Darwin convinced everyone was fact long before he convinced them of microevolution by natural selection. Ironic, isn't it?

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.

Click to expand...

Then we need a separate thread here to aquaint you with the evidence and explain the reasoning to you. Do you want to start it or should I?

The Israelites used more then just the Torah as divine literature.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the claim. Nephilmeyer, that is one thing that you have to be very careful about in discussions: Remember the claims, ALWAYS remember the claims! The original claim was that the Torah was more than 5 books. I disagreed with that claim. For Judaism, the Torah has always been the same 5 books of the Pentateuch.

Now you are introducing a different claim: that the Jews had books they regarded as inspired in addition to the Torah. That was never in doubt. For instance, the Psalms have always been considered as divine literature, as has Kings, Isaiah and some other works.

Case in point the Book of Enoch was once cherished and loved and considered divine by both Jews and christians.

Click to expand...

I agree. In fact, it was some of the passages in the Book of Enoch that bolstered the belief in early Christians of a flat earth!

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"

Click to expand...

Now we would have to examine the text and reasoning that led Filastius and Simeon and Charlesworth to reach diametrically opposed conclusions.

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I'll have to do some research to get the references, but I have come across references to passages in the Midrash that have a non-literal Genesis long before 200 AD.

nephilimiyr said:

The gap in the gap theory doesn't happen untill the second verse in Genesis.

Click to expand...

So far, this is one of the gap theories I am familiar with.

Yes, there has been an opinion within Judeo-Christianity the creation was not ex nihilo. The creation from pre-existing matter actually is closer to the creation story of the Babylonians that is the template of Genesis 1. There the first two gods are Tiamet and Apsu: the salt and sweetwater oceans. And this does seem to be where Genesis 1 starts: with the water already existing. The first act of Yahweh is to destroy the first 2 Babylonian gods by "separating the waters", thus making salt and sweetwater. Tiamet and Apsu can't be gods anymore because they are created creatures of Yahweh.

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

... 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)

The Lord possessed me in the beginning (reshyth) of his way, before his works of old.

Click to expand...

Nephilmeyer, you tell us the word in Genesis is bereshyth, but then give us examples of reshyth alone. You don't tell us what the modifier "be" does to the word. When use with "yom", be makes "beyom" which is "in the day" as in a short period of time. The Hebrew-English dictionary lists "be" as being a prefix meaning "in the". So bereshyth is "in the beginning" but does that mean a shorter period of time like "beyom" means a shorter period of time than a day?

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.

Click to expand...

Psalm 102:25 doesn't have a word translated "beginning". It is translated "of old you did lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Please explain.

nephilimiyr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, please go on. In the process I'd appreciate it if you would address the following points:

1. The scientific data does support a creation ex nihilo of the universe. After all, the Big Bang is the sudden appearance of spacetime and matter/energy from literally nothing.

2. When did the earth and heavens become "desolate and void"? And what do you mean by that?

3. What evolution would have gone on in the gap period, since evolution deals with the diversity of life, and you haven't said Genesis says life started in the gap.

4. What about the specific order of creation compared to the data from the physical universe? Do the orders match?

nephilimiyr said:

This statement leave's no option to the person who would like to question the beliefs and findings of those who believe what "sound science" says. It is highly exclusionary and suggests that one has to belong to this club in order to know what truth is all about. The belief of those in sound science is therefore of an absolute truth, whether the evidence is there or whether the evidence is not, but as long as their members believe the logic of their findings.

Click to expand...

Science is knowledge open to everyone, not just "members of the club". Science restricts itself to what is called "public knowledge". That is, knowledge that is available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

This isn't an "people told me" but "you can find the data for yourself, look, and reach the same conclusions". So your option is to look at the data yourself. Go over the papers with a fine tooth comb. Learn the methods. Critique it as much as you want. It's all out there for you to look at, not just scientists.

That you may not take the time and effort to do so is not science's fault.

As a layman, you know "sound science" when consensus has been reached within the field. Scientists are stubborn, completely independent people. They argue and debate everything that can be debated. That's why I come to these forums for relaxation. They are so much tamer than any scientific meeting!

So, when scientists stop fighting and agree, it is because they can no longer fight. They have accepted the data.

As long as the evidence is there I have no problem in doing that, but when I'm tolded to believe something just because someone tells me it's true I take offense!

Click to expand...

As well you should! Now you know why non-believers react so badly to Christian proselytizing. They react the same as you.

But we aren't telling you that. We are telling you that the evidence is there and where to go see it. The evidence is so vast that we can't put it all here in a forum. All we have room to do is put the general conclusions. We have to reference you to the original articles. You have to make the effort to go look for yourself!

Tell me, have you ever read Origin of the Species? Have you ever read an introductory textbook on evolutionary biology? If not, aren't you actually hiding from the evidence?

I suggest Evolutionary Biology by D. Futuyma in addition to Origin of the Species. If you have the money, join AAAS and get an online subscription to Science. Otherwise go to your public library once a week and read the current issues of Science and Nature.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is free online. www.pnas.org. Go there every week and look at the articles under the section "Evolution".

Whenever you have a question about what evidence exists, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and search for papers on the subject. If you have trouble, PM me and I'll help you with the search.

Other good general sites to go to that will lead you to the evidence are:
www.talkorigins.org
1. Science (particularly math) encyclopedia: www.treasure-troves.com
2. www.sciedunet.org New York Academny of Sciences science resource site
3. Science issue on evolution http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol284/issue5423/index.shtml
4 http://www.discover.com/ask/main51.html Ask a scientist at Discover
5. Good evolution site http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLII.html
5. http://www.nmsr.org/tvi-e102.htm links to articles
6. AAAS site on evolution: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/
Miller's lecture as summary of Finding Darwin's God. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/kennethmiller.shtml

nephilimiyr said:

A battle of words, don't you love it!!!



I characterized books as being cannon, or scriptural readings (writtings), as well as Torah. I didn't mean to suggest that they were absolute Torah, meaning within the first 5 books. Isiah was a book also loved and read by the Jews and consideedr divine but even though it is still cannon today it is not part of the Torah. Daniel is a book the Hebrews read that they considered divine but it was not part of the Torah yet it is still to this day considered cannon. Enoch was a book that the Hebrews once loved and considered diven but it isn't part of the cannon, WHY?

Your argueing me when I said "Torah" but not argueing me when I said cannon or scriptural readings, why is that?

Click to expand...

Because the claims are different! I thought I had been clear. Evidently I wasn't.

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

Click to expand...

Do you see the original claim? You have just said that Torah is the totality of the Jewish scriptural writings, and that books had been removed from it.

It is that narrow claim that I objected to. The Torah has always been the first 5 books of the Bible -- the Pentateuch. No additions. No substractions from Torah.

Now later, you changed claims and I responded to the new claim:


The Israelites used more then just the Torah as divine literature.

"That wasn't the claim. Nephilmeyer, that is one thing that you have to be very careful about in discussions: Remember the claims, ALWAYS remember the claims! The original claim was that the Torah was more than 5 books. I disagreed with that claim. For Judaism, the Torah has always been the same 5 books of the Pentateuch.

Now you are introducing a different claim: that the Jews had books they regarded as inspired in addition to the Torah. That was never in doubt. For instance, the Psalms have always been considered as divine literature, as has Kings, Isaiah and some other works."

In these discussions it is often difficult to remember what you said a couple of days ago, but it is critical to clear communication. In this case you forgot the original claim you made. As I emphasized, you have to remember the claims.

So, I agree with the new claim but disagree with the old. OK?

Now, as to Enoch, I said we would have to read Enoch and look at the reasoning of both sides to see why Enoch was removed from the canon.

Nephilmeyer, are you aware that, as late as 400 AD, there were over 400 gospels in circulation? If you do a Google search on the Infant Gospel of Thomas and the separate Gospel of Thomas you will find two of the gospels that were not included in the canon. There are letters from the various disciples and Paul that were not included in the canon. (BTW, the Church burned all the copies of non-canonical gospels, which is why we have so few today. The Nazis didn't invent book burning; Christians did. )

The general reason certain works are not considered divine is the theology expressed in them is not considered genuine. In the Infant Gospel of Thomas it is plain why it was excluded. However, there is the disturbing fact that the last scene in the gospel is the standard story of Jesus meeting with the rabbis when he is 12, exactly as it appears in the canonical gospels.

So, my guess is that Enoch has theology that is not considered valid.

The whole process of the canonization can be troubling and I am very surprised that it is not a bigger part of discussions among Christian groups. Here we have a group of men sitting around 400 years after Christ died and deciding among a group of potential documents which shall be considered God's Holy Word. I understand they even took votes, etc.

The bottom line comes down to whether you believe God had his hand in the process all the way through. I think there is much to be said for the argument that if you believe the Bible is meant to be God's Word to us, holy and complete, you would have to believe that He maintained His hand on the process all the way through. From inspiration to the writers to inclusion in the canon.

But there are some problems with this "micromanagement" idea which are difficult to shake. If God did micromanage the text from day one, how could the different version of the Torah have different genealogical facts? And how could a micromanaged text include such a variety of interpretations that honest, believing Christians end up with hundreds of sects based on these varied interpretations?

Further, there are a number of discrepencies in the text which, while some have gone to great lengths to explain around, does raise the question of whether God did not keep such a tight reign on the details of the text. (one that comes to mind is the fact that two different books have different people killing a certain person, one has David, the other has someone else entirely).

While I will hold the view that God did manage His word all the way through until I am convinced otherwise, all the way to the choosing of the canon, I can definitely see the issues that are raised.

Vance, an excellent post with well thought out points. I would only note that we are getting very far from scientism.

All the points make the argument for literal interpretation you are having with Malaka even more interesting. How can you insist on a literal interpretation when you are not even certain that the text should be included as "God's Word"?

If, as you have said, "God's Word" is determined by men, how can you then condemn science as also determined by men? How can you insist that this "Word" should take precedence over any other work of men?

I think the reason the subject isn't discussed is that most Christians are not aware that the canon was picked by men and that works were left out. They think there really are only 4 gospels. I was shocked when, reading a history of Christology, that the statement of 400 gospels was casually in the text. The bishop of the area was complaining that all these different gospels were still in circulation.

BTW, the people that object to the Jesus Seminar voting on the genuine sayings of Jesus never seem to complain about the councils voting on which gospels (with the sayings, of course) to include in the first place! The irony meter pegs yet again!

The micromanagement does indeed have some problems. It violates free will with a vengeance! However, most Christians believe that God can have the contingent events of history work out for His Plan. Well, why can't God have the contingent events of this particular history also work out for His Plan?

The problem of picking the canon only becomes a major problem if you hold to strict Biblical inerrancy. Then the problem is REALLY, REALLY major!

Yes, these are the problems. But again, one view would be that He did, indeed, keep His hand on the process the whole time and that the end result was the Bible He wanted. I think this is true. This would not negate free will since they were telling HIS story and presenting HIS message, so it is not their will which is at issue.

Now, however, I must deal with the other issues. My thought is that God allowed humans to write the books and He made sure that the Message was presented perfect and holy throughout. That does not mean that every part of the message is subject to immediate and "obvious" interpretation. This fact is proved by the very plethora of beliefs based on varied interpretations.

I honestly don't know for sure why God did not give us a text which was subject to only one interpretation. Maybe it had something to do with free will and faith.

nephilimiyr said:

Actually I'm not the one saying it but I see the second definition of scientism saying it. I see by what your saying you are understanding how I see it, just not agreeing with it.

Click to expand...

That's a fair assessment.

Why do you keep nameing me Nephilmeyer? It's Nephilimiyr!

Click to expand...

Because I'm not looking carefully at your name. My apologies.

I might want you to prove that statement to me. I've read the Book of Enoch and no where in there does it talk about a flat earth.

Click to expand...

“I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction "(1 Enoch 34:1-2).

However the influence of Enoch was cut off at a certain point because of it's controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels. This book was denounced, banned, cursed, burned, shreaded and lost for centuries because the early church fathers as well as Jewish rabbi's had too big a problem with the idea of angels mateing with human women. They came up with their own theologies and the book of Enoch threatened that theology of their's.

Click to expand...

OK. So here's the theological reason Enoch was discarded. When you say "Enoch threated that theology of their's" you have a bias. It would be just as fair to say "Enoch got the theology wrong." Your bias is that Enoch is right but that the Church Fathers were wrong. It could easily be that the Church Fathers, basing their theology on other sources, could be right and Enoch wrong.

Based on what we now know of genetics, Enoch was wrong. Let's face it, if divine beings are lusting after human women, mating with them, and having kids, then we have angelic DNA in the human genome!

Also, it makes divine beings be physical humans. That is theological dynamite. Are they then really divine?

Julius Africanus, who lived 200-245, was the first who brought forward the idea that the Genesis 6 passages referring to "sons of God" as the righteous sons of Seth. The early church fathers flocked over to this new interpretation because at the time they were trying to instill their theology that angels couldn't become flesh, for their reasons why they objected so I'm not sure just yet.

Click to expand...

It's not "couldn't become flesh" but were flesh. Angels don't have the attributes of changing form. If angels can breed with humans and produce offspring, then they are humans. No wonder the Church Fathers had a problem with that.

For reasons I don't know of, Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai pronounced a curse on those who held the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 to be angels, even though that had been the age old Jewish interpretation of the verse.

Click to expand...

Again, think of the implications. What happens if these "sons of God" really are angels?

When were they created? Were they created? If they are not created then they have to exist forever, just like God. Are they God? Minor gods?

I've already gone over the problems if they can mate with human females and produce offspring! Just wanting to mate with human females causes problems.

I can see why they wanted to pretend the book never existed.

nephilimiyr said:

Why stop with the Babylonian story? Just about every culture around the globe has similar stories of creation.

Click to expand...

Not this similar. The other stories you mention do indeed give a family history of the gods, but none of them match the creation order in Genesis.

Genesis 1 is structured so that the Babylonian gods are destoyed in sequence of their appearance by having Yahweh make them created objects. Starting with Tiamet and Apsu. By "dividing the waters" Yahweh makes the sweetwater and saltwater oceans. That means Tiamet and Apsu are no longer gods, but created entities of a god. It destroys their divine status.

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/BabyloniaAndAssyria.html goes thru this but not from the perspective I am. Still, it does point out the congruences of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and Genesis 1.

"be" is not a modifier here. "be-reshyth" is used as a compound word. There is no modifier for reshyth in Genesis 1:1.

Click to expand...

Hebrew has no hyphens (or vowels). The transliteration is a compound word, not the original. You just said that there is a modifier for reshyth in Genesis 1:1. Either that or you have a completely different word because it is not plain reshyth, but bereshyth.

Now, when you go from yom to beyom the meaning changes. Yom is either a day or a somewhat indefinite period of task or festival. However, beyom is a much shorter time interval, like "instant", or "moment". A time measurement that is much shorter and more immediate that yom.

So, all your arguments based on reshyth alone don't apply. You can't just ignore the "be". Either it is a prefix that modifies reshyth or you have a whole new word.

The noun "reshyth" on it's own does mean beginning but what I'm saying is that in English the word is most often used to denote previously. The passages I gave in the post shows how when the word is employed and the translated word is beginning that it really doesn't mean beginning, or the actual start of something but something of a previous nature.

Does this help?

Click to expand...

This makes it worse. Instead of reading what the Hebrew means -- beginning according to you -- you are now sayin "in English" reshyth is used to denote "previously". But we are not in English, are we? We're in Hebrew. So how can you use the way it is in English to make your interpretation when the language used is Hebrew?

The Psalms passage is talking about the beginning, when God layed the foundation of the earth. Reshyth is not used here but the way some people see the meaning of the word it should've been used. Maybe it was just a bad example for me to use?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a bad example. This is a poem. So what would normally be used will not be used because it may not fit the meter and rhyme. Poetry is all about using words in novel ways. So failure to use a "normal" word says nothing.

nephilimiyr said:

True but science doesn't explain what was there before the big bang. We have evidence of the big bang happening but can science, through evidence, say how the big bang happend? or what was there before the big bang?

Click to expand...

As far as science is concerned, there wasn't anything "before" Big Bang. No space, no time, no matter, no energy. nothing. So nothing "pre-existing" to re-order.

The Bible deosn't say when but only that it happend.I didn't say that because the Bible doesn't say that but that doesn't mean life wasn't present in the period between when God created the heavens and the earth and when the earth became without form, and void. In fact through the scriptures I can prove that life was present during this period!

Click to expand...

This is where I really have trouble with literalists! On the one hand they tell me I'm supposed to read the text plainly and literally. On the other hand, they tell me I can make up whatever I want but that isn't in the text! Does anyone else see a contradiction here?

1. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. You can't change it with your interpretation.
2. The Bible isn't the complete word of God. Therefore we can change it anyway we want by adding whatever we want.

I don't care about other scripture. What matters is what is in Genesis! Using other scripture simply means you are using what some other guy thought about the text, not the text itself.

I believe it's makeing note that God had created the heavens and the earth at some point in time. I don't see anywhere in the chapter where it's saying when this took place but the way the Hebrew is conveying it it's saying that it happend far into the past. The Hebrew conveys to me that the creation of the heaven and the earth is seperate from what the main topic of the chapter is talking about.

Click to expand...

You need to go back over and tell my why you think there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I see no reason except extrabiblical evidence of an old universe to insert a gap. But you are saying that we aren't supposed to use extrabiblical evidence. Right? We are supposed to look at the text first.

The chapter doesn't give a hint on how God created the heavens and the earth. God simply doesn't say anything about how he performed this act of creation.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. "God said, let there be light, and there was." God spoke, it happened. That's how God created. Throughout Genesis 1 God speaks, and it happens. The exceptions is when God commands "Let the earth bring forth" and "Let the seas bring forth" which implies there is some process in the earth and seas that will produce what God is creating.

I do believe that in this period between God's first creation and before the earth became without form and void that life did abound.

Click to expand...

Not based on the text, you don't. There is no life until Day 3.

Since it is science that has proven to me that the time between these events could be billions of years,

Click to expand...

Ah! So you will let science dictate your interpretation!

Please forgive the humor. Game, set, and match!

It's not as if you disagreed fundamentally with the first quote in my signature, but that science has not proven to you that the diversity of life on the planet is due to evolution. Right?

At some point in time, the Bible doesn't say, God passed judgement upon the earth.

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't say that God passed judgement on the earth. Where in Genesis 1 is that? Also, you forgot to tell me what you mean by "desolate and void".

After this judgment was past, the earth is laying in waste, it's without form, and void. God reforms the earth and recreates the plants and animals as well as a new creature named Adam, the first man. I do believe in a literal reforming of the earth in 6 days.

Click to expand...

Actually, your literal reforming would have to be in 5 days, since one day has just gone by.

Doesn't Hebrew have a word for "recreates" or a phrase "create again" or "create for the second time"? If so, why weren't those phrases or words used?

Although some have said that the belief in theistic evolution is denying Gods power to create I don't see it as so. God could've used an evolutionary process in the first billions of years but after he passed judgment on that creation he used a more miraculous way and a more instantaneous way to replenish the earth.

Click to expand...

Or, He used evolutionary processes all the way thru and never passed judgement on that creation at all. We are in that creation.

Yes, you are going to have to find between Genesis 1:1-5 (first day) and Genesis 1:6 the words "God passed judgement on the earth, destroyed it, and then created it anew". Good luck.