The Lesson of Geocentrism

[MLML]

I wasn't trying to say you or anyone else doesn't have faith or trust in the Bible. There are posts in this forum where some theistic evolutionists refer to the Bible nothing more than just literature. Whether they meant this truly or not, I don't know. It was just how I read it.

I was actually trying to say in my previous post someone is wrong in their understanding of God's Word. It can very well be me. But a point I see to the whole discussion is to get people to go to their Bibles, not science books.

My overall conclusion to what I have read here is that Science doesn't save you, so there is no point to look to science for the answers concerning God. I think we can all agree on this, hopefully. The Bible teaches us who truly is the One who saves those who want to be saved. Science these days, as a whole, leaves out God on purpose. It may not be an act to rebel against God, but they don't give God the Glory in their research. We must always remember where everything comes from, even our intelligence, our clothes, our food, our house, our car, come from God. God made it all possible for us. We all tend to be a bit prideful - me included - in what we have accomplished, learned, or have, by saying we did it. We didn't do anything that God didn't already give us. All we have is from God, even our free will to not believe in Him and sin against Him.

For the Christian man and woman, we must always glorify God in all things, even these debates, which often isn't done.

So if I may, can we all just give a big thank you to God for all He has done for us?

 

[Vance]

Yes, these issues are not salvation issues, and are not essential to the faith at all. This is actually one of our main points. It is the Young Earth Creationist ministries which is trying to make this issue a salvation one by saying that if you accept evolution, you are not accepting Scripture, and thus in essence not accepting God. This is very dangerous, as I think you would agree, since you realize it is NOT a salvation issue, so there is no need to draw such lines in the sand.

I am not here to convince anyone that evolution is correct or that they should accept an old earth. Only that they should stop teaching that there is a complete incompatibility between these scientific beliefs about how God created and when, and Scripture, which tells us the who and the why.

If there was no YEC teaching of this incompatability and I would not even be here. Unfortunately the YEC ministries are not going anywhere, I fear, so here I am, doing what little I can to remove this unnecessary stumbling block.

 

[gluadys]

If they knew the circumference of the earth, the geographical center of the land masses of earth, the rotation and relationship to the seasons, the distance to the sun and who knows what else, maybe they weren't the bunch of geocentrist simpletons we've credited them for after all.

Most of these figures would be the same using a geo-centric perspective. The astronomers of ancient times were by no means stupid. In fact, the mathematics of calculating planetary motions, eclipses, times of sunrise & sunset throughout the year, etc, are much more complicated using a geocentric perspective than a heliocentric perspective. The fact that it simplified celestial mathematics considerably was one of the selling points of using the Copernican system --- even if the cosmos really was geocentric. It was the invention of the telescope and the ability to see, for example, the phases of Venus, that showed the solar system really was helio- not geo-centric.

But ancient people were very much aware of the measurments pertaining to the circumference of the earth (once they realized it is a sphere) and to all the measurements needed for sound astronomical observation and prediction, long before helio-centricity was discovered and validated.

 

[gluadys]

I would then conclude that only one side - whether it is TE, YEC, GAP, OEC, or PC - has truly surrendered to God. God doesn't lead His children to come to completely different conclusions concerning Him. As Paul stated we are meant to go from one side to the other in our understanding of doctrine. The Bible, in its entirety, is doctrine.

I would agree that everything in the bible is doctrine, but I don't think it follows that everyone guided by the Holy Spirit will come to the same conclusions on every point. Doctrine, after all, means "teaching" (from the Latin docere to teach). So when we say the bible is doctrine, we are saying that it teaches us. And then we must ask, what is the substance of the bible's teaching?

Clearly, the substance of the bible's teaching is God, humanity, creation, sin, redemption through Christ, who is God incarnate among us, and risen Lord of the Church, and life eternal in Christ.

Now, if the substance of that doctrine is conveyed through non-historical story-telling rather than through an historical report, is it not still true doctrine?

And is not the role of the Holy Spirit to lead us in discerning the true teaching of scripture. If the Holy Spirit accomplishes that, but does not give discernment as to the historical or non-historical nature of the scripture through which the teaching is given, why is it not possible and understandable that equally spirit-filled Christians may come to different conclusions on the latter point. The important thing is that we are of like mind on the doctrine, not on the nature of the vehicle by which the doctrine is given to us.

I am not sure if you were intending to imply that somethings in the Bible aren't important, but everything in the Bible is important and relevant to the over all message.

No that is not the intention at all. Rather the intention is to point out that history is not the only way, and sometimes not even the preferable way, to teach important doctrine. The whole message of the bible is true and important, but that does not mean it all needs to be historically or scientifically accurate.

There is no need therefore to reject good science because it apparently disagrees with scripture on the age of the earth. The scripture is still true and important on matters which it intends to teach. For example, one intention of Genesis 1-2:4 is to teach the importance of the sabbath. So the 6 days+ 1 are true and important even if they are not part of the actual history of how the universe came to be.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit leads people into completely different conclusions. Someone is wrong and thats that. It can be me.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit leads people into completely different conclusions either. But I do think there are some things the Holy Spirit is not concerned to teach us. The age of the earth appears to be one of those things. When people disagree on this point, I don't think it is a matter of one person not listening to the Holy Spirit while the other does. I think it is a matter of neither person receiving guidance from the Holy Spirit on this matter, because it is not a salvation issue, nor an issue of how to live as a Christian.

What the debates here should be doing is making everyone go to their Bible, not their science book. Science doesn't save you, science doesn't do anything for you. Placing importance on it doesn't make much sense to me. It can be something to do and be interested in, but it isn't important nor does it speak of things that can give you eternal life.

They should do both. Science is the exploration of God's creative work and is a pursuit worthy of Christian effort. For as we learn about the wonders of creation, we are moved again and again to glorify God.

Furthermore, if we take refuge in remaining ignorant of God's creation, not only do we miss out on some wonderful and amazing knowledge, we may inadvertently start bearing false witness about God by misrepresenting what God has done in creating the world.

Yet, even when opening ourselves to the world of nature, and the marvellous ingenuity of creation, we must also be mindful that nature is not the pathway to salvation and eternal life. It can tell us much about God, but it cannot erase sin from our life or bring peace with God and assurance of salvation. For that, we need Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the grace and forgiveness of God to which the bible testifies.

But while scripture turns our attention to what is most important, that doesn't make nature and science unimportant. In fact, the scientific study of nature can also be important in our walk with God. For salvation is not just about me and my relationship with God. That is the essential starting point, but it is only the starting point. Salvation is meant to heal all our relationships, with God, with ourselves, with our human neighbours and with all of creation. For God, in the beginning (to get back to Genesis) gave us a duty and responsibility of care for this planet; a duty and responsibility which we in our sinfulness have shirked and abused. So part of salvation is restoring a relationship of peaceful harmony between humanity and the planet and the non-human creatures God placed in our care.

So while scripture takes precedence, it is not a reason to exclude other ways of coming to know God and God's creation. This may be a time when Christians need to take a lead in rediscovering the importance of the natural creation and accepting fully the responsibility originally given to us to care for it. We cannot do this if we turn our backs on what science has revealed to us about God's creation. It could be that Christians who reject science are also rejecting this important teaching of scripture.

As I have said, this isn't about evolution versus creationism, it is about intelligence versus faith. Intelligence is measured by man based upon what we know that is taught by man. Faith is measured by God based upon what we believe, which is taught by God.

I profoundly disagree. It is true that a person may have intelligence without faith or faith without intelligence. But surely what we should all seek is to have both. It is absolutely not necessary to shut the door to reason, intelligence and knowledge in order to preserve faith.

It is one thing for a child or a person of simple mind or an uneducated person to have a simple faith without intelligence. But Jesus calls us to worship God with (among other things) our mind. Study is always a legitimate pursuit of a person of faith.

A "faith" which fears the intellect and the pursuit of reason and knowledge is actually showing that the person clinging to such "faith" has no trust in God. For surely God already knows all the truths of science. So how can any such truth be a threat to God or one of God's faithful?

 

[BWV 1080]

How do "Scientists" know that the Earth is Moving?
You tell me. Infidels scoff at the Bible by saying that the stars could not move quickly enough to circle our world daily. Well, if the globe is spinning rapidly, why doesn't our atmosphere spiral off? Atheists tell us that the earth is spinning, circling the sun, rotating with the galaxy AND rushing away from the big bang. And neither you nor I can feel any motion!

Also, the universe could be geocentric but made to look as if it were heliocentric to test the faithful.



[size=+1]Well that's about as compelling as anything I have read in AnswersinGenesis.org . The truth is there is no logically compelling argument to hold YEC and reject geocentrism, as they both rely on the same exegetical method (know-nothing fundamentalism). Its sad because God has allowed us to see through science a glimpse of the wonder and beauty of creation way beyond the provincial, ancient Mesopotamian / Egyptian mythological framework in which he couched his revelation to the Israelites.[/size]

 

[gluadys]

I wasn't trying to say you or anyone else doesn't have faith or trust in the Bible. There are posts in this forum where some theistic evolutionists refer to the Bible nothing more than just literature. Whether they meant this truly or not, I don't know. It was just how I read it.

It is indeed the way you are reading it. It is you who have added the words "nothing more" where they were never said or intended. I am a person who takes the bible seriously as literature (probably because I used to teach literature). I find that I understand the bible better when I analyze its literary forms. And I do think it is important, when studying the bible, to understand that it IS literature and the writers are really writers, not secretaries taking dictation, and that they really paid attention to their writing as a craft, just as poets and playwrights and novelists do today.

But while understanding the bible from a literary perspective is, IMO, very helpful to understanding what the writers were saying, I have never said the bible is "nothing more" than literature.

This is the same sort of fallacy which takes the fact that our ancestors were animals and says this means we are "nothing more" than animals. That's just plain nonsense. We are animals, but we are animals with a difference, a God-given difference that makes us unique. Nothing in scientific knowledge about our biological ancestry changes the uniqueness God has bestowed on us as humans.

I was actually trying to say in my previous post someone is wrong in their understanding of God's Word. It can very well be me. But a point I see to the whole discussion is to get people to go to their Bibles, not science books.

One doesn't preclude the other. Scripture takes precedence in matters of salvation, but that doesn't mean we should put a lock on science books or refuse to study science.

Science these days, as a whole, leaves out God on purpose.

Science leaves out God because God is too great for science to deal with. Would you worship a God you could put in a test tube?

It may not be an act to rebel against God, but they don't give God the Glory in their research.

I think you are treading dangerously close here to bearing false witness against fellow Christians who are professional scientists.

So if I may, can we all just give a big thank you to God for all He has done for us?

Yes you may!

 

[MLML]

No that is not the intention at all. Rather the intention is to point out that history is not the only way, and sometimes not even the preferable way, to teach important doctrine. The whole message of the bible is true and important, but that does not mean it all needs to be historically or scientifically accurate.

I think we can all agree that the Bible doesn't teach fusion or atomic energy. But what it does teach should be extremely important to us. I honestly cannot agree that science can hold a close second to salvation. I wouldn't even agree that it holds a close last place. I wouldn't place any teaching of this world next to God's teachings. And science is not God's teachings, it is rather mans interpretation of what is seen.

There is no need therefore to reject good science because it apparently disagrees with scripture on the age of the earth. The scripture is still true and important on matters which it intends to teach. For example, one intention of Genesis 1-2:4 is to teach the importance of the sabbath. So the 6 days+ 1 are true and important even if they are not part of the actual history of how the universe came to be.

I would only reject science if it came into conflict with scripture. I would think you would do the same. Scripture doesn't talk of the age of the earth, but it deliberately explains what a day is and how long creation took. You can think of it as poetry or as God trying to get through our thick skulls.

One thing archaeology has shown is that the Bible has thus far proved it is historically accurate. You may disagree, but evidence agrees.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit leads people into completely different conclusions either. But I do think there are some things the Holy Spirit is not concerned to teach us. The age of the earth appears to be one of those things. When people disagree on this point, I don't think it is a matter of one person not listening to the Holy Spirit while the other does. I think it is a matter of neither person receiving guidance from the Holy Spirit on this matter, because it is not a salvation issue, nor an issue of how to live as a Christian.

I don't think yec's are arguing against the age of the earth. I think they are arguing against science saying everything came from a single celled organism that original came from a non-living thing. I believe science has shown that in an uncontroled situation non-living doesn't produce living. It is when a controlled experiment is done that it can happen, as scientist did with amino acids. But one must realize scientists controlled the experiment to what they wanted, reality is there was no scientist to control it. If one wanted to assert it was God, then one must also answer why God choose that way, because many believe the Bible speaks of man as a special creation created for fellowship with God.

I do understand more are floored by a God who creates using a recipe rather then creating by Words.

They should do both. Science is the exploration of God's creative work and is a pursuit worthy of Christian effort. For as we learn about the wonders of creation, we are moved again and again to glorify God.

I really don't agree with you here. I don't think it is important for a Christian to learn about science unless they are interested in it. Science holds no answers for salvation, maybe you think it might, but I don't. God holds the answers and I prefer to study His Word He has given us. Studying creation is very subjective to our own interpretation thus allowing fallibitly to enter. Allowing God to teach us, fallibilty never is a problem because God is perfect.

I rather be a student of God's Word than a student of primordial soup and amino acids that made it to an intelligent human.

Furthermore, if we take refuge in remaining ignorant of God's creation, not only do we miss out on some wonderful and amazing knowledge, we may inadvertently start bearing false witness about God by misrepresenting what God has done in creating the world.

I could reply the same to you as remaing ignorant to God's Word. I have been utterly amazed how God's Word is like a spider web. It is so perfectly intertwined its amazing. I too am amazed at what I see in nature, but I am much more floored about what I learn about God. Knowledge that is relative to this world is useless to me. I prefer learning about God and the Bible speaks much about Him.

No one is ignorant to God's creation if they realize God created it. No one needs to understand every minut detail of how He did it.

I am not sure what you mean by bearing false witness against God because we don't study science, which tries to explain how everything got here, without God. I would think that it is science who is bearing false witness to God because it has never mentioned God. Do you as a theistic evolutionist realize you are a small group who asserts God was apart of evolution? The modern day world who believes evolution doesn't ever give God credit, it is the theistic evolutionists who asserts God into the equation, not science. Science would never mention God, even if it thought they could study God.

The pagan world goes to great lengths to leave out God as well as disprove God. You can notice this as the Christmas season rolls around. Have you notice the increase of people trying to ban the name of Christ in Christmas, or telling a church they are banned from participating in a parade because of their belief in Christ? This last election has sparked an anti Christ campaign and science has not stood up for Christ, nor will it ever.

Yet, even when opening ourselves to the world of nature, and the marvellous ingenuity of creation, we must also be mindful that nature is not the pathway to salvation and eternal life. It can tell us much about God, but it cannot erase sin from our life or bring peace with God and assurance of salvation. For that, we need Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the grace and forgiveness of God to which the bible testifies.

Excellent statement. How I adore Christ and cannot wait to fall on His feet and worship Him.

But while scripture turns our attention to what is most important, that doesn't make nature and science unimportant. In fact, the scientific study of nature can also be important in our walk with God. For salvation is not just about me and my relationship with God. That is the essential starting point, but it is only the starting point. Salvation is meant to heal all our relationships, with God, with ourselves, with our human neighbours and with all of creation. For God, in the beginning (to get back to Genesis) gave us a duty and responsibility of care for this planet; a duty and responsibility which we in our sinfulness have shirked and abused. So part of salvation is restoring a relationship of peaceful harmony between humanity and the planet and the non-human creatures God placed in our care.

Nature is important and I whole heartedly agree. I wouldn't include science into the equation of that though. Nature or creation rather is God's missionary that tells the people who don't hear of God, nor have a Bible, to see God. When you have the evolutionary theory which excludes God, it takes away from God speaking through nature.

Salvation doesn't make our sins go away. Salvation is the act of Christ standing in our place of death. Christ then comes and covers our sin before God so God doesn't see our sin. We only are saved because of Christ did, not because of nature or ourselves. We cannot do anything to achienve or increase salvation. Our relationships don't change anything. By following Christ we can be saved, not by being better with another. Nothing saves us, only Christ.

I am not sure if you have read in Revelations, but this planet will not remain. This earth will pass as well as the heavens. How we interact with this planet doesn't define our salvation, nor does it do anything for it. Christ is solely the only reason that we can be saved. It isn't the planet, or our neighbors, or how we act. If that is true then I am doomed to go to hell because I have sinned against not only God, but I have been rude to others, I haven't done everything I can for nature or man. Even though I have given myself to Christ I sin. It is Christ who saves, who has mercy on me because I fall to His feet and beg for forgiveness. It has nothing to do with anything else and I would argue you to the end of the earth if you say otherwise.

So while scripture takes precedence, it is not a reason to exclude other ways of coming to know God and God's creation. This may be a time when Christians need to take a lead in rediscovering the importance of the natural creation and accepting fully the responsibility originally given to us to care for it. We cannot do this if we turn our backs on what science has revealed to us about God's creation. It could be that Christians who reject science are also rejecting this important teaching of scripture.

I can't help but get a utopian feel from what you say. Something to the effect of save our earth. I would agree we are to treat everything with respect, but again just say it is Christ alone who saves. It has nothing to do with the earth nor the people on the planet.

Science doesn't talk about how we are to care for the earth. Nor does it call for us to recycle. Science is solely here to try and understand what it sees. Science was not here when God created this place, so in my opinion science has no right to discuss what it cannot test.

I don't think Christians who reject science will be in danger of God's wrath. But I do think Christians who ignore God's Word and pay attention to science instead do need to worry about God's wrath. Luckly it seems the people here don't have to worry about God's wrath since we can all agree that Christ is central and God's Word is key to Christ who gives salvation.

I profoundly disagree. It is true that a person may have intelligence without faith or faith without intelligence. But surely what we should all seek is to have both. It is absolutely not necessary to shut the door to reason, intelligence and knowledge in order to preserve faith.

It is one thing for a child or a person of simple mind or an uneducated person to have a simple faith without intelligence. But Jesus calls us to worship God with (among other things) our mind. Study is always a legitimate pursuit of a person of faith.

A "faith" which fears the intellect and the pursuit of reason and knowledge is actually showing that the person clinging to such "faith" has no trust in God. For surely God already knows all the truths of science. So how can any such truth be a threat to God or one of God's faithful?

Well I disagree. I don't find intelligence to be that important to salvation. I think Jesus taught this when He said we are to be like the child. The child is not particulary intelligent when compared to adults, but the child has greater faith then adults. The child believes because the Father says so.

I don't have to be intelligent to worship with my mind. I just think of Christ and how wonderful He is and that is worship. Study is essential to those who want to learn more and if they ask God for wisdom He will give it. But before one receives they must submit completely, mind, body, and spirit to God. That means realizing we are not of this world and only in it. It also means picking up our cross and standing for God even when the worst possible circumstances may apply.

I am not sure of the part where you said faith fears intellect. My faith doesn't fear your intellect or the intellect of the greatest mind of this world. My faith fears only God and no man. I advocate that intelligence shouldn't stear our faith. The intellect of this world is to question all things and not accept anything that we cannot prove or see.

I don't quite understand your sentence on God having a threat. I don't think God has any threats, even Satan has to run to God and ask permission to do anything. I think what a Christian must realize is that not all science is truth. It is at its best trying to grasp straws to understand.

One thing I wonder, and maybe you can answer it, is who decides what is necessary for salvation? Christ said believe in Me. What does believe in Me mean? Does it mean just believe Christ is God? Does it mean believe everything Christ has said, even as God? Does it mean only to follow but don't believe? Does it mean to believe everything Christ has said, even as God, and follow Him? Does it mean only believe the New Testament? Does it mean believe the Old Testament, but realize some parts might be actually true while others aren't? Does it mean be like a child and just believe everything God has said and follow Him?

I honestly don't think it is up to any man to decide what is a salvation issue or not. I would also advocate that all Christians must consider what believe in Me really means. Personally, if it is written in the Bible then it concerns salvation because that is the reason for the book. So I would it find it to be foolish to discern for oneself that Genesis 1-2 or 1-11 aren't salvation issues. Can you tell me for a fact you know from God that it isn't? Can you honestly be absolutely, 100 percent true that parts of the Bible aren't salvation issues? If so, tell when God spoke to you and told you this, what did He say and what was His reponse to why it is included in the Bible?

I would personally be very careful in telling others parts of the Bible are of no worry to you because they don't concern salvation. Especially when Jesus said believe in Me and this very well could mean believe in what ever Jesus, God, the Father said or told the authors of the Bible to write.

One must realize we are responsible for what we do here on earth. If we tell others that something isn't a salvation issue and it turns out to be, we are responsible for telling others this as well. Is it worth believing everything in the Bible as true in every essense of the word to receive eternal life? Even if the world will persecute you for following Christ completely? I think so, as I am sure you do as well.

 

[MLML]

It is indeed the way you are reading it. It is you who have added the words "nothing more" where they were never said or intended. I am a person who takes the bible seriously as literature (probably because I used to teach literature). I find that I understand the bible better when I analyze its literary forms. And I do think it is important, when studying the bible, to understand that it IS literature and the writers are really writers, not secretaries taking dictation, and that they really paid attention to their writing as a craft, just as poets and playwrights and novelists do today.

Well hopefully it was the way I read it. Do you know that most of the Bible was written by secretaries and not the actual authors? Was it the secretaries word or the authors, or was it God's who gave the authors the words to tell the secretaries?

But while understanding the bible from a literary perspective is, IMO, very helpful to understanding what the writers were saying, I have never said the bible is "nothing more" than literature.

This is the same sort of fallacy which takes the fact that our ancestors were animals and says this means we are "nothing more" than animals. That's just plain nonsense. We are animals, but we are animals with a difference, a God-given difference that makes us unique. Nothing in scientific knowledge about our biological ancestry changes the uniqueness God has bestowed on us as humans.

I never claimed you said it was nothing more. I honestly don't know who said it but I believe that is what was said. Well by evolutionary stand point, we were nothing more then animals and are animals now, correct? Even if we have a difference, you can break us down to the fact that we are animals, evolutionary speaking.

What is our uniqueness that God has bestowed on us, from a scientific stand point? Science has stated that the soul is nothing more than an illusion of the mind.

One doesn't preclude the other. Scripture takes precedence in matters of salvation, but that doesn't mean we should put a lock on science books or refuse to study science.

I don't think I suggest we shouldn't lock up our science books. If you reread what I have said, it will notice that I have said science is fun to learn about. I just realize that science is nothing more than 'fun' for our life as God's children. Science doesn't save us, does it?

Science leaves out God because God is too great for science to deal with. Would you worship a God you could put in a test tube?

By including God doesn't mean one must put Him in a test tube, does it? I believe one could say thanks to God for what He has created, or by God evolution happened, but science says no such thing.

There are many who put God into a box and I still worship Him.

I think you are treading dangerously close here to bearing false witness against fellow Christians who are professional scientists.

Well maybe you can show me where the articles are at that are glorify God? I have yet to see them, but I would be happy to retract what I have said as soon as you show me an actual article published by a scientists who, in the article, credits God with creating the universe.

Yes you may!

May God always be glorified and eternal thanked for all He has done for us who do not deserve what He has done.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well by evolutionary stand point, we were nothing more then animals and are animals now, correct? Even if we have a difference, you can break us down to the fact that we are animals, evolutionary speaking.

What is our uniqueness that God has bestowed on us, from a scientific stand point? Science has stated that the soul is nothing more than an illusion of the mind.

this is what i refer to as 'nothing-butism'.
and is in fact metaphysics, not science. Science never makes a claim for sufficiency, it is always bounded by a radical incompleteness.

The claim is we are 'at least animals' or 'we share with the animal world such and such', the claims of some materialists that we are nothing but animals is not a scientific claim but a metaphysical claim that has no basis in science.

Likewise the claim that consciousness is nothing-but epiphenomena is a philosophic claim, unsupportable by scientific thinking.

The provisionalness, the contingency of science is frustrating to people who wish either to derive their metaphysics from it, or like this author condemn science for presenting a materialist metaphysics. But neither camp recognizes the self limitation of science to a very narrow range of phenomena with a cautious desire for openness. This doesn't go well with the human desire for certainty and philosophic consistency which continually extends science into realms it is incompetent to deal with---like metaphysics and statements of 'nothing butism'.

...
btw the reason for science's inability to make completeness claims reflects the problem of induction, science's basic logical tool for delving into the physical world.

 

[gluadys]

MLML

I am just going to respond to snippets of your post. It seems that in some places I did not explain things clearly, and you misunderstood them.

And science is not God's teachings, it is rather mans interpretation of what is seen.

And our choice of how to read the scripture is also man's interpretation of what it says.

I would only reject science if it came into conflict with scripture.

Science does not conflict with scripture. But a scientific intepretation of nature may conflict with an interpretation of scripture. Then we need to correct our view of science, or correct our interpretation of scripture. Sometimes both.

I believe science has shown that in an uncontroled situation non-living doesn't produce living.

No, it has not shown that. It has shown that under present-day conditions, non-living does not produce living. But conditions were different in the past. For example: a lot less oxygen in the atmosphere.

I really don't agree with you here. I don't think it is important for a Christian to learn about science unless they are interested in it.

To become a scientist, yes, they would need an interest. God doesn't expect us all to be scientists. But no Christian should refuse to learn basic science or condemn Christians who do study science. And all Christians should recognize that people who study science know it better than people who don't. Just like people who train to be athletes perform better than those who don't, and people who practice on a musical instrument play better than people who don't.

Science holds no answers for salvation, maybe you think it might,

No, I didn't say it did.

Studying creation is very subjective to our own interpretation thus allowing fallibitly to enter.

That is true if we try to study creation all on our own. Science is a way of removing the subjectivity and lessening the fallibility when we study nature.

Allowing God to teach us, fallibilty never is a problem because God is perfect.

In my experience, we learn better from God when we learn with others from a leader who has the gift of teaching. When we try to learn on our own, we may mistake another spirit for the spirit of God and so follow false teaching, even as we think we are following God.

God is infallible, but we are not. We cannot even infallibly tell whether we are listening to God or another. So it is best to have a good teacher guide us.

No one is ignorant to God's creation if they realize God created it.

Knowing that God created it is the most important thing. But don't you think God would appreciate it if you loved the world God made enough to learn about it? After all, God loves his creation and takes delight in it. How can we take delight in it if we never look at it?

Science is a wonderful way to share God's pleasure in the world he has made.

No one needs to understand every minut detail of how He did it.

No, that would be impossible anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by bearing false witness against God because we don't study science,

What I mean is this. If you never learn science there are things about God's world you don't know. Yet you may think you know them. You may think, for example, that God made the earth with the oceans and continents just where they are now. So, if someone talks about continents moving, you may laugh at them, or you may condemn them for speaking against God.

But it is you who would be wrong, because the continents do move. Very slowly, and it takes them a long time to get anywhere. So if you laughed at a person or condemned them for speaking about the movement of the continents, that would be a false witness. For the truth is that they do move.

science, which tries to explain how everything got here, without God.

Now there is another false witness. It is not true that science denies God.

Do you as a theistic evolutionist realize you are a small group who asserts God was apart of evolution?

And there is another false witness. Theistic evolutionists are a very large group. Most people who believe in God are theisitic evolutionists.

The modern day world who believes evolution doesn't ever give God credit, it is the theistic evolutionists who asserts God into the equation, not science.

That's true. Since science cannot study God, it remains neutral. Scientists who are theists believe that God made the world as it is; scientists who are atheists say it just happened without God. But science does not say one way or the other.

When you have the evolutionary theory which excludes God, it takes away from God speaking through nature.

The evolutionary theory does not exclude God. Now you are listening to somebody else's false witness.

Our relationships don't change anything. By following Christ we can be saved, not by being better with another. Nothing saves us, only Christ.

Now you turned my words around backwards. I didn't say changing our relationships for the better would save us. Only Christ saves us. What I said was that salvation changes our relationships for the better.

I am not sure if you have read in Revelations, but this planet will not remain. This earth will pass as well as the heavens.

I have read Revelation. And all of the bible. All passages about the end tell us that the earth will be made new after going through fire, just as it was made new after going through flood. Paul tells us that creation (nature) is longing eagerly for its salvation. Paul also tells us that creation was made by and for Christ. Do you really think the creation made for Christ will be utterly destroyed? Fire is a cleansing agent. When it says this earth and heavens will pass through a trial of fire, it means God is removing all wickedness from it, so that it can be made new again.

How we interact with this planet doesn't define our salvation, nor does it do anything for it.

NO, it doesn't define our salvation. But if you have been saved, don't you think obedience to God is pretty important? When God created humanity in the beginning it was so that humanity would care for and rule over the earth and all its creatures.

When we sin against nature by treating it carelessly as if it didn't matter, we are disobeying God. It is one of the sins we need to repent of when we come to Christ, and one of the ways we need to change our behaviour as saved persons is to start obeying God's command to care for this planet.

If a unbeliever is disobeying God by misusing alcohol and always getting drunk, we would call that sin, no? And if that person comes to Christ, we expect that he will repent of his drunkenness and in the power of the Holy Spirit resist the power of alcohol in his life and live soberly, right? What if he continued to get drunk and never considered even trying to change? Never took the matter to the Lord in prayer and claimed that it was ok to be drunk all the time even if he is a Christian. Would you accept that?

It is the same with not caring for the natural world. God gave it into our keeping and if we just ignore it, or worse mistreat it, that is disobedience. We can understand that unbelievers may not know this. But as those who have been saved by God's grace, we should know this and act accordingly.

Science doesn't talk about how we are to care for the earth. Nor does it call for us to recycle.

Actually it does. It was scientists who taught us not to put phosphate in detergents because it overfeeds the algae who take over the lakes and ruin it for other species. It was scientists who taught us to clean smoke before we allow it to leave factories, because not cleaning the smoke causes acid rain and kills life in the lakes and streams. It was scientists who warned us to take chlorofluorocarbons out of antiperspirants and hair sprays because they were destroying the ozone layer and letting too much UV radiation get through. And, yes, scientists do call on us to recycle. There are lots of ways science tells us how to obey God's command to care for the earth.

I don't have to be intelligent to worship with my mind. I just think of Christ and how wonderful He is and that is worship.

I would say that is worshipping with your heart. Now Jesus also said to worship with all your heart, so that is important too. It is not as if one is important and the other is not. Both are important.

I am not sure of the part where you said faith fears intellect.

Genuine faith does not fear the intellect or reason or knowledge. But there are people who do fear these things, and claim it is important to avoid them for fear of losing one's faith. What they call faith is not real faith; it is fear. It does not come from God.

Real faith can face anything science can teach us, because it knows that whatever science discovers to be true about the world is a truth already known to God.

Wisdom now, is something else again. For a person can be very knowledgeable and be able to rattle off reams of facts and numbers, yet still lack wisdom. Wisdom is not just knowing. Wisdom is understanding in the light of God.

I don't quite understand your sentence on God having a threat. I don't think God has any threats,

Yes, you understood it backwards again. I was speaking of people who think scientific knowledge is a threat to God, not from God. Of course it isn't really at all.

One thing I wonder, and maybe you can answer it, is who decides what is necessary for salvation?

Well I am glad it is such an easy question. God does, of course.

So I would it find it to be foolish to discern for oneself that Genesis 1-2 or 1-11 aren't salvation issues.

Yes, that would be very foolish. But the way you read it (as history or as story) is not a salvation issue. What is important is the message of salvation, not whether God is giving us an historical record of creation or a story about creation.

 

[gluadys]

Well hopefully it was the way I read it. Do you know that most of the Bible was written by secretaries and not the actual authors? Was it the secretaries word or the authors, or was it God's who gave the authors the words to tell the secretaries?

Yes, I did know that. Paul ordinarily dictated his letters to a scribe, and Baruch took dictation from Jeremiah. And often the students of a prophet wrote down his words and compiled the book with his name on it.

But, no I do not believe God gave the biblical authors actual words. God gave them his Word, his message, but the authors put it into their own words as the Holy Spirit gave them insight.

I never claimed you said it was nothing more. I honestly don't know who said it but I believe that is what was said. Well by evolutionary stand point, we were nothing more then animals and are animals now, correct? Even if we have a difference, you can break us down to the fact that we are animals, evolutionary speaking.

No, there is that "nothing more" again. Evolution recognizes that we are animals with a difference. We are not "nothing more" than animals.

And people, even in biblical times, recognized that we are animals. That is not something new with evolution. In classification systems, humans have always been included in the Animal kingdom. After all, we are not vegetable or mineral are we?

What is our uniqueness that God has bestowed on us, from a scientific stand point?

Science would probably point to the brain, but I would say science is wrong on that. I would say it is the image of God.

Science has stated that the soul is nothing more than an illusion of the mind.

No, it hasn't. Somebody is lying to you again.

Science doesn't save us, does it?

Of course not.
But it is fun, and interesting and can even teach us some important things about God's world we need to know.

By including God doesn't mean one must put Him in a test tube, does it?

Yes, it does. Or something equivalent to that like under a microscope or on a scale, where God can be examined and measured. Because that is how science studies things, by counting and weighing and measuring and testing to see what effect this has on that.

And since you can't do that with God, it is as if God is invisible to science. So science can't say anything about God.

But only a person who is foolish enough to think that science is the only way to know anything would conclude this means there is no God.

Well maybe you can show me where the articles are at that are glorify God? I have yet to see them, but I would be happy to retract what I have said as soon as you show me an actual article published by a scientists who, in the article, credits God with creating the universe.

Sure. Here is one from a group of scientists called the American Scientific Affiliation.


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1971/JASA12-71Bube.html#We Believe in Creation

I would also recommend the book Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller who is a Christian biologist.

May God always be glorified and eternal thanked for all He has done for us who do not deserve what He has done.

 

[Vance]

I believe the difference between Man and the rest of God's Creation came when God "breathed" His Spirit into us, thus making us in His image.

 

[Vance]

Bump, since the geocentrist subject has come up again.