The tip of the ice berg

[Hans Blaster]

Hugh Ross said the following;
In my opinion, the best guidelines for constructively integrating science and the Bible were codified by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) in their Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Their affirmations and denials relevant to science-faith integration (articles 19–22) are as follows:

Sorry. Science and "inerrancy" just do not go together at all. Some of the items that followed are utterly antithetical to science and its methods.

I've seen people try to reconcile science and scripture, but biblical inerrancy is definitely *not* the path.

 

[BPPLEE]

Deleted

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. We can test everything listed in Genesis 1...

Only to a point: science is myopic.

If you disagree, test for soul and spirit.

 

[ottawak]

Only to a point: science is myopic.

If you disagree, test for soul and spirit.

Depending on how you define them, they are not testable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depending on how you define them, they are not testable.

Then I'll take Valentine's post with a modicum of sodium.

 

[ottawak]

Then I'll take Valentine's post with a modicum of sodium.

Come to that, they are not even doctrines specifically set forth in Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Come to that, they are not even doctrines specifically set forth in Genesis.

He said, 'We can test everything listed in Genesis 1.'

I don't agree.

 

[BPPLEE]

Come to that, they are not even doctrines specifically set forth in Genesis.

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?

 

[Astrid]

Then you've proved the existence of a designer.

Now, prove that "designer" is God.

It would be a god.

 

[ruthiesea]

Nope.

Creationism is not science, because God did not use science to create the universe.

His method of choice was miracles -- not science or nature.

G-d did not use science because people use science to study His creation. Until people started questioning how the universe works there was no science.

 

[ruthiesea]

Ah ... but which one is the cart, and which one is the horse?

They are not working in tandem, so such a relationship does not exist.

 

[Astrid]

There are attempts to explain the discrepancy between the biblical account and billions of years such as the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism but Valentine is probably correct that anyone who believes in creation is beholden to a religious belief and not a scientific one.
Hugh Ross said the following;
In my opinion, the best guidelines for constructively integrating science and the Bible were codified by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) in their Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Their affirmations and denials relevant to science-faith integration (articles 19–22) are as follows:

• We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
• We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself; such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
• We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
• We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
• We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
• We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
• We affirm that Genesis 1–11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
• We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1–11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Here is an argument for old earth creationism The Sixth Creation Day: Biblical Support for Old-Earth Creationism But you are probably correct with what you stated

I was wondering which of my list you would
sunscribe to.

Weve never seen any resesrch that actually
supports any form of creationism.

The moldy and utterly dishonest dodge of SEDI
"Same Evidence Different Interoretation",
notwithstanding.

No doubt there is biblical support for oec, yec, gap
or for that matter nearly any side of any issue- based
on the claims of divers christians, anyway.
Equivocation reigns supreme, it seems.

That inerrancy council wont impress me favourably.
" ...genuine facts inconsistent with true meaning" is an interesting
phrase, from a equivocation pov!

It long has seemed to me that with God, bible,
all the angels and the totality of the universe
on one " side"! there ought to be a few
corroborating facts floating
about, and nobody would have to concoct such dubious
things as Kalam cosmology and Paluxy mantracks to try
to prop it up.

 

[BPPLEE]

I was wondering which of my list you would
sunscribe to.

Weve never seen any resesrch that actually
supports any form of creationism.

The moldy and utterly dishonest dodge of SEDI
"Same Evidence Different Interoretation",
notwithstanding.

No doubt there is biblical support for oec, yec, gap
or for that matter nearly any side of any issue- based
on the claims of divers christians, anyway.
Equivocation reigns supreme, it seems.

That inerrancy council wont impress me favourably.
" ...genuine facts inconsistent with true meaning" is an interesting
phrase, from a equivocation pov!

It long has seemed to me that with God, bible,
all the angels and the totality of the universe
on one " side"! there ought to be a few
corroborating facts floating
about, and nobody would have to concoct such dubious
things as Kalam cosmology and Paluxy mantracks to try
to prop it up.

I understand when you say there is biblical support for x people tend to have a way to find scripture to support their position no matter what it is. The only "proof" I have of creation is that it is too complex to have happened without a creator
As to the rest

1Co 1:27

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[ottawak]

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?

Good question. Theologians have argued about it for millenia.

 

[ottawak]

I understand when you say there is biblical support for x people tend to have a way to find scripture to support their position no matter what it is. The only "proof" I have of creation is that it is too complex to have happened without a creator
As to the rest

1Co 1:27

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Your personal view of the matter is interesting and has been noted, but exactly what role do you see the creator playing in the rocess? That is really the subject matter of this forum.

 

[BPPLEE]

Your personal view of the matter is interesting and has been noted, but exactly what role do you see the creator playing in the rocess? That is really the subject matter of this forum.

That is something else people have been arguing about for millennia. I have accepted that people can disagree about this and still be Christians

 

[Astrid]

I understand when you say there is biblical support for x people tend to have a way to find scripture to support their position no matter what it is. The only "proof" I have of creation is that it is too complex to have happened without a creator
As to the rest

1Co 1:27

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And yet the vastly more complex creator happened...etc.

We note that vastly complex things form themselves
through basic law and simple materials randomly
scattered about.

Behold the mighty Amazon in its insane complexity,
made with raindrops in the mud.

And for all that who knows if something sentient in
unimagineable ways might be behind it all.

Oh on your quote at the end, try it the opposote way
around, its just as true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It would be a god.

Would it? It could simply be someone with some highly advanced knowledge who lived billions of years ago...

...and even if you insist on calling it a God, that still doesn't make it your God... which is the point of Creationism...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Only to a point:

Which I said, and which you disingenuously omitted.

science is myopic.

...but not hallucinogenic.

If you disagree, test for soul and spirit.

I agreed -- you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

 

[BPPLEE]

And yet the vastly more complex creator happened...etc.

We note that vastly complex things form themselves
through basic law and simple materials randomly
scattered about.

Behold the mighty Amazon in its insane complexity,
made with raindrops in the mud.

And for all that who knows if something sentient in
unimagineable ways might be behind it all.

Oh on your quote at the end, try it the opposote way
around, its just as true.

I guess it takes faith to believe in creation, faith is not science

Heb 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.