Whatever happened to just not knowing?

[Blessedj01]

Haha. Forgive me if I come off as ignorant. I'm just saying...what's wrong with not knowing? What's wrong with it not even being that important?

I have God's account of things and it still doesn't answer every question...but should it? Like He said to Job and co', "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand." - Job 38:4

For me personally, I think God created the universe. I don't really care how He did it or how long it took. I wish I could say I understand everything and know the time frame. I wish I could say it was 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years or 6,000. I wish I knew for sure but I don't.

I wish I could reconcile everything in science. I wish I could find a way to fit with the Bible. I just like to think of it as a story, I don't really focus in on the details. I just know God did this...then this, then this...I believe in Eden and all that, I just don't try to zero in on the subject on a sub-atomic level.

Is that really that bad? There's a certain peace in it I'll tell ya. Plus it has nothing to do with my faith in Jesus. I still know He's the Lord. Even if I don't fully understand where the universe came from, I'm confident He did it.

For the atheists and non-Christians out there...I'm not saying you have to accept my beliefs. However, I would encourage you as well not to get too wrapped up in finding the precise time and cause of the universe's "manifestation." If you believe science has already found it, then I respectfully disagree that you can say that with a certainty and if you think science can find it, then I respectfully ask you to update me when you do.

In the meantime...can't we just be humble and say..."I don't know."

 

[miamited]

hi blessed 01,

You ask: I'm just saying...what's wrong with not knowing? What's wrong with it not even being that important?

Because it's included in the Scriptures and the study of and belief in, the Scriptures is what God's people do. Paul encouraged Timothy to study to show himself approved to rightly divide the word of God. David wrote in the psalms that he has treasured God's word in his heart. The first psalm, which I believe is a pretty good understanding of how God's people should live and what God's people can expect, says that blessed is the man who meditates on God's law day and night. The creation account is part of the 'law'.

I'm not sure that God finds us faithful children when we stand apart from the truth with the claim, "Oh, what does it matter." I am firmly convicted that God wants and expects us to study His word so that we may know Him and His truth. Now, many claim well the whole truth is that Jesus died for our sins. Really? God caused by His Holy Spirit a collection of Scriptures that in our modern day form takes up over 1,000 pages just to tell us that the only important thing is that my Son died for your sins and that's all you need to know.

I believe that Jesus was giving us a very important truth to understand when He proclaimed that God's word is truth and he didn't expect us to just glean this one little paragraph of faith out of the whole of the Scriptures.

You also wrote: Is that really that bad? There's a certain peace in it I'll tell ya. Plus it has nothing to do with my faith in Jesus.

Let me ask you a question, please. If God did create everything just as He has told you, and yes I agree that He didn't tell you how He mixed the rock and the clay and magma together with water in a mixing bowl and dumped it into a glob to form the earth, but He did tell you how long it took. So, no, I certainly don't find that God expects you to know or believe things that He has not revealed to you. But some things He has revealed and if you're God, just for a moment put on your God hat, and there are people walking around on the earth telling others, "Well look, I believe in God and all that and I believe His Son died for my sins, but I just can't understand or don't believe what He has told us in the Scriptures about the beginning of all things."

Does God, (you in this exercise) find that person faithful. Has that person believed you? Friend, real people suffered and died that you might have the Scriptures. God had to raise up a nation of rebellious folk and give them victory over a whole bunch of land and the people living on it, that the Scriptures that you hold in your hand today are there. That they even exist! You don't think that God considers it important the things that you believe within and about those Scriptures, and keep in mind that they were written by the Holy Spirit, not by men. Yes, men held the pen to parchment, but Paul is clear that none of what is written in the Scriptures came from the mind of any man. So, the question stands. Does God find faithful those who can't or won't believe the things that His Spirit has written to us?

Friend, I contend that what we believe about the creation; what we believe about all the works of God revealed to us in the Scriptures, may very well turn out to have major importance in God's final decision of whether or not we really are His children. Paul talks about maturing in our faith. I find that that would certainly infer that there is more to what we believe, as we grow in our christian walk, than just - Jesus died fo my sins and that's all I need to know!!!

Then you post: For the atheists and non-Christians out there...I'm not saying you have to accept my beliefs. However, I would encourage you as well not to get too wrapped up in finding the precise time and cause of the universe's "manifestation." If you believe science has already found it, then I respectfully disagree that you can say that with a certainty and if you think science can find it, then I respectfully ask you to update me when you do.

Friend that's exactly why we can't just get along. Go ahead, go over to the creation boards and tell them in your politically correct way, "Well, guys, I respectfully disagree..." Unfortunately that's exactly what starts the discussions began then you'll be asked to explain why you 'respectfully disagree' and what will your answer be?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Blessedj01]

I'm with you, I'm just not sure if we need to know EVERYTHING about creation. I mean, I accept God's account at face value. I'm just saying that some people feel a need to go further than that and have ALL the answers. I'm not saying there isn't a specific area of Bible understanding that covers this, but I still think God leaves room for some mysteries. I find people trying to solve these mysteries on both sides of the fence when perhaps they should be left alone.

 

[Papias]

Blessed wrote:

Haha. Forgive me if I come off as ignorant. I'm just saying...what's wrong with not knowing? What's wrong with it not even being that important?

I agree. It's not that important. It's not a salvation issue. Jesus is important. That's it.

For me personally, I think God created the universe. I don't really care how He did it or how long it took. I wish I could say I understand everything and know the time frame. I wish I could say it was 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years or 6,000. I wish I knew for sure but I don't.

There is a lot to be said for your honesty. For the vast majority of people, who haven't taken a huge amount of time to look into this non-salvation issue, saying you don't know is an honest position.

Is that really that bad? There's a certain peace in it I'll tell ya. Plus it has nothing to do with my faith in Jesus. I still know He's the Lord. Even if I don't fully understand where the universe came from, I'm confident He did it.

Right, and that's the important part. People on both sides of this discussion sometimes forget that the majority of those who support evoluiton in the US are Christians. Faith in Jesus is what is important, and that's present on both sides.

Have a good day, and don't let anyone threaten you with Hell for being honest.

Papias

 

[artybloke]

Keats has it right:

"Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason -"

We're not all scientists, nor do we wish to be.

Though, sure as eggs is eggs, creationists are gonna lie about science...

 

[Theofane]

Whatever happened to just not knowing?

It's admitting you don't know something that is anathema for many people. There are those who can't handle uncertainty and feel they must have an answer for everything.

 

[gluadys]

Haha. Forgive me if I come off as ignorant. I'm just saying...what's wrong with not knowing? What's wrong with it not even being that important?



In the meantime...can't we just be humble and say..."I don't know."

I agree with what has been said about there being nothing wrong with not knowing and being humble enough to say "I don't know."

But let me return the question as well.

What's wrong with wanting to know and trying to find out?

Not all of us need or want to investigate the universe scientifically. But all of us do have a God-given sense of curiosity and some people express it through a love of science. Anything wrong with that?

 

[miamited]

hi blessed1,

You replied: I'm just not sure if we need to know EVERYTHING about creation. I mean, I accept God's account at face value. I'm just saying that some people feel a need to go further than that and have ALL the answers.

Yes, as I wrote, I'm in full agreement that God did not give us all the answers as to the how and why all things in this realm were created, but He does give us some and I expect that He expects us to believe that which He has revealed. And the reason that it needs to be 'argued' is that the refusal to accept what He has revealed to us concerning the 'time' of creation is that our not accepting that part as truth, which honestly is why I believe God does answer that particular part of the creation account, is that the other beliefs then go into evolutionary and naturalistic explanations of all things. Therefore, I find that it is not, of itself, so important that we really agree with the six day creation account for its own merit, but that not believing it then brings into play other errors.

For example: That man did exist before the sixth day and that Adam wasn't really the very, very first manlike creature upon the earth. That sin and death did not exist in this created realm of God before Eve listened to the serpent. So, I find, that if we believe the six literal creation days as God tells us, then many, many other truths of the Scriptures then come into agreement with what the Scriptures say about them.

Sin, in this realm did not exist prior to Eve's rebellion. Death in this realm did not exist until that day of sin. That Jesus said that Adam was the first man through him sin was passed to all men. All of this is built upon the first truth of God's account of the 'time' of creation.

Finally, as I have written many times before, I find it compelling that God didn't just say that there was a first day, second day, etc., but that He specifically described each 'day' as consisting of an evening and a morning. If we allow that the days are eons or other extended periods of time, then the evening and morning declaration doesn't make sense, to me. Mankind has never, ever defined an eon or age as an evening and a morning. There may well have been a beginning and an ending or even a dawn, but never, not once can I find that these other possibilities have ever been further defined as to include an evening and a morning. God is wise, my friend, and He knew before He ever spoke the first, "Let there be..." that finite, weak, frail man would never even be able to conceive of the power and majesty and glory of Him, if He didn't explain himself to us.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Blessedj01]

gluadys...nothing wrong with wanting to find out. Nothing wrong with science either as long as it doesn't try to overrule God's Word.

miamited, I tend to agree. Just on the subject of days, I think that's one area where I've learned to let it go. God says a "day..." and whatever that means I don't really sweat it too much. If it's literally a day, cool. If not, it still doesn't invalidate my viewpoints.

I kinda like not knowing how long a "day" is to God. If there's a clear-cut answer however, I'd like to hear it.

 

[artybloke]

Nothing wrong with science either as long as it doesn't try to overrule God's Word.

How precisely would it do that? It might invalidate certain ways of reading the Bible (the literalistic modernist way of reading invented by the liars of creationism) but it certainly doesn't overrule Christ.

 

[Blessedj01]

How precisely would it do that? It might invalidate certain ways of reading the Bible (the literalistic modernist way of reading invented by the liars of creationism) but it certainly doesn't overrule Christ.

I could use a similar argument and say that scientists read science a certain way TO overrule the Bible. Or that the Bible overrules science. Or that certain ways of reading the Bible don't overrule science or confirm all of it. Is it necessary that eveything in the Bible be understood in light of so-called science?

Scientists too have to face it that they weren't there when God created the Universe. Anything we think we know, including stuff like how old the earth is, is only based upon our theories and perception and the way we've chosen to look at the so-called facts.

...and no, it doesn't overrule Christ. I just think that some people are so obsessed with tying in the Bible with science that they're missing the forest for the trees and forgetting that God has said (to paraphrase) in plain words: "You WEREN'T there!"

 

[artybloke]

Here is the problem:

Science essentially describes how the world works. A rock dated at 1 billion years old will still be 1 billion years old, whether your interpretation of the Bible says so or not. Science sometimes changes its mind, of course, but it always checks with the facts of the world first.

The Bible, however, is about spiritual issues: our relationship with God, essentially. It is also a book full of poetry, story, wisdom literature, gospel and a whole host of other kinds of literature, including the nearest the ancient world got to history: chronicle. But no writer in the Bible was attempting a scientific description of the universe.

Throughout its history, the Bible has been interpreted and reinterpreted, often in highly symbolic ways, including allegorically. Sometimes this is taken too far; but one thing it has never been taken as, until recently, is a literal or scientific description of the universe. The Bible assumes a flat earth and a geocentric universe, and never questions it, because it's not part of the purpose of the Bible to describe how the universe works.

The creation narratives are highly-wrought stories. There is no need to take them literally.

Theology either lives in the real world or it lives in a fantasy world where, despite the mountains of evidence against a literal reading, we make faith dependent on an interpretation of scripture that was rejected by the Church from earliest times. The early church was not stupid; when it rejected a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, it was rejecting its own demise. A literalistic Bible is a dead book. A Bible that is allowed to be the conveyer of spiritual truths and not bogged down in irrelevant proofs and disproofs of its supposed scientific accuracy, becomes imbued with the spirit of Christ again.

 

[gluadys]

I could use a similar argument and say that scientists read science a certain way TO overrule the Bible.

There may be a very few (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) for whom it is important to show the Bible is wrong. But they don't really succeed.

Science, per se, and most scientists are not concerned to overrule the Bible.

Or that the Bible overrules science.

That is much more common and is what fuels religious hostility to science.

Is it necessary that eveything in the Bible be understood in light of so-called science?

Not at all. But anti-evolutionists seem to think it is. They seem to think that if a literal interpretation of scripture is not validated by science, then one or the other is wrong. That ignores the fact that there is no fundamental reason to hold to a literal interpretation that flies in the face of fact.

After all, our belief in creation tells us that reality is what God created. Why should we impose a human interpretation of scripture to the reality we know comes from God's hand?

Scientists too have to face it that they weren't there when God created the Universe. Anything we think we know, including stuff like how old the earth is, is only based upon our theories and perception and the way we've chosen to look at the so-called facts.

That would be more impressive if it were accompanied by some other plausible way of looking at the facts. What you seem not to recognize is that these conclusions involve the direct falsification of views once held to be valid. In this respect, science uses much the same principle as that recommended by Sherlock Holmes: after you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is likely to be true.

Whether science is right about the exact age of the earth or not, one thing is certainly ruled out by the facts: that the earth has existed for a mere few thousand years. Indeed, no matter how you slice and dice reality, the earth cannot be less than a few billion years old.

And if the way you prefer to interpret scripture disagrees with that, you can argue it with the Creator of the earth.


It would seem that your defence of "not knowing" is merely a mask for rejecting what is known.

 

[Blessedj01]

Here is the problem:

Science essentially describes how the world works. A rock dated at 1 billion years old will still be 1 billion years old, whether your interpretation of the Bible says so or not. Science sometimes changes its mind, of course, but it always checks with the facts of the world first.

Science isn't always correct. I know you'll strongly disagree, but this is the point of my thread. I don't need complete scientific answer and I don't need a 100% theological answer either. I just need to know the basics, like God did it, what He made, what order He made it in and stuff like that. That's enough to satisfy me.

But no writer in the Bible was attempting a scientific description of the universe.

That's not to say they weren't either...and no-one really knows. Even the scientists can't tell us everything.

The Bible assumes a flat earth and a geocentric universe, and never questions it, because it's not part of the purpose of the Bible to describe how the universe works.

I never got that impression from the Bible bro.

The creation narratives are highly-wrought stories. There is no need to take them literally.

...but there's no need not to.

Theology either lives in the real world or it lives in a fantasy world where, despite the mountains of evidence against a literal reading...

That's the whole basis of the Bible. It's a counter-intuitive book.

...we make faith dependent on an interpretation of scripture that was rejected by the Church from earliest times.

I'm fine with my faith resting on a basic understanding of Creation and I'm not really interested in what the "church" decrees. The "church" began taking an ugly form from the earliest times, as well.

The early church was not stupid; when it rejected a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, it was rejecting its own demise.

I don't believe this is actually the case, but even if it was I wouldn't take my cues from organised religion making decrees on subjects I can investigate myself.

A literalistic Bible is a dead book.

Not to me. I believe in dragons returning to circle the earth and a Jesus that appears on a horse carrying a flaming sword. If that's not to your liking, fine...but that's not really something that'll change my mind.

A Bible that is allowed to be the conveyer of spiritual truths and not bogged down in irrelevant proofs and disproofs of its supposed scientific accuracy, becomes imbued with the spirit of Christ again.

That's my point exactly...why try and prove everything scientifically or try to theologically reconcile everything with the facts AS WE KNOW THEM.

It would seem that your defence of "not knowing" is merely a mask for rejecting what is known.

It's not that I don't know, I don't need to know. I don't need stuff like evolution or a solid-as-concrete scientific/theological reconciliation with anything and everything to live my life and believe in God.

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned all evolution does (whether true or not) is fuel scientific egos. I don't think it has any bearing on my day to day life or where I came from in the Creationary sense.

 

[artybloke]

Science isn't always correct.

It doesn't have to be. But bad science is disproved by better science, not by reading the Bible.

That's not to say they weren't either...

Er... yes it does. They were not scientists. So they didn't write science. When the Bible was written there was no real science, no scientific method, or anything like it.

...but there's no need not to.

Maybe not for you as an individual. But a sure way to kill Christianity is for it to become wholly literalistic in its reading of scripture.

Not to me. I believe in dragons returning to circle the earth and a Jesus that appears on a horse carrying a flaming sword.

Fine. Go ahead. I've got fairies at the bottom of my garden that are looking for a few believers...

I don't think it has any bearing on my day to day life or where I came from in the Creationary sense.

Ah well, you'll have to do without all those modern drugs that have been created against the new strains of illnesses that have changed because of evolution then...

 

[Blessedj01]

It doesn't have to be. But bad science is disproved by better science, not by reading the Bible.

Okay, I'm not doubting that science is a separate subject from theology.

Er... yes it does. They were not scientists. So they didn't write science. When the Bible was written there was no real science, no scientific method, or anything like it.

My point is that even though science wasn't the method used to describe the universe, that doesn't mean the Biblical description is wrong.

But a sure way to kill Christianity is for it to become wholly literalistic in its reading of scripture.

I don't think that assertion is actually based on anything. As you said, maybe for you.

Fine. Go ahead. I've got fairies at the bottom of my garden that are looking for a few believers...

God's supernatural bro...and I believe in Him. He's no allegory. If I believe in Him then other things don't seem impossible either.

Ah well, you'll have to do without all those modern drugs that have been created against the new strains of illnesses that have changed because of evolution then...

Still doesn't have any bearing on my life. There's more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to look at viruses in terms of the evolution question. Either way, the fact that viruses change doesn't give me cause to need to know everything about creation from a scientific or theological standpoint. It's specific. There are scientists responding to that particular problem without themselves having all the answers as to where the Universe came from. Again, our perspective is naturally fixed in the present and therefore is the supreme influence over our understanding of all of the Universe's mysteries.

 

[gluadys]

Science isn't always correct. I know you'll strongly disagree, but this is the point of my thread. I don't need complete scientific answer and I don't need a 100% theological answer either. I just need to know the basics, like God did it, what He made, what order He made it in and stuff like that. That's enough to satisfy me.

No one is disputing that point. I don't even think its important to know the order God in which God made things. THAT God created is the only important issue theological issue. WHAT God created and the chronological order are things we can observe. What is not acceptable either theologically or scientifically is to reject the creation God gave us to observe in favour of imaginative fantasy.

I never got that impression from the Bible bro.

And what makes your impression authoritative? After all, you are using a lens of modern science here to filter the plain statements of scripture. Without that lens, your impression would be the same as those of your ancestors pre-Copernicus.

I'm fine with my faith resting on a basic understanding of Creation and I'm not really interested in what the "church" decrees. The "church" began taking an ugly form from the earliest times, as well.

A basic understanding of creation comes from the church in the first place. A basic understanding of scripture comes from the church in the first place. You didn't develop your understanding of scripture without mentors in the church providing you with guidance of how to read it.

How many of your beliefs about a basic understanding of creation go counter to what you have been taught in Sunday school, youth group, bible class and Sunday sermons?

I don't believe this is actually the case, but even if it was I wouldn't take my cues from organised religion making decrees on subjects I can investigate myself.

But you are also choosing not to investigate it for yourself. You are choosing not to know. And by default you are choosing an interpretation made for you by your teachers in the faith.

Not to me. I believe in dragons returning to circle the earth and a Jesus that appears on a horse carrying a flaming sword. If that's not to your liking, fine...but that's not really something that'll change my mind.

That's fine. Just don't expect that people who understand symbolism need to think the same way.

It's not that I don't know, I don't need to know.

That's fine too. Just don't begrudge people who do need to know. There is no need to think oneself morally superior in one's chosen ignorance. Nor, having chosen not to know, is there any basis for deriding what others have come to know through investigating the facts as you are not prepared to do.

I don't need stuff like evolution or a solid-as-concrete scientific/theological reconciliation with anything and everything to live my life and believe in God.

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned all evolution does (whether true or not) is fuel scientific egos. I don't think it has any bearing on my day to day life or where I came from in the Creationary sense.

Quite right. I have chosen to investigate the facts as best I can, and I have chosen to learn what I can about the world God created. But I still don't need that knowledge to live my life and believe in God. I don't think evolution or any part of science has any bearing on my day to day life and walk with God.

I have no problem with you choosing not to learn science and to be comfortable not knowing if the science is right or wrong. But I do have a problem with using that as a basis for prejudicial judgments about scientists. By your own choice, you don't know enough about evolution to claim that all it does is fuel their egos.

 

[Blessedj01]

And what makes your impression authoritative? After all, you are using a lens of modern science here to filter the plain statements of scripture. Without that lens, your impression would be the same as those of your ancestors pre-Copernicus.

All I'm saying is that I never got the impression that the Bible claimed the world was flat.

A basic understanding of creation comes from the church in the first place. A basic understanding of scripture comes from the church in the first place. You didn't develop your understanding of scripture without mentors in the church providing you with guidance of how to read it.

How many of your beliefs about a basic understanding of creation go counter to what you have been taught in Sunday school, youth group, bible class and Sunday sermons?

Not sure what you're saying. All i'm saying is that I don't base my beliefs on decrees within churches. Otherwise i'd be Catholic. No offense to Catholics intended.

But you are also choosing not to investigate it for yourself. You are choosing not to know. And by default you are choosing an interpretation made for you by your teachers in the faith.

No, i'm not choosing not to know. Admitting that some things are impossible to know with 100% certainty and choosing not to know are totally different.

That's fine. Just don't expect that people who understand symbolism need to think the same way.

I'll say the same to you, but opposite.

That's fine too. Just don't begrudge people who do need to know. There is no need to think oneself morally superior in one's chosen ignorance. Nor, having chosen not to know, is there any basis for deriding what others have come to know through investigating the facts as you are not prepared to do.

Just get back to me when you have all the answers, 'cos until you do you can't tell me that I need to chase after them. That's not being morally superior, it's not even a question of morality.

I have no problem with you choosing not to learn science and to be comfortable not knowing if the science is right or wrong. But I do have a problem with using that as a basis for prejudicial judgments about scientists. By your own choice, you don't know enough about evolution to claim that all it does is fuel their egos.

You're getting more and more carried away bro. I don't disregard ALL science. I just don't trust all science as canonical. I don't disregard it completely, I just don't need to solidly prove some things 100% or speficially tie everything in Biblically.

I'm not making prejudicial "judgements" about scientists, I'm just stating my opinions. I'm sure they have far worse things to say about me. If you can find me one useful, practical reason to seek a 100% scientific understanding of creation (other than for fuelling one's own ego) in the Kingdom of God, then please get back to me.

God already warned Job against that kind of thinking. That's enough for me. I don't want to try to figure out all the work of the Creator and I'm not sure why some human beings (Christian and otherwise) are so locked into trying to do so.

...basically my challenge is this:

Creationists: Get back to me when you can tell me with 100% certainty, exactly what everything in Genesis represents in terms of reconciling it with the physical universe as we know it.

Scientists: Get back to me when you can tell me with 100% certainty, exactly how the physical universe came to be as we know it.

Keep in mind that for 100% certainty on either side of the fence you'll need to be God. Perhaps you should work on that first...or build a time machine so you can go back and see how He did it. Oh and also, would you please find me a great man in the Bible who spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to prove these things? I don't think you'll find him, because before the age of ego...I mean enlightenment, people were much more humble about what they could and couldn't know.

In the meantime, while you're focusing on those questions, I'll ponder more important things like how much time I'm actually spending with Jesus, and what I'm doing to spread the gospel.

 

[Believe the Impossible]

I'm with you, I'm just not sure if we need to know EVERYTHING about creation. I mean, I accept God's account at face value. I'm just saying that some people feel a need to go further than that and have ALL the answers. I'm not saying there isn't a specific area of Bible understanding that covers this, but I still think God leaves room for some mysteries. I find people trying to solve these mysteries on both sides of the fence when perhaps they should be left alone.

I understand your post, even if I agree on a certain level, I also agree that we should stand up for every single Word of God. But, you are correct in that there is a purpose in God leaving a huge gap in what He would reveal to us.

He has to leave some mystery because that leaves room for doubt and as the world proves, there are most definitely doubters. Otherwise we who do choose for Him, would be puppets and not true children to Him. Although He wants everyone to be saved, not everyone will want to be and so death and darkness is the place they will have CHOSEN to be, not the brilliant light of love that shines from the presence of our Lord.

It is a choice and without struggle, evil or a gap for doubt, that choice would not be genuine. If it were possible to see Him and to 'know' everything, then we would have to believe and it would not be a voluntary choice. Adam and Eve just 'knew', I mean God 'walked with them'. It was only after biting the apple did they know BOTH the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, did we then have a choice. So, everyone of us after them chooses for Him or against Him, to obey Him or not; there is no in between and as we draw closer to the Day of the Lord, that line in the sand is drawn. We MUST pick a side!

Matthew 12:30
(NIV)
30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Revelation 3:16
(NIV)
16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

 

[Jase]

Is it necessary that eveything in the Bible be understood in light of so-called science?

If the Bible is going to make claims verifiable by science yes. If the Bible claims a solid metal dome is covering the Earth with windows in it to let water pour down (which it does claim), one need only launch a space shuttle through the atmosphere to prove the Bible wrong on that matter.

Should we continue to believe as the Hebrews did that there is a solid dome sitting on the Earth, despite us flying through that supposed dome? Or shall we accept that the Hebrews had a primitive understanding of how the universe works and had no way to fly through our atmosphere and prove there was no dome up there?

Scientists too have to face it that they weren't there when God created the Universe.

They don't have to have been there. The universe leaves lots and lots of evidence behind of what happened before humans existed.

Anything we think we know, including stuff like how old the earth is, is only based upon our theories and perception and the way we've chosen to look at the so-called facts.

So do you reject the scientific theories that actually work? Do you avoid using antibiotics since they are based on evolutionary theory? Do you avoid washing your hands to clean off germs, despite germs being based on Germ theory? Do you avoid getting on an airplane for fear that the theories of aerodynamics and gravity won't keep you flying through the air?

Why is it that you accept all scientific explanations that you can personally verify and interact with, but reject those that you can't personally verify, when they are all based on the same process? The method used to determine the age of the earth is the same method used to discover microscopic germs that make us sick.