Whatever happened to just not knowing?

[gluadys]

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

And I'm saying that of course you didn't because you live in the 21st century not the 6th century. Had you lived in the 6th century, you might have thought the Bible said the world was flat. There were Christian scholars at the time denouncing the pagan (i.e. Greek) philosophy which claimed the earth is a sphere. And had you lived a few hundred years earlier than that, it would have been obvious to you and everyone you knew that the world was flat and that the scriptures affirmed this.

We all bring our own social-historical lenses to scripture and it is important to realize that personal impressions include these lenses.

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.

And all I am saying is that you don't live in a sealed cave. You may not believe what the Catholic church teaches, but you do believe what your church teaches--what you have been taught ever since you began attending church--whether that was a few months ago or since you were a toddler. So you do base your beliefs on the views of some church. Doesn't matter that it's not the Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran or whatever.

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.

It's not just some things. Nothing concrete can be known with 100% certainty. The only things that are certain are mathematical relationships--but they are abstract--not things in themselves.

OTOH, we can be quite certain that some propositions are definitely false.

What you are really saying is that you still want to believe some things are true even though they have been proven false. Can we be certain the universe is 13.7 billion years old? No, it might be 13.75 billion years old.
Can we be certain that the universe is not just a few thousand years old? Absolutely.

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 never claimed you need to chase after the answers. And nobody has, or will have, all the answers. But not having all the answers doesn't mean we have no answers. And since you are not chasing the answers, you have no call to say those who have found answers are wrong. You want to believe they are wrong. That's your privilege. You want to show they are wrong--you need to chase down some better answers.

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.

Do you think scientists treat science as canonical? Shows how little you know about science. I agree, we don't need to specifically tie everything in Biblically.

I'm not making prejudicial "judgements" about scientists, I'm just stating my opinions.

Ok. Your prejudicial opinions then.

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.

Sure, there is a useful practical reason to seek scientific understanding of creation: with better understanding, we are more and more amazed by what God has done and more delighted in and appreciative of God's work. The deeper our knowledge of creation, the deeper and more heartfelt our praise and adoration of the Creator.

But I don't know of any scientists who would claim we have or are likely to get 100% understanding. Every new understanding also leads us into deeper questions. To know the whole creation 100% would require an equivalent knowledge of God himself and even in the Kingdom of God, that will still be a mystery no created being will ever attain.

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.

Did not Jesus tell us to love God with (inter alia) "all your mind"? Trying to understand the work of the Creator is one way we obey Christ in this regard.

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.

Won't happen because science doesn't give us that sort of knowledge. But on some things it does give us 99.999% certainty. Shall we turn our back on what is practically certain just because it doesn't meet an unobtainable philosophical absolute?

Shall we, on the basis of being 0.0001% away from absolute certainty claim that what is definitely false could still be true?

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.

That's a good idea. It would help to ditch false stereotypes of those who do choose to focus on scientific matters as well.

 

[Jase]

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.

Science is not always correct. But neither is theology or one's interpretation of the Bible. The difference is science is self-correction. Biblical interpretation is not. And scientists are generally more honest about their work than those who misinterpret the Bible and will cling to those interpretations regardless of how wrong they are.

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

Scientists can tell us Genesis is not literal. Most theologians have rejected it being literal for centuries. Can scientists currently tell us what originated before the creation of the universe? No. Can it tell us that there was no Global flood 4000 years ago? Yes.

I never got that impression from the Bible bro.

It's there. Why do you think the Catholic Church opposed Heliocentrism for so long? Look up the Galileo controversy.

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

If it's wrong, why would you want to inaccurately believe it's right?

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.

Well, you rely on them everyday of your life. So you're rejecting things you personally take advantage of. That doesn't bother you? And maybe you don't need to know. Lots of us are intelligent, skeptical, inquisitive people who like to learn about the universe and rule out false beliefs. God gave us a brain for a reason. Do you suggest we not use it for fear of what it might lead to?

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.

Every time you go to the doctor, evolutionary theory is impacting your life. Every time you wash your hands, Germ theory is affecting your life. The very fact that you are standing on the Earth is based on the Theory of Gravity.

 

[Jase]

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.

Yes it does, because it's been proven wrong. A global flood for example is 100% impossible unless God completely fabricated millions of pieces of evidence all over the earth. We know the universe cannot be 6000 years old, unless God faked all the stellar objects in the universe that exist farther than 6000 light years away.

 

[Papias]

Blessed01 wrote:

...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.

But why do you treat some areas of science so differently than others? Why do you not say:

...basically my challenge is this:

Demon diseasists: Get back to me when you can tell me with 100% certainty, exactly the names of which demons that cause each type of disease.

Scientists: Get back to me when you can tell me with 100% certainty, exactly how each atom of each germ causes the diseases we see.

Until someone does either of those, I will refuse to believe that diseases are cause by germs, as science says, or caused by demons, as my Bible says.

Or do you claim to "not know" regarding germs too?

Many Christians seem to be unaware of the fact that evolution is supported by at least as much or more evidence than germ theory is, and that in both cases a literal reading of the bible doesn't support modern ideas of disease or evolution.

In both cases, it seems to me that it honors God's word much more to allow it to be interpreted in a way that matches with God's other testimony to us, His creation itself.

I did say that it isn't a salvation issue (neither is the acceptance of germ theory), and though creationism is the denial of God's testimony through his creation, I still stand by the fact that it isn't a salvation issue.

Papias

 

[miamited]

hi blessed1,

You responed: 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.

I'm to assume then that you don't accept my argument regarding the 'evening and the morning'? Let me encourage you to read the account, beginning first with a sincere prayer that He would give you understanding of is word, and asking yourself, "Hmmm, I wonder why God did cause the Holy Spirit to write it that way?" God could have just written, 'and there was the first day, and there was the second day, etc, but He didn't. I'm one, reading the way in which Jesus spoke with, as I understand it, every word being given to him to say by the Father. Then I couple that with the understanding that the Scriptures were given to us not as just some bedtime reading, but for the specific purpose that we might know Him and He doesn't waste words or make mistakes. So, when I come against issues such as this where there is disagreement among people who appear to know the Scriptures, that it's time for me to get serious and pray diligently for the wisdom and understanding that is the Holy Spirit's job for us.

Just an encouragement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi again blessed1,

Let me also write again to you that our effort here is not to interpret God by our feelings, our knowledge or our understanding. Our effort is to interpret God by His feelings, His knowledge and His understanding. So, as I asked in the first reponse to you, I'd like you to just consider, for uh, fun, if you will. If you were God - take a minute and clear your mind and in your human way, put yourself in God's place for just a moment - and you did mean to reveal to mankind in the opening words of your written revelation to mankind exactly when you created all things, and some here upon the earth - remember you're God and you're looking over the lot of mankind upon the earth that you created - are walking around, saying that they are your people, but not trusting and believing fully what you have said -- do you consider them faithful?

Now, I hope that you will, at the very least, humor me and really sincerely try this exercise and ask yourself the question I have put to you as God. You see, friend, when we look over all of Israel, we find the same attitude that is being displayed here. God clearly, clearly revealed to them when the Messiah would come (Daniel 9), how he would live (several passages), how he would die (also several passages) and yet God's people, those who walked around proclaiming to anyone who would listen that they were the chosen people of God, didn't understand. Didn't believe all that God had revealed to them. If we survey all the punishments and suffering that came to them because of this simple attitude, would you be inclined to say that God saw them as faithful?

Here we have a much similar issue. As I understand the Scriptures, God has made it plain. He counted off each day and declared it to be an evening and a morning. He said that He, yes He, formed and created and breathed into a lump of dirt the breath of the first man and then specifically counted out the years of the descendents clearly, all the way to Abraham. But we, just as the issue with Israel and the clear explanations God gave of the Messiah don't want to believe it. We aren't willing to just say, "Listen, this is what God said and in any issue that pits what God has said over what man says, I'm going with God." Friend, maybe you don't see it, but from where I see this issue. Our refusal to just accept what God said and case closed isn't a whole lot different than Israel believing and just accepting what God has said about the Messiah - case closed.

Do you know that Jesus, when he began his ministry, stood in front of a gathering of Jews and read the very account of Isaiah that foretold what he would do and clearly said to them that this prophecy from Isaiah was being fulfilled right now in front of them, and then went out and did those very things, and yet when it came time to crown him as their king, according to Daniel chapter 9 they refused him.

He came to his own and his own did not receive him. All I'm asking is that you be very, very careful and try to consider the things of God, from God's perspective. You may ultimately find that, yes, it was very important to God that we fully trust and believe in all that He told us.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

for everyone else,

Let's try something for fun. Read this passage and explain the natural scientific explanation for it.

Isaiah answered, "This is the LORD's signhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/20.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 to you that the LORD will do what he has promised: Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps?" "It is a simplehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/20.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 matter for the shadow to go forward ten steps," said Hezekiah. "Rather, have it go back ten steps." Then the prophet Isaiah called upon the LORD, and the LORD made the shadow go backhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/2-kings/20.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.

How was that done?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Believe the Impossible]

Here is the problem:

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.

God did find knowledge of His creation as important and speaks of them truthfully, as proved by science. Here a couple of things men could only guess at, but the Bible speaks of clearly.

Isaiah 40:22
(NIV)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Job 26:7
(NIV)

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

 

[Jase]

God did find knowledge of His creation as important and speaks of them truthfully, as proved by science. Here a couple of things men could only guess at, but the Bible speaks of clearly.

A circle is a flat 2 dimensional disk, not an oblate spheroid. This is further proven by the Hebrew word, and the fact that a Tent cannot fit over a sphere.

A literal reading of Bible gives us this:

Ancient Hebrew cosmology | NCSE

 

[Greg1234]

microscopic germs that make us sick.

Louis Pasteur Vs Antoine Béchamp and The Germ Theory of Disease Causation - 1 - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

 

[Greg1234]

They seem to think that if a literal interpretation of scripture is not validated by science,

Could you help me find the "scientific theory" to interpret this plz-


"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”'

Thanks .

And just to clarify, this is Y2K right?

 

[Greg1234]

It's there. Why do you think the Catholic Church opposed Heliocentrism for so long? Look up the Galileo controversy.

Hm The Galileo Affair: History or Heroic Hagiography? - Answers in Genesis

‘Not in fear of those above him in the Church—as is often wrongly stated—but because he was afraid to be “laughed at and to be hissed off the stage”—as he formulated it himself—by the university professor, did he refuse to publish his work “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” for more than 38 years. Only after several Church officials, especially Pope Clemens VII had requested it, did Copernicus finally decide to publish his work.’28​

Seems like the literal, biblical reading of the earth as dry land was replaced with a more "scientific" rendering of an earth as a planet, the prevailing scientific paradigm of the day (geocentricism) was integrated with the bible, and those within the church who upheld the mainstream doctrine of geocentricism denounced alternatives. Very interesting, Watson.

 

[gluadys]

Could you help me find the "scientific theory" to interpret this plz-


"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”'

Thanks .

Teachers' Guide - Seeds And Germination - Tomatosphere

And just to clarify, this is Y2K right?

 

[Prayer Circle]

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."

Oh, I likey you!

I could talk the ears off corn to make my point, when I'm in that mood, and you put things simply, beautifully and very very well.

Humans seem to have this predisposition that comes with being convinced we're the higher animal.
We have to have an answer for everything we believe we have dominion over, simply because we think it's true.

Why am I here?
Goddidit.

It's why every faith on earth is just that. Faith. By definition.

And the fact is, some of us shall live all our life believing for a fact our faith is truth. And it is. For us.

And then we die.
And all that doesn't mean anything anymore.

Who's right? When we get to the other side.

Who knows.

 

[Greg1234]

Humans seem to have this predisposition that comes with being convinced we're the higher animal.
We have to have an answer for everything we believe we have dominion over, simply because we think it's true.

And so it is written. Outside of Darwinism we tend to regard the bible higher than "human disposition."

Why am I here?
Goddidit.

Hm, I thought life was too short for Goddidit and computers don't run on angel dust.

It's why every faith on earth is just that. Faith. By definition.

And the fact is, some of us shall live all our life believing for a fact our faith is truth. And it is. For us.

To add, some will have faith that the Colosseum was intelligently designed, some will believe they were built by the earth.

And then we die.
And all that doesn't mean anything anymore.

Who's right? When we get to the other side.

Who knows.

Well it matters that you know where you came from, which will tell you what you are, which will then reveal your duties, which will then give you the information you seek. And where you came from and what you are will tell you where you return.

 

[Greg1234]

Teachers' Guide - Seeds And Germination - Tomatosphere

Well yes, the literal rendering is germination and we know that you guys are against the literal. We also know that the force which builds the physical plant is the plant within (of the plant kind), and not the force that is able to make snowflakes. However, interpretation is what we're talking about, k?

Y2K: The good, the bad and the crazy - Computerworld

 

[artybloke]

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.

Unfortunately, it does. Every single piece of physical evidence is again a literal interpretation of Genesis as being anywhere near the truth.

Your glorification of ignorance is killing the church.

 

[gluadys]

Well yes, the literal rendering is germination and we know that you guys are against the literal. We also know that the force which builds the physical plant is the plant within (of the plant kind), and not the force that is able to make snowflakes. However, interpretation is what we're talking about, k?

Well, Jesus provided the interpretation and it was allegorical,not literal. I expect that is why even literalists don't interpret this parable literally.


Still don't know what the point of the Y2K comment is.

 

[Greg1234]

Well, Jesus provided the interpretation

But I was wondering, which "scientific theory" did he use?

Still don't know what the point of the Y2K comment is.

So Revelation should not be interpreted with the near cataclysmic events of the Y2K problem?

 

[Jase]

Hm The Galileo Affair: History or Heroic Hagiography? - Answers in Genesis

‘Not in fear of those above him in the Church—as is often wrongly stated—but because he was afraid to be “laughed at and to be hissed off the stage”—as he formulated it himself—by the university professor, did he refuse to publish his work “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” for more than 38 years. Only after several Church officials, especially Pope Clemens VII had requested it, did Copernicus finally decide to publish his work.’28​

Seems like the literal, biblical reading of the earth as dry land was replaced with a more "scientific" rendering of an earth as a planet, the prevailing scientific paradigm of the day (geocentricism) was integrated with the bible, and those within the church who upheld the mainstream doctrine of geocentricism denounced alternatives. Very interesting, Watson.

Sorry Answers in Genesis is not a valid resource. Try again.