Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think YorktownGal is hitting on at least one important point: There's a lot of vagueness in the notion of "God" here. Are we talking about a young earth creationist who believes the world is 6,000 years old? Are we talking about someone who interprets Genesis literally? Is it someone who thinks every word of the Bible is true, including Psalm 22, which mentions the four corners of earth?
If so, and if that person is right, of course science is deceptive. Science has led us to the well-founded conclusions that the earth is not 6,000 years old, there was never just one man and one woman on earth and the earth is a sphere without four corners.
However, if someone doesn't hold literally to these claims about the natural history of earth that can be found in the Bible, then science isn't deceptive.
Science has been chipping away at natural claims made in the Bible for a long time. You can either say science is wrong and is deceptive, or you can abandon literal interpretations of scripture on these points. The choice is yours, but you can't have both sides.
OP, in your first post in this thread, you stated that you take Genesis as history. Science says that's false. There's a litany of scientific problems with the Genesis account of creation, so you can either abandon your view of Genesis or abandon a faith in science.
I think YorktownGal is hitting on at least one important point: There's a lot of vagueness in the notion of "God" here. Are we talking about a young earth creationist who believes the world is 6,000 years old? Are we talking about someone who interprets Genesis literally? Is it someone who thinks every word of the Bible is true, including Psalm 22, which mentions the four corners of earth?
If so, and if that person is right, of course science is deceptive. Science has led us to the well-founded conclusions that the earth is not 6,000 years old, there was never just one man and one woman on earth and the earth is a sphere without four corners.
However, if someone doesn't hold literally to these claims about the natural history of earth that can be found in the Bible, then science isn't deceptive.
Science has been chipping away at natural claims made in the Bible for a long time. You can either say science is wrong and is deceptive, or you can abandon literal interpretations of scripture on these points. The choice is yours, but you can't have both sides.
OP, in your first post in this thread, you stated that you take Genesis as history. Science says that's false. There's a litany of scientific problems with the Genesis account of creation, so you can either abandon your view of Genesis or abandon a faith in science.
Known science agrees with Scripture.
There is Nothing in Genesis as to how long each creative day was or even if each day was of the same or of differing lengths of time. ALL of the creative days are summed up by the single word 'day ' at Gen. 2:4
So, as today the word 'day' can have shades of meaning. Grandfather's day is more than a 24-hr day.
We watch the NEWS: 'N' is North, 'E' is East, 'W' is West, 'S' is South so NEWS covers all 4 corners of the Earth.
Psalm 22:26 along with Psalm 37:9-11 that humble meek people will inherit the Earth.
Earth would have to be here in order to inherit the Earth as Jesus promised - Matt. 5:5
I found both my science class and the church taught Earth will be destroyed.
However, the Bible teaches 'Earth abides forever' - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalm 104:5
Because all of the past proves true, to me there is No reason to doubt faith in Jesus' words will also come true.
Known science agrees with Scripture.
There is Nothing in Genesis as to how long each creative day was or even if each day was of the same or of differing lengths of time. ALL of the creative days are summed up by the single word 'day ' at Gen. 2:4
So, as today the word 'day' can have shades of meaning. Grandfather's day is more than a 24-hr day.
We watch the NEWS: 'N' is North, 'E' is East, 'W' is West, 'S' is South so NEWS covers all 4 corners of the Earth.
Psalm 22:26 along with Psalm 37:9-11 that humble meek people will inherit the Earth.
Earth would have to be here in order to inherit the Earth as Jesus promised - Matt. 5:5
I found both my science class and the church taught Earth will be destroyed.
However, the Bible teaches 'Earth abides forever' - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalm 104:5
Because all of the past proves true, to me there is No reason to doubt faith in Jesus' words will also come true.
Evolution by natural selection tells us there was never just one man and one woman. It's preposterous to claim that the idea of Adam and Eve being the only two humans on earth isn't in conflict with science.
And no one refers to the four cardinal directions as "corners."
I wasn't saying you had to go deep. I am saying you fail make a logical, coherent argument. Until you do, you will not receive a clear answer to your thread.
Ah, but it is clear and logical. Does observable science agree with Yahweh's nature as written throughout Scripture? If it does not, I argue science is deceptive. (Again particularly when it comes to origin and fate, in my estimation) For those who say it is not deceptive, show me how observable science agree with what is written concerning Yahweh. Here are three points I laid out with science, which are......
1. Death is a natural/ordered process
2. All forms of evolution (At the cosmic level, and biological level) are still ongoing
3. The universe will continue hundreds of trillions of years into the future, until all activity cease. (Current projection by observable science)............
With these three points, I show how they contradict God's nature as presented in Scripture....
1. Death is an enemy of Yahweh. (Jesus said Yahweh is not God of the dead, but of the living)
2. The Sabbath day of rest suggest God completed creation and ceased from it's work. If He used all forms of evolution to make reality as we know it, then these processes should have ceased long ago.
3. A future of hundreds of trillions of years goes against Jesus coming back to any semblance of a humanity who is waiting for Him. We would most likely be long extinct before that time. The Earth itself could be swallowed up and destroyed by our sun once it reaches it's red giant stage....
So these are just a few areas of contention. For those who say science and God are completely compatible, explain to me how those points agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
There are two different creation stories in Genesis. While Genesis one has God creating the universe 'very good', this is not the case in the second creation story in Genesis two where God has to experiment to get things right. In Genesis two God didn't know what would be a good mate for Adam and so created various kinds of animals to see if Adam could find a mate among them. When God saw, for instance, that Adam and a hippopotamus wasn't going to work, he came up with the idea of taking one of Adam's ribs and building a woman for him.
These are stories. They are not historically true. The Bible does NOT give an accurate description of how the universe and life on earth came about.
Blasphemy!!! Nah just kidding. As you know while I don't necessarily agree these are different creation accounts, in the end it is irrelevant of how these stories should be read. What is important is the picture it paints concerning God. Not just about how God created, but how He has dealt with humanity throughout the scriptures themselves. Yahweh didn't just speak to Adam and Eve. He is said to have spoken to a lot of people. He spoke to a whole nation. These interactions are recorded, and we as believers agree these writings are inspired. So, just how wrong were the writers concerning God's nature? From what I can tell in observable science, they would have been awfully wrong about way more than just the origins of creation.
Going back to point 2 I listed above, Scripture makes it plan that God finished His creative work at the end of each creation account. So even if the people were completely making things up in their mind about how God created, or saying nothing at all about how God created, is it safe to say God did finish His work at some point? That is what the Sabbath day was all about. I guess you could argue the Sabbath day or even the mention of God resting at all is not present in Genesis 2. Yet it still stands the Sabbath day was pretty prevalent to Scripture, and is of course part of the Law. So all creative processes should have ceased, but this is not the case according to observable science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Actually, we have no idea how extensive life may be in the universe. The universe is thought to be, due to various measuring methods, at least 250 times larger than the observable universe and perhaps much larger than that. We can see 13.8 billion light years in every direction which means that our observable universe is a sphere that APPEARS to be almost 28 billion light years in diameter. However, due to the fact that the universe is expanding, the observable universe is actually larger than that figure. That's the observable universe. But the universe is thought to be at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, or at least 7 trillion light years across. Details are given in the article below.
We have only searched for life in a very small part of the OBSERVABLE universe and can say nothing about the universe beyond the part of it that we can see.
Since the building blocks of life are spread though out the universe by exploding stars - supernovas, life may exist in many places throughout the universe.
Now, since evolution is an observable fact, then very obviously this contradicts the creation stories in the Bible. If God did create the universe though a big bang, and did use evolution to bring about the variety of life on earth, then despite what the Bible says, the big bang and evolution both say something about how God operates in realty.
We could make the argument the universe could be relatively full of life, and we just don't see it due to it's size. Still its true from what we do see, just about everything could end life or stop life from developing. Science tells us if our planet didn't have the magnetic field it does, the rays of the sun would have toasted us. Space is essentially a chaotic wilderness to life as we know it.
If this is how God operates in reality, then the Bible is wrong about almost all things as it pertains to God's nature. It could be wrong about deeper theological issues, such as the sin/disobedience problem. Is this not going back to the serpent's words of "Did God really say"? This is my argument. Again for those who see no problem here, what is your argument that sees compatibility of observable science and Scripture as a whole? What were the writers of the Bible correct about?
I think YorktownGal is hitting on at least one important point: There's a lot of vagueness in the notion of "God" here. Are we talking about a young earth creationist who believes the world is 6,000 years old? Are we talking about someone who interprets Genesis literally? Is it someone who thinks every word of the Bible is true, including Psalm 22, which mentions the four corners of earth?
If so, and if that person is right, of course science is deceptive. Science has led us to the well-founded conclusions that the earth is not 6,000 years old, there was never just one man and one woman on earth and the earth is a sphere without four corners.
However, if someone doesn't hold literally to these claims about the natural history of earth that can be found in the Bible, then science isn't deceptive.
Science has been chipping away at natural claims made in the Bible for a long time. You can either say science is wrong and is deceptive, or you can abandon literal interpretations of scripture on these points. The choice is yours, but you can't have both sides.
OP, in your first post in this thread, you stated that you take Genesis as history. Science says that's false. There's a litany of scientific problems with the Genesis account of creation, so you can either abandon your view of Genesis or abandon a faith in science.
Perhaps I understand the disconnect here. You believe observable science is only speaking against a literal Genesis. I'm arguing observable science is speaking against God's nature as a whole.
Perhaps I understand the disconnect here. You believe observable science is only speaking against a literal Genesis. I'm arguing observable science is speaking against God's nature as a whole.
If you don't believe in a literal Genesis, you aren't stuck to the idea that god directly created every species. And I'm not sure how you gathered that the Bible claims death isn't a natural process.
And science doesn't claim that earth will be here trillions of years from now.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; Yesterday at 11:30 AM..
Perhaps I understand the disconnect here. You believe observable science is only speaking against a literal Genesis. I'm arguing observable science is speaking against God's nature as a whole.
Actually, observable science is telling us something about the true nature of God. It is the Bible which is not providing us with an accurate picture of God. The Bible by the way is not infallible or inerrant, and is in fact multivocal. That is, the various biblical writers did not always agree with each other about God.
Blasphemy!!! Nah just kidding. As you know while I don't necessarily agree these are different creation accounts, in the end it is irrelevant of how these stories should be read. What is important is the picture it paints concerning God. Not just about how God created, but how He has dealt with humanity throughout the scriptures themselves. Yahweh didn't just speak to Adam and Eve. He is said to have spoken to a lot of people. He spoke to a whole nation. These interactions are recorded, and we as believers agree these writings are inspired. So, just how wrong were the writers concerning God's nature? From what I can tell in observable science, they would have been awfully wrong about way more than just the origins of creation.
What does 'inspired' even mean? Since the Bible does NOT give us the correct view of creation then obviously the biblical writers were wrong about how creation came to be. If how the universe came to be is relevant to the nature of God then the biblical writers were wrong about the nature of God in that respect. We KNOW that the creation stories are not giving us an accurate description of creation.
Quote:
Going back to point 2 I listed above, Scripture makes it plan that God finished His creative work at the end of each creation account. So even if the people were completely making things up in their mind about how God created, or saying nothing at all about how God created, is it safe to say God did finish His work at some point? That is what the Sabbath day was all about. I guess you could argue the Sabbath day or even the mention of God resting at all is not present in Genesis 2. Yet it still stands the Sabbath day was pretty prevalent to Scripture, and is of course part of the Law. So all creative processes should have ceased, but this is not the case according to observable science.
Since we can see that stars and even planets are still forming, then 'creation' is an ongoing process.
Quote:
We could make the argument the universe could be relatively full of life, and we just don't see it due to it's size. Still its true from what we do see, just about everything could end life or stop life from developing. Science tells us if our planet didn't have the magnetic field it does, the rays of the sun would have toasted us. Space is essentially a chaotic wilderness to life as we know it.
And this is basically true. This is reality, so what does that tell YOU about God?
Quote:
If this is how God operates in reality, then the Bible is wrong about almost all things as it pertains to God's nature. It could be wrong about deeper theological issues, such as the sin/disobedience problem. Is this not going back to the serpent's words of "Did God really say"? This is my argument. Again for those who see no problem here, what is your argument that sees compatibility of observable science and Scripture as a whole? What were the writers of the Bible correct about?
No. You assume that if the Bible is wrong about how God went about creating, then the Bible is also wrong about God's character. God using the big bang and evolution does not say anything about God's love for instance.
Look! We can see from our observations that the biblical stories about creation, and about the biblical flood simply are not true. You won't accept that because you think those stories have to be understood as being literal accounts that actually happened and so you are compelled to dismiss what we know to be true from our scientific observations.
Perhaps you should consider changing your views about the Bible.
Ah, but it is clear and logical. Does observable science agree with Yahweh's nature as written throughout Scripture? If it does not, I argue science is deceptive. (Again particularly when it comes to origin and fate, in my estimation) For those who say it is not deceptive, show me how observable science agree with what is written concerning Yahweh. Here are three points I laid out with science, which are......
1. Death is a natural/ordered process
2. All forms of evolution (At the cosmic level, and biological level) are still ongoing
3. The universe will continue hundreds of trillions of years into the future, until all activity cease. (Current projection by observable science)............
With these three points, I show how they contradict God's nature as presented in Scripture....
1. Death is an enemy of Yahweh. (Jesus said Yahweh is not God of the dead, but of the living)
2. The Sabbath day of rest suggest God completed creation and ceased from its work. If He used all forms of evolution to make reality as we know it, then these processes should have ceased long ago.
3. A future of hundreds of trillions of years goes against Jesus coming back to any semblance of a humanity who is waiting for Him. We would most likely be long extinct before that time. The Earth itself could be swallowed up and destroyed by our sun once it reaches its red giant stage....
So these are just a few areas of contention. For those who say science and God are completely compatible, explain to me how those points agree.
Logic is your friend.
1. Mark 12:17 "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God." Humans are of the physical world. God and our souls are of the spiritual realm and not of the physical world.
Therefore, Death is natural to animals, trees, and human bodies. Death is unnatural to God and our souls.
2. Mark 2:27 "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." The phrase is a reminder that the Sabbath day is meant to be a blessing, not a burden.
If possible, man should have a sabbath. All other living life forms such as animals, trees and insects don't have a sabbath. If your cells were required to have a sabbath, likewise our bodies could not do its work of digesting food or healing cuts on a sabbath.
Therefore, there is no contradiction with evolution ongoing for planets, earth, our biology and the biology of all life forms with the sabbath.
3. Matthew 24:35. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man."
Well?
Last edited by YorktownGal; Yesterday at 03:19 PM..
If you don't believe in a literal Genesis, you aren't stuck to the idea that god directly created every species. And I'm not sure how you gathered that the Bible claims death isn't a natural process.
And science doesn't claim that earth will be here trillions of years from now.
According to the Bible, death isn't natural. It is the result of our fallen nature. Scripture records the soul that sins will surely die, and we are told the wages of sin is death. Sin is not just an action humans do, but we are born being off the mark. This is in direct opposition to science. The geologic record of fossils show death has always been apart of life. Our hominid ancestors all died as well. This would indicate the fallen nature is not really a thing at all. According to what we see, we are operating as God created us. We are in mint condition!
You may have misread something I wrote, science projects the universe to be around hundreds of trillions of years or more. This would contradict Jesus returning to us. Though some may argue Jesus' soon return was already inaccurate, because the apostles believed Jesus was returning in their day. I would say all believers should have that expectation. Perhaps even Jesus may have been hoping to return in the apostles day, but Jesus Himself admitted He didn't know when He was coming back. So the apostles ultimately didn't know either. However with that said, if Jesus isn't coming back when humanity is around, then who and what is He returning to?
And scientists do believe the earth will either be destroyed 5 billion years from now when the sun turns giant red, or if the planet escapes that fate, it will be a frozen wasteland. If all that happens as perceived by science, then everything written about Jesus is null and void. How can these two things be reconciled?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Actually, observable science is telling us something about the true nature of God. It is the Bible which is not providing us with an accurate picture of God. The Bible by the way is not infallible or inerrant, and is in fact multivocal. That is, the various biblical writers did not always agree with each other about God.
There is a connecting thread throughout the Bible. Man messes up, and God comes in to save the day. We see it in Genesis and God's interactions with mankind, we see it in all the stories with Israel, all leading up to the ultimate salvation in Jesus. If observable science is true, then humanity never "messed" up. Humanity is just another creature. And nothing is "wrong" about the physical world, which ultimately means there is nothing to be saved from. What we see is ultimately how God planned it, and whatever happens afterward is up in the air. Maybe nothing happens afterward because all this stuff about the spirit/soul, would also be from the opinion of the writers of Scripture and ancient peoples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
What does 'inspired' even mean? Since the Bible does NOT give us the correct view of creation then obviously the biblical writers were wrong about how creation came to be. If how the universe came to be is relevant to the nature of God then the biblical writers were wrong about the nature of God in that respect. We KNOW that the creation stories are not giving us an accurate description of creation.
Since we can see that stars and even planets are still forming, then 'creation' is an ongoing process.
I just want you to realize if they are wrong about God's nature in respect to creation, they could be and most likely wrong about everything concerning God period. What does inspired mean? I would say it means God influenced men from the inside. That He put thoughts into their heads, or words into their mouths. If the inspired words are wrong, that would make the writers of Scripture false representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
And this is basically true. This is reality, so what does that tell YOU about God?
This would tell me (if I accepted observable science as true wholesale) at the very least the Bible is completely wrong about what it says of God. That would be the most conclusive point. Other than that would be anyone's guess. I would probably be like the preacher in Ecclessiates.....
“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “all is vanity!”
Which by the way wouldn't be too far off because as I mentioned concerning the heat death of the universe as projected by science, all will come to nothing. God wasted His time by making us if observable science is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
No. You assume that if the Bible is wrong about how God went about creating, then the Bible is also wrong about God's character. God using the big bang and evolution does not say anything about God's love for instance.
Look! We can see from our observations that the biblical stories about creation, and about the biblical flood simply are not true. You won't accept that because you think those stories have to be understood as being literal accounts that actually happened and so you are compelled to dismiss what we know to be true from our scientific observations.
Perhaps you should consider changing your views about the Bible.
In evolution, we are not even the final product. Every living thing is transitional. Perhaps God will love the final product (if there is a final product), and we are just the ends to His means. So I really want to emphasize this speaks more to just a literal account of Genesis 1 or 2, or both fudged together. I contend observable science wrecks all of Scripture point blank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
Logic is your friend.
1. Mark 12:17 "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God." Humans are of the physical world. God and our souls are of the spiritual realm and not of the physical world.
Therefore, Death is natural to animals, trees, and human bodies. Death is unnatural to God and our souls.
2. Mark 2:27 "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." The phrase is a reminder that the Sabbath day is meant to be a blessing, not a burden.
If possible, man should have a sabbath. All other living life forms such as animals, trees and insects don't have a sabbath. If your cells were required to have a sabbath, likewise our bodies could not do its work of digesting food or healing cuts on a sabbath.
Therefore, there is no contradiction with evolution ongoing for planets, earth, our biology and the biology of all life forms with the sabbath.
3. Matthew 24:35. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man."
Well?
1. I would argue because God created us by His power, then the physical realm and the spiritual are connected. Even Jesus was physically resurrected. I also believe if Jesus never went to the cross, He would still be walking around on the Earth today. In other words, He would never die, because death is the result of sin. For instance, do you believe Jesus was ever sick in His 33 years on this Earth? Can we imagine Jesus preaching to a crowd with a runny nose?
Of course with that said, we are told He got hungry. Well, perhaps hunger was speaking to a desire of Him wanting something to eat, not that He would have died if He didn't eat. We are told He became tired and slept. If He didn't sleep, would He have wasted away due to exhaustion? (In spite of not sinning) Here's what I would say, because Jesus was completely obdient, He was deserving of life forevermore. With God being our source, God would have kept Jesus alive forever on this Earth if not for going to the cross. All of that flies in the face of science. Jesus' very birth was showing the connection between spiritual and physical.
2. The Sabbath indicates God Himself rested from His work, and Genesis 1 tells us He actually completed creation. My argument is if life is still branching out, (to the point of the creation of entirely new species) and planets and stars are still forming, then God never actually rested from His creative works. Its this statement the Bible would get wrong about God.
3. What will Jesus come back to if humanity is extinct before then? If this thing goes the way observable science projects, there won't be an earth to come back to. We are also told in Revelation and elsewhere that God is going to make a new heavens and new earth. If the Heat Death projection of science is correct, there will be nothing left to refine by fire. Essentially God would have to completely start a fresh creation from scratch. Science just paints a different picture all around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nah just kidding. As you know while I don't necessarily agree these are different creation accounts, in the end it is irrelevant of how these stories should be read. What is important is the picture it paints concerning God. Not just about how God created, but how He has dealt with humanity throughout the scriptures themselves. Yahweh didn't just speak to Adam and Eve. He is said to have spoken to a lot of people. He spoke to a whole nation. These interactions are recorded, and we as believers agree these writings are inspired. So, just how wrong were the writers concerning God's nature? From what I can tell in observable science, they would have been awfully wrong about way more than just the origins of creation.
However with that said, if Jesus isn't coming back when humanity is around, then who and what is He returning to?