How serious are we about science?

[Studyin'2Show]

There are many different dimensions to God's word, so they will be taught in many different ways. Contrary to popular belief, something having some allegorical meaning does not take away from it's historical truth.

God Bless!

[Teke]

Here's the difference . . . Paul is stating that the symbolism is the result of those who walk by faith as opposed to those who walk by the flesh. The flesh leads to bondage, but faith leads to freedom. Paul is using a factual event of history to give a symbolic message. He's not saying that the past account of Abraham and Sarah is allegorical, but rather the message from it is. Those who would like to agree with the science of man today are trying to say that the events depicted in Genesis one and two didn't really happen, but are simply an allegorical account that we are to take away symbolic meaning from. This is incorrect, and Paul, along with many others, would view it as incorrect as well.

Are you saying historical facts make up your faith?? If so, then as much as you believe the bible is facts, historically or scientifically, is your reward, as Jesus would say.
I don't think you thought about what I posted.
Did Jesus not command us to look beyond the veil (the material), to a deeper meaning and truth?

[Teke]

There are many different dimensions to God's word, so they will be taught in many different ways. Contrary to popular belief, something having some allegorical meaning does not take away from it's historical truth.

God Bless!

Then the same would apply scientifically as well. As I stated previously, science can only prove God, not disprove Him.

[Whispering Grace]

If the Bible said the sky was green, would you accept that or would or assume somehow your interpretation of the Bible was wrong?

I would wake up every day and thank God for His beautiful green sky.

You are attempting to naturalize a supernatural God. The Bible says the wisdom of man is foolisness to God. I assume God knows far better what color the sky is than fallible, imperfect men do.

[VerticalReality]

Are you saying historical facts make up your faith??

Perhaps you quoted the wrong statement because I didn't see that anywhere in my response.

[ThinkingFaith]

I would wake up every day and thank God for His beautiful green sky.

You are attempting to naturalize a supernatural God. The Bible says the wisdom of man is foolisness to God. I assume God knows far better what color the sky is than fallible, imperfect men do.

And that's why people call Christians delusional. When we claim to see things that aren't there, deny obvious reality we are under a delusion.

So to get back to the point of this thread--it seems many here do not take science seriously but are willing to believe anything a possibly flawed interpretation of scripture presents to them, no matter how many observations counter it.

[chal]

And that's why people call Christians delusional. When we claim to see things that aren't there, deny obvious reality we are under a delusion.

So to get back to the point of this thread--it seems many here do not take science seriously but are willing to believe anything a possibly flawed interpretation of scripture presents to them, no matter how many observations counter it.

chal > Who is claiming to see things that "aren't there?"

Just because science can't detect something, doesn't make it not there. There was a time when science couldn't detect molecules. Does that mean that they are not there? Or that they were not there until they could be detected by scientific method?

Why do you think that scripture must line up to science instead of vice versa? Why isn't it just as likely that any science which contradicts the obvious meaning of scripture is a flawed interpretation of science?

It seems to me that you don't take scripture or science seriously.

Your "obvious reality," is lacking. It either can't stand up to the light of scripture, or it won't because you refuse to look at it from that perspective.

[VerticalReality]

And that's why people call Christians delusional. When we claim to see things that aren't there, deny obvious reality we are under a delusion.

So to get back to the point of this thread--it seems many here do not take science seriously but are willing to believe anything a possibly flawed interpretation of scripture presents to them, no matter how many observations counter it.

I disagree. I see it as you allowing mankind to tell you what reality is rather than God. If the Word of God says He created everything in six days, well then that's what He did, and that's what I'm going to believe regardless of what mankind's fallible methods suggest.

[ThinkingFaith]

chal > Who is claiming to see things that "aren't there?"

Just because science can't detect something, doesn't make it not there. There was a time when science couldn't detect molecules. Does that mean that they are not there? Or that they were not there until they could be detected by scientific method?

Why do you think that scripture must line up to science instead of vice versa? Why isn't it just as likely that any science which contradicts the obvious meaning of scripture is a flawed interpretation of science?

It seems to me that you don't take scripture or science seriously.

Your "obvious reality," is lacking. It either can't stand up to the light of scripture, or it won't because you refuse to look at it from that perspective.

WG was saying no matter what his/her own eyes tell him/her, he/she would insist the sky was green if her interpretation of the Bible says it is green.

By the same token, when you interpret the Bible to teach a literal 6-day creation 6,000 or so years ago, you close your mind to any other possibility. If there was a literal 6-day creation 6,000 years ago, then the creation lies to us because it is observably older--far older--than that interpretation allows.

But what if the Genesis account was allegorical. Then what we observe in the creation meets perfectly with what we see in scripture.

[Studyin'2Show]

Then the same would apply scientifically as well. As I stated previously, science can only prove God, not disprove Him.

I agree completely, which is my point. I believe the Bible spiritually and historically. I believe Adam and Eve are real historical figures and I don't think that takes anything away from the deeper meaning in the account. I believe Noah is a real historical person, but that takes nothing away from the underlying fact that sin brings judgment.

WG was saying no matter what his/her own eyes tell him/her, he/she would insist the sky was green if her interpretation of the Bible says it is green.

By the same token, when you interpret the Bible to teach a literal 6-day creation 6,000 or so years ago, you close your mind to any other possibility. If there was a literal 6-day creation 6,000 years ago, then the creation lies to us because it is observably older--far older--than that interpretation allows.

But what if the Genesis account was allegorical. Then what we observe in the creation meets perfectly with what we see in scripture.

I believe the point was that if God's word says it is green; we must be the ones that have the color names wrong. We are fallible; God is not. It really comes down to that.

As to creation, I believe the reverse is also true. Once you have it in your mind that creation could not have been in 6 days and that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, you must close your mind to what the word of God actually says. It says what it says. It is quite clear. But once you have discounted God's literal word as impossible, you must change what the words actually say to mean something else. If someone had seen Adam on the day he was created, they would think he was much, much older than one day. Would that, in your opinion, mean that God was trying to trick them, or that He created a mature man. In the same way, I believe He created a mature creation which is in no way attempting to lie about anything.

God Bless!

[punk]

Hmm, so if the Bible said the sky was "green" we would conclude we had the color names wrong.

Why doesn't the same logic work in Genesis so that when the Bible says the world was created in 6 "days", we should conclude we have the meaning of the word "day" wrong?

[ThinkingFaith]

As to creation, I believe the reverse is also true. Once you have it in your mind that creation could not have been in 6 days and that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, you must close your mind to what the word of God actually says.

Or you wonder if you are missing something or adding something to the Bible. I think Punk makes that point well above.

If someone had seen Adam on the day he was created, they would think he was much, much older than one day.

Where in the Bible does it teach Adam was created full grown? And if you are going to assume such things without any Biblical backup, what else is it possible you are assuming?

For example is there any scripture that tells you King Herod was human? I don't believe so. Jesus tells us he is a fox. Most people--if not all--understand that Jesus is using a metaphor. Isn't it possible a talking snake could be a metaphor as well? We are told Satan is an angel other places in scripture. Why would we assume then he started out as a talking snake?

[Whispering Grace]

Hmm, so if the Bible said the sky was "green" we would conclude we had the color names wrong.

Why doesn't the same logic work in Genesis so that when the Bible says the world was created in 6 "days", we should conclude we have the meaning of the word "day" wrong?

I'm not getting the comparison.

If modern science said that the sky is blue and God's Word said it is green, I'd believe God's Word.

If modern science says the earth is billions of years old and God's Word says it is 6000-ish and that He created it in 6 days, I'd believe God's Word (which I do).

[Studyin'2Show]

Or you wonder if you are missing something or adding something to the Bible. I think Punk makes that point well above.

Where in the Bible does it teach Adam was created full grown? And if you are going to assume such things without any Biblical backup, what else is it possible you are assuming?

For example is there any scripture that tells you King Herod was human? I don't believe so. Jesus tells us he is a fox. Most people--if not all--understand that Jesus is using a metaphor. Isn't it possible a talking snake could be a metaphor as well? We are told Satan is an angel other places in scripture. Why would we assume then he started out as a talking snake?

Where have I added anything to the Bible?

Genesis 2:7 & 22
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

It clearly says He created a MAN and also gave him a WOMAN to be his wife. This says they were mature. Nothing added.

Also, Genesis does not say Satan is the serpent. It speaks of the serpent being cunning; wise in his own eyes. Sound familiar? The enemy uses pride against us. It is not until Revelation that it use the metaphor of him being that serpent of old. Just as Herod is like a fox (also cunning), so Satan is like a serpent.

It is fairly simple to see the difference between metaphor and a historical account if you just read the text; what it says, not what you think it means.

God Bless!

[Teke]

I'm not getting the comparison.

If modern science said that the sky is blue and God's Word said it is green, I'd believe God's Word.

If modern science says the earth is billions of years old and God's Word says it is 6000-ish and that He created it in 6 days, I'd believe God's Word (which I do).

So you would believe like this, irregardless of the writers intended meaning? IOW what you believe it to mean takes precedence over any intended meaning.