PDA

View Full Version : How serious are we about science?



ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 04:36 PM
I have a peeve that I shared with one of the mods and I thought maybe I should share it here. Maybe it's something we can together come to some consensus about.

Regularly on Christian websites I see science misrepresented. I don't think in most cases it is intentional, I think it's usually just the product of lack of scientific education by the writers.

Often when I and other Christians point out the "actual" science, we are moderated or ridiculed.

In my mind lying about science is not different than lying about anything else--we ought not do it.

I deal with non-Christians every day. Many of them know the science and are quick to dismiss Christianity because of the stupid, uneducated things we say. So what should we do when as a Christian we see science misrepresented on this board or other Christian websites?

DSK
May 5th 2007, 04:54 PM
I have a peeve that I shared with one of the mods and I thought maybe I should share it here. Maybe it's something we can together come to some consensus about.

Regularly on Christian websites I see science misrepresented. I don't think in most cases it is intentional, I think it's usually just the product of lack of scientific education by the writers.

Often when I and other Christians point out the "actual" science, we are moderated or ridiculed.

In my mind lying about science is not different than lying about anything else--we ought not do it.

I deal with non-Christians every day. Many of them know the science and are quick to dismiss Christianity because of the stupid, uneducated things we say. So what should we do when as a Christian we see science misrepresented on this board or other Christian websites?

First of all we should make sure we are able to distinquish true science from science fasely called.

1 Tim 6:20 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

True science is observable, and repeatable.

GothicAngel
May 5th 2007, 04:58 PM
I think yes it is good to argue science, to see what is true, but not to say that you are a Christian and thus believe in that, because those who disagree will then have a low opinon of Christianity

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 05:07 PM
First of all we should make sure we are able to distinquish true science from science fasely called.

1 Tim 6:20 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

True science is observable, and repeatable.

Exactly. But when Christians ignore solid science in favor of their interpreations of scripture, we become fools.

For example one thing I see regularly on Christian websites is the idea that the dating methods used by scientists are flawed. They're not. They've been verified again and again. And again. Yet, because a Christian wants to interpret the Bible to teach the universe is only a few thousand years old, they say science doesn't count.

And those who might otherwise see Christianity as viable are discouraged from seeking Christ because of silly superstitions.

OneStep
May 5th 2007, 05:28 PM
In my humble opinion, I believe science has a purpose.
I believe many times it actually upholds the truth in the Bible.
I also know that science discoveries are forever changing from one discovery to the latest and updated discovery which may actually show that the first discover was in error.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 05:55 PM
In my humble opinion, I believe science has a purpose.
I believe many times it actually upholds the truth in the Bible.
I also know that science discoveries are forever changing from one discovery to the latest and updated discovery which may actually show that the first discover was in error.

That's what makes science dependable. Science is peer reviewed constantly. If one wants to question the age of the earth, he's welcome to, but he also has to demonstrate his methodology.

Christians seem to quickly dismiss science as speculation. It's not.

OneStep
May 5th 2007, 06:04 PM
I am Christian...a struggling one though it may be, and I do not dismiss science as speculation.
It all comes together with the truth of the bible, it is just a manner of interpretaion. Nothing in science can prove error to the Bible. It can prove error in intrepretation.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 06:33 PM
I am Christian...a struggling one though it may be, and I do not dismiss science as speculation.
It all comes together with the truth of the bible, it is just a manner of interpretaion. Nothing in science can prove error to the Bible. It can prove error in intrepretation.

Good post OS,

One of the problems I see with many Christian websites is assuming they have an accurate understanding of scripture even when it defies reality. They assume their interpretation trumps observation.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 06:46 PM
OK, I am going to say something I have been reluctant to say...

I wonder how many Christians really want to hear anything that causes them to re-evaluate what they believe, even on this board. That troubles me. When we have to ignore reality to be a Christian then we are no better than those who believe the world is supported on the back of a couple turtles.

OneStep
May 5th 2007, 06:57 PM
I am hoping you get more input than just mine, but here is mine again.
I am forever "re-evaluating" what I believe. I say that because what I believed when my journey first started has changed considerably. I am under, my own, assumption that as my growth occurs in my spiritual walk, not to mention my actual age, that what I thought was "the way" and the only way, was not so.
I am forever seeking further knowledge, from all sources, that I may make a valuable judgement of my belief.
I agree, to some point, that many christians do not want to hear anything than that which they have heard for many years. They would prefer to stay in their "comfort zone". If they were to venture out of that comfort zone, some, may have their very foundation shaken. Don't know anyone that particularly likes to be proven in error.
Personally, I believe if we do not venture out, we gain less.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 07:30 PM
I am hoping you get more input than just mine, but here is mine again.
I am forever "re-evaluating" what I believe. I say that because what I believed when my journey first started has changed considerably. I am under, my own, assumption that as my growth occurs in my spiritual walk, not to mention my actual age, that what I thought was "the way" and the only way, was not so.
I am forever seeking further knowledge, from all sources, that I may make a valuable judgement of my belief.
I agree, to some point, that many christians do not want to hear anything than that which they have heard for many years. They would prefer to stay in their "comfort zone". If they were to venture out of that comfort zone, some, may have their very foundation shaken. Don't know anyone that particularly likes to be proven in error.
Personally, I believe if we do not venture out, we gain less.

I agree, but I'm not sure most people on most Christian websites do. It's sad and it makes the job of evangelists harder when they encounter those who have an accurate understanding of the universe.

The universe is billions of years old. Evolution is a fact. As long as we are denying these simple facts we look like fools.

pmckelvy
May 5th 2007, 07:46 PM
The problem is that what is fact in the secular world has a tendancy to change, then who looks stupid for believing it? In the 70's it was fact that an ice age was coming. Trends in the past were brought forth to prove this "fact". Those who thought it was rubbish were looked at as having their heads in the sand. There is middle ground. Science has done much but is not even close to having the answers. The Word of God has ALL the answers but we can't see them yet. And here we are in the middle. We should just be careful what we say is fact, there is the potential to be greatly shamed. God Bless.

Pat

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 07:53 PM
The problem is that what is fact in the secular world has a tendancy to change, then who looks stupid for believing it? In the 70's it was fact that an ice age was coming. Trends in the past were brought forth to prove this "fact". Those who thought it was rubbish were looked at as having their heads in the sand. There is middle ground. Science has done much but is not even close to having the answers. The Word of God has ALL the answers but we can't see them yet. And here we are in the middle. We should just be careful what we say is fact, there is the potential to be greatly shamed. God Bless.

What are the examples you would give as places where science is currently wrong?

aliensyndm
May 5th 2007, 08:17 PM
For example one thing I see regularly on Christian websites is the idea that the dating methods used by scientists are flawed. They're not. They've been verified again and again. And again. Yet, because a Christian wants to interpret the Bible to teach the universe is only a few thousand years old, they say science doesn't count.



Have they ? How ? How exactly can you ever KNOW that something is 2 million years old or 2 billion years old ? How can you verify it ? What do you check it against ?
Does it come with a label on it ? What do the majority of dating methods use ? Radioactivity. How many assumptions are made when using these methods ? Alot !

The most obvious assumption which could be in error is that the rate of decay of elements has been constant for billions of years. How can they possibly know this ? Rates of decay have only been measured for the past 100 years or so, how can you say with authority they have remained unchanged for billions of years ?

They assume that no contamination of sample ever happened. Alot of things could happen to a rock in a few billions years.

They also assume the material had no orginal daughter element in it, or claim they know how much if it did. They say all this element A was produced from element B, they know this how ?


Evolution is not a fact. Why don't you just toss out the entire bible whilst you are it then ? I mean if God has got it wrong on a few issues what's to say he has got anything right in regards to salvation etc ?
I cannot see how evolution and Christianity are compatible.
Now if someone actually had some decent evidence for evolution I might be slightly concerned, but I am still waiting on it. It's all inference, assumption, extrapolation, belief. It's moulding the evidence to fit the paradigm. It's supposed to work the other way around.

You see when you say evolution is fact and anyone who says otherwise is a fool then people get this idea that in order to be a Christian you have to check your brain in at the door and reject science and be some sort of heretic. I don't think that's the case at all. There are many well qualified scientists who do not subscribe to evolution. Many many times scientists have boldly stated things as facts and anyone who disagrees is a heretic, a fool, not educated. Many many times scientists were completely wrong. Each generation of scientists think they are smarter and more englightned than their predecessors. Oh they made mistakes cos they didn't have our modern techniques, but we have everything sorted now, we know what we are doing ! :thumbsup: Each generation also takes great delight in pointing out the errors of their predecessors.

In the 70s the environmentalists were telling us we're going to freeze to death by the year 2000 if we don't sort stuff out. Now we're told the exact opposite and we're going to boil to death. What's the age of the earth ? Go back a couple of hundred years and it's 70 000 years old. Advance on a bit and it's a few hundred thousand years old. A bit further and it's now increased to a few millions years old. Later on they now say it's a billion. Presently they say it's 4.6 billion. So how old is it gonna be in 50 years time do you think ? Oh I know......of course we KNOW the age now right ? All those other scientists were dumb and ignorant but todays scientists have it sorted ! :thumbsup

If you're worried about looking like a fool you might be in trouble. Jesus said many people will be persecuted for their faith in him. People might say oh you have the age of the earth and evolution right but why do you still believe in a non-existent God ? They will mock you for that. If you disgaree with their supposed science they will mock you for that also. Makes no difference either way, Christian faith will often produce persecution. Personally I don't see why I should give them an inch and say ah yeah I believe in evolution when it seems to be directly in opposition with scripture(and science too but that's another story).
This is a very apt verse I think...

2 Peter 3 3:6

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

[You silly people, imagine believing in God !. You are so dumb ! Why not become an atheist and you can do anything you want then, no rules ! ]

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

[So where is Jesus then eh eh eh ? He said he's coming back, I don't see him ?!?!]

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

[ The way things are happening today, is the way they have always happened. Uniformitarianism ! Exactly what I was mentioning before about how things have never changed, the they are happening now is the way they have always happened. The bible is telling us right here that the scoffers will say just that ! ]

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

[ Willinginly ignorant - they don't want to know the truth. They refuse to acknowledge that the world perished from water in the genesis flood. Alot of the things we see in the world are the result of this, whereas the scoffers deny this and say, no, it's because of processes that took billions of years, things happened then the same way then that they do now. ]


That verse seems almost custom made to address those scoffing scientists......it's almost as if he knew such people would come about it ?
Funny that.

Teke
May 5th 2007, 08:19 PM
I have a peeve that I shared with one of the mods and I thought maybe I should share it here. Maybe it's something we can together come to some consensus about.

Regularly on Christian websites I see science misrepresented. I don't think in most cases it is intentional, I think it's usually just the product of lack of scientific education by the writers.

Often when I and other Christians point out the "actual" science, we are moderated or ridiculed.

In my mind lying about science is not different than lying about anything else--we ought not do it.

I deal with non-Christians every day. Many of them know the science and are quick to dismiss Christianity because of the stupid, uneducated things we say. So what should we do when as a Christian we see science misrepresented on this board or other Christian websites?

Let them know science can only further prove God by it's theories, which change, tho God doesn't.:saint:

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 08:34 PM
Have they ? How ? How exactly can you ever KNOW that something is 2 million years old or 2 billion years old ? How can you verify it ? What do you check it against ?
Does it come with a label on it ? What do the majority of dating methods use ? Radioactivity. How many assumptions are made when using these methods ? Alot !

The most obvious assumption which could be in error is that the rate of decay of elements has been constant for billions of years. How can they possibly know this ? Rates of decay have only been measured for the past 100 years or so, how can you say with authority they have remained unchanged for billions of years ?

They assume that no contamination of sample ever happened. Alot of things could happen to a rock in a few billions years.

They also assume the material had no orginal daughter element in it, or claim they know how much if it did. They say all this element A was produced from element B, they know this how ?


Evolution is not a fact. Why don't you just toss out the entire bible whilst you are it then ? I mean if God has got it wrong on a few issues what's to say he has got anything right in regards to salvation etc ?
I cannot see how evolution and Christianity are compatible.
Now if someone actually had some decent evidence for evolution I might be slightly concerned, but I am still waiting on it. It's all inference, assumption, extrapolation, belief. It's moulding the evidence to fit the paradigm. It's supposed to work the other way around.

You see when you say evolution is fact and anyone who says otherwise is a fool then people get this idea that in order to be a Christian you have to check your brain in at the door and reject science and be some sort of heretic. I don't think that's the case at all. There are many well qualified scientists who do not subscribe to evolution. Many many times scientists have boldly stated things as facts and anyone who disagrees is a heretic, a fool, not educated. Many many times scientists were completely wrong. Each generation of scientists think they are smarter and more englightned than their predecessors. Oh they made mistakes cos they didn't have our modern techniques, but we have everything sorted now, we know what we are doing ! :thumbsup: Each generation also takes great delight in pointing out the errors of their predecessors.

In the 70s the environmentalists were telling us we're going to freeze to death by the year 2000 if we don't sort stuff out. Now we're told the exact opposite and we're going to boil to death. What's the age of the earth ? Go back a couple of hundred years and it's 70 000 years old. Advance on a bit and it's a few hundred thousand years old. A bit further and it's now increased to a few millions years old. Later on they now say it's a billion. Presently they say it's 4.6 billion. So how old is it gonna be in 50 years time do you think ? Oh I know......of course we KNOW the age now right ? All those other scientists were dumb and ignorant but todays scientists have it sorted ! :thumbsup

If you're worried about looking like a fool you might be in trouble. Jesus said many people will be persecuted for their faith in him. People might say oh you have the age of the earth and evolution right but why do you still believe in a non-existent God ? They will mock you for that. If you disgaree with their supposed science they will mock you for that also. Makes no difference either way, Christian faith will often produce persecution. Personally I don't see why I should give them an inch and say ah yeah I believe in evolution when it seems to be directly in opposition with scripture(and science too but that's another story).
This is a very apt verse I think...

2 Peter 3 3:6

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

[You silly people, imagine believing in God !. You are so dumb ! Why not become an atheist and you can do anything you want then, no rules ! ]

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

[So where is Jesus then eh eh eh ? He said he's coming back, I don't see him ?!?!]

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

[ The way things are happening today, is the way they have always happened. Uniformitarianism ! Exactly what I was mentioning before about how things have never changed, the they are happening now is the way they have always happened. The bible is telling us right here that the scoffers will say just that ! ]

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

[ Willinginly ignorant - they don't want to know the truth. They refuse to acknowledge that the world perished from water in the genesis flood. Alot of the things we see in the world are the result of this, whereas the scoffers deny this and say, no, it's because of processes that took billions of years, things happened then the same way then that they do now. ]


That verse seems almost custom made to address those scoffing scientists......it's almost as if he knew such people would come about it ?
Funny that.

All of your comments have been thoroughly answered if you bother to study. But instead of study you use conjecture.

The answers to your questions have been answered again and again, yet you refuse to study to see what the answers are as they are.

I would encourage you to do some study then come back when you have some science to back up your assertions.

If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese yet science demonstrates it is made of rock, would you assume your interpretation of the Bible was wrong or that the scientists lied?

pmckelvy
May 5th 2007, 08:43 PM
What are the examples you would give as places where science is currently wrong?

I guess I didn't think I had to defend the point that science is not always right. I'm not a scientist. If I'm called to choose between man's wisdom and God's truth I know which one I'll choose. Much will not be known until later, global warming and such. Much will not probably be known until we are all sitting at God's feet and he tells us how things are, evolution age of the Earth etc. Point is people can't say Macro evolution or the age of the Earth is fact anymore that their fellows can't claim the things stated in the Bible are. Smarter people than I can argue back and forth I just wished more people put their faith in God, even when we don't understand things. Man will always disappoint.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 08:56 PM
I guess I didn't think I had to defend the point that science is not always right. I'm not a scientist. If I'm called to choose between man's wisdom and God's truth I know which one I'll choose. Much will not be known until later, global warming and such. Much will not probably be known until we are all sitting at God's feet and he tells us how things are, evolution age of the Earth etc. Point is people can't say Macro evolution or the age of the Earth is fact anymore that their fellows can't claim the things stated in the Bible are. Smarter people than I can argue back and forth I just wished more people put their faith in God, even when we don't understand things. Man will always disappoint.

What do you base your view of the age of the earth upon? What do you base your view of evolution on? I can state unequivocally the age of the earth is billions of years. What do you base your belief that it is not?

Macro evolution--same thing.

Teke
May 5th 2007, 08:56 PM
What are the examples you would give as places where science is currently wrong?

Do you mean "wrong" as they made a mistake, or "wrong" about presenting their findings as "facts"?

I'll give a couple examples and you tell me. Science said that mammals appeared or evolved 155 million yrs ago, yet there is fossil proof of a shrew like animal which has been dated 195 million yrs ago. That pushes the original 155 date back 40 million yrs.

Or the period table said to have 109 elements, yet in 1994, 6 new elements were added.

That is just a couple off the top of my head. And I'm not sure what your pointing out about science.:)

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 09:04 PM
Do you mean "wrong" as they made a mistake, or "wrong" about presenting their findings as "facts"?

I'll give a couple examples and you tell me. Science said that mammals appeared or evolved 155 million yrs ago, yet there is fossil proof of a shrew like animal which has been dated 195 million yrs ago. That pushes the original 155 date back 40 million yrs.

Or the period table said to have 109 elements, yet in 1994, 6 new elements were added.

That is just a couple off the top of my head. And I'm not sure what your pointing out about science.:)

Niether of these falsify the scientific method. In fact, the first one confirms it.

The second one, I suspect, will be superceded by even more elements.

(I suspect you already knew both of these Teke.)

My point was simply to say to contrarians "where do you see the scientific method failing to get at the truth?" I think that was pretty clear, but maybe it wasn't.

pmckelvy
May 5th 2007, 09:17 PM
What do you base your view of the age of the earth upon? What do you base your view of evolution on? I can state unequivocally the age of the earth is billions of years. What do you base your belief that it is not?

Macro evolution--same thing.

Easy- the Word of God. I don't know the age of the earth. God made Adam and Eve with age "built in" he could do the same for the planet. Or maybe it's 6,000 years old and the learned are way off. I don't know. Genesis tells us that God made man. He didn't make a fish then wait a while and it was a man, then he started talking to him. To discount the Bible and follow what man says, to me is not wise. I personally, me mind you, would have trouble pretending I'm a Christian if I believe man over the Bible. Really I guess the point is moot because there is no pop-quiz when our Lord comes back. (thank God for that) I'm comfortable not being sure about these things, but I'll always land on God's side of the fence, all things considered.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 09:20 PM
Easy- the Word of God. I don't know the age of the earth. God made Adam and Eve with age "built in" he could do the same for the planet. Or maybe it's 6,000 years old and the learned are way off. I don't know. Genesis tells us that God made man. He didn't make a fish then wait a while and it was a man, then he started talking to him. To discount the Bible and follow what man says, to me is not wise. I personally, me mind you, would have trouble pretending I'm a Christian if I believe man over the Bible. Really I guess the point is moot because there is no pop-quiz when our Lord comes back. (thank God for that) I'm comfortable not being sure about these things, but I'll always land on God's side of the fence, all things considered.

In your mind if the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth, you accept that, right? 'Cause it does.

The world is billions of years old. Either God lies in his creation or this is fact. Which do you think it is?

punk
May 5th 2007, 09:31 PM
To really answer this question we need to get to the heart of what (typically) makes religion "religion", and science "science".

-Religion, typically, is a set of dogmatic beliefs taken (more or less) as a whole and complete system of thought, so that to reject any part of it is to reject all of it. So, too often, a person finds themself in the position of making a decision to affirm a religion's dogmatic system so that they never have to make another philosophical decision again in their life. Dogma provides a comfort of having "all the answers".

-Science, ideally, is a rejection of all dogmas and a willingness to go where the evidence leads. Since any belief might have to be discarded with the finding of new information, the scientist never has the security or comfort of a dogmatic system with all the answers. The scientist is always in a state of philosophical peril, always having to decide every minute what decisions to make without the comfort of a complete dogmatic system.

How does one reconcile too such opposing views?

You really can't.

You either have to make your religion more scientific and do away with dogmas and the comfort of dogmas, or you have to make your science more religious and insist on dogmas that are never to be overturned, whatever the evidence.

The religious person opts for security in ignoring the world around them, the scientific person opts for insecurity in holding to no unimpeachable answers.

Personally I opt for the answer of making religion more scientific, but then I thrive in insecurity.

What I've seen in this thread is stabs at making science more religious and insisting there are dogmas that cannot be overturned (though couched in words that sound more like "since the Bible is true history, no honest science will ever find evidence to overturn it", nevertheless it amounts to saying that there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny).

pmckelvy
May 5th 2007, 09:38 PM
In your mind if the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth, you accept that, right? 'Cause it does.

The world is billions of years old. Either God lies in his creation or this is fact. Which do you think it is?

I guess I don't believe that the only two choices are what you tell us is "truth" and what God does. I think you know what my answer is if that were the case. And yes if the Bible told me the Sun revolved around the Earth then I'll believe it. I'm guessing you will think that ignorant but so be it. At the end of times God will save me from death, not Copernicus or the guys working on carbon dating. Again I must state, you're probably smarter than me. I can't argue the age of the Earth or such as I don't have the answers and would probably be made to look silly. But I know by putting my faith in God and his Word I will be upheld in the end. One thing that I thank God for is that he gave me comfort in saying, I don't know the answer to that. Some people can't be comfortable with that. I'll wait until I'm sitting at God's feet and he'll tell me whatever I need to know.
God Bless

Pat

Teke
May 5th 2007, 09:46 PM
Niether of these falsify the scientific method. In fact, the first one confirms it.

The second one, I suspect, will be superceded by even more elements.

(I suspect you already knew both of these Teke.)

My point was simply to say to contrarians "where do you see the scientific method failing to get at the truth?" I think that was pretty clear, but maybe it wasn't.

Well, I just believe the scientific method consists of thinkers, real thinkers trying to find answers or solve problems. The methods (how they go about it) can differ and some we might not know. Such as why the use of a type of battery that produced electricity thousands of years ago (and most believe Edison discovered electricity ;) ). Makes one wonder what the method was, to find answers or solve a problem. Likely the later proceeded from the former. The ancient battery is believed to have been used to electroplate coins (I saw this demonstrated, seems sensible to me). Tho it does make us wonder why not other uses, such as our modern use of electricity.
Ref. to middle eastern jars which could produce a single volt of electricity.

Thanks for clarifying. :) I do believe whatever scientific method, it is certainly trying to get at the truth.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 09:51 PM
I guess I don't believe that the only two choices are what you tell us is "truth" and what God does. I think you know what my answer is if that were the case. And yes if the Bible told me the Sun revolved around the Earth then I'll believe it. I'm guessing you will think that ignorant but so be it. At the end of times God will save me from death, not Copernicus or the guys working on carbon dating. Again I must state, you're probably smarter than me. I can't argue the age of the Earth or such as I don't have the answers and would probably be made to look silly. But I know by putting my faith in God and his Word I will be upheld in the end. One thing that I thank God for is that he gave me comfort in saying, I don't know the answer to that. Some people can't be comfortable with that. I'll wait until I'm sitting at God's feet and he'll tell me whatever I need to know.
God Bless
Pat

Let me be more specific: If the Bible said the sky was green, would you accept that or would or assume somehow your interpretation of the Bible was wrong?

punk
May 5th 2007, 09:54 PM
Let me be more specific: If the Bible said the sky was green, would you accept that or would or assume somehow your interpretation of the Bible was wrong?

The dogmatist would just say that proves the Hebrew or Greek word translated as "green" really means "blue", or "blue or green".

You can always get out of these issues.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 09:55 PM
To really answer this question we need to get to the heart of what (typically) makes religion "religion", and science "science".

-Religion, typically, is a set of dogmatic beliefs taken (more or less) as a whole and complete system of thought, so that to reject any part of it is to reject all of it. So, too often, a person finds themself in the position of making a decision to affirm a religion's dogmatic system so that they never have to make another philosophical decision again in their life. Dogma provides a comfort of having "all the answers".

-Science, ideally, is a rejection of all dogmas and a willingness to go where the evidence leads. Since any belief might have to be discarded with the finding of new information, the scientist never has the security or comfort of a dogmatic system with all the answers. The scientist is always in a state of philosophical peril, always having to decide every minute what decisions to make without the comfort of a complete dogmatic system.

How does one reconcile too such opposing views?

You really can't.

You either have to make your religion more scientific and do away with dogmas and the comfort of dogmas, or you have to make your science more religious and insist on dogmas that are never to be overturned, whatever the evidence.

The religious person opts for security in ignoring the world around them, the scientific person opts for insecurity in holding to no unimpeachable answers.

Personally I opt for the answer of making religion more scientific, but then I thrive in insecurity.

What I've seen in this thread is stabs at making science more religious and insisting there are dogmas that cannot be overturned (though couched in words that sound more like "since the Bible is true history, no honest science will ever find evidence to overturn it", nevertheless it amounts to saying that there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny).

In general I try to not quote LONG posts in totality, but yours was excellent and outlines the tension perfectly.

If the Bible is true then it is true, regardless of what science discovers.

Teke
May 5th 2007, 09:57 PM
To really answer this question we need to get to the heart of what (typically) makes religion "religion", and science "science".

-Religion, typically, is a set of dogmatic beliefs taken (more or less) as a whole and complete system of thought, so that to reject any part of it is to reject all of it. So, too often, a person finds themself in the position of making a decision to affirm a religion's dogmatic system so that they never have to make another philosophical decision again in their life. Dogma provides a comfort of having "all the answers".

-Science, ideally, is a rejection of all dogmas and a willingness to go where the evidence leads. Since any belief might have to be discarded with the finding of new information, the scientist never has the security or comfort of a dogmatic system with all the answers. The scientist is always in a state of philosophical peril, always having to decide every minute what decisions to make without the comfort of a complete dogmatic system.

How does one reconcile too such opposing views?

You really can't.

You either have to make your religion more scientific and do away with dogmas and the comfort of dogmas, or you have to make your science more religious and insist on dogmas that are never to be overturned, whatever the evidence.

The religious person opts for security in ignoring the world around them, the scientific person opts for insecurity in holding to no unimpeachable answers.

Personally I opt for the answer of making religion more scientific, but then I thrive in insecurity.

What I've seen in this thread is stabs at making science more religious and insisting there are dogmas that cannot be overturned (though couched in words that sound more like "since the Bible is true history, no honest science will ever find evidence to overturn it", nevertheless it amounts to saying that there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny).

I thrive in insecurity also. :lol:
But do you not believe there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny? I mean how can science subject the uncreated to scrutiny if they can't find it to do so?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "scrutiny".:saint:

punk
May 5th 2007, 10:01 PM
I thrive in insecurity also. :lol:
But do you not believe there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny? I mean how can science subject the uncreated to scrutiny if they can't find it to do so?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "scrutiny".:saint:

There is a distinction in being "beyond scientific scrutiny" because:

1. Scientific methods are incapable of addressing such a question.
2. Scientific methods can address the question but we will not allow for any result which differs from dogma to be correct.

I had in mind the 2nd view, though I do believe there are questions for which the 1st holds.

Teke
May 5th 2007, 10:01 PM
In general I try to not quote LONG posts in totality, but yours was excellent and outlines the tension perfectly.

If the Bible is true then it is true, regardless of what science discovers.


You said this in reference to dogma. The bible isn't a dogma but a tradition.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 10:05 PM
There is a distinction in being "beyond scientific scrutiny" because:

1. Scientific methods are incapable of addressing such a question.
2. Scientific methods can address the question but we will not allow for any result which differs from dogma to be correct.

I had in mind the 2nd view, though I do believe there are questions for which the 1st holds.

Punk, unless I am missing something I disagree. Results from the scientific method are unlimited--they often disagree with previously accepted asumptions. Is that what you are saying?

punk
May 5th 2007, 10:07 PM
You said this in reference to dogma. The bible isn't a dogma but a tradition.

Well religion is often about dogma, and as a result answers.

What the Bible is about, and what we should get out of it is subject to some discussion on this board. Some would read it as a fact book full of answers to whatever question comes up (some of our creationist brethren come to mind).

Some would read it in other ways.

Perhaps the chasm between (christian) religion and science is a result of wanting the Bible to be something it is not?

Teke
May 5th 2007, 10:13 PM
There is a distinction in being "beyond scientific scrutiny" because:

1. Scientific methods are incapable of addressing such a question.
2. Scientific methods can address the question but we will not allow for any result which differs from dogma to be correct.

I had in mind the 2nd view, though I do believe there are questions for which the 1st holds.

If scientific method is as I stated, thinking, then the method is all that is necessary to establish. IOW method of thinking in a parameter.
For instance the early church fathers wrote in an apophatic manner. That is their method to try to explain the unexplainable. Some, such as St Athanasius (The Incarnation) and St Basil (The Human Condition) could likely be construed as anthropological scientist of their times as well as great theologians. There are not many who think as they did, in our present times.;)

OneStep
May 5th 2007, 10:15 PM
To really answer this question we need to get to the heart of what (typically) makes religion "religion", and science "science".

-Religion, typically, is a set of dogmatic beliefs taken (more or less) as a whole and complete system of thought, so that to reject any part of it is to reject all of it. So, too often, a person finds themself in the position of making a decision to affirm a religion's dogmatic system so that they never have to make another philosophical decision again in their life. Dogma provides a comfort of having "all the answers".

-Science, ideally, is a rejection of all dogmas and a willingness to go where the evidence leads. Since any belief might have to be discarded with the finding of new information, the scientist never has the security or comfort of a dogmatic system with all the answers. The scientist is always in a state of philosophical peril, always having to decide every minute what decisions to make without the comfort of a complete dogmatic system.

How does one reconcile too such opposing views?

You really can't.

You either have to make your religion more scientific and do away with dogmas and the comfort of dogmas, or you have to make your science more religious and insist on dogmas that are never to be overturned, whatever the evidence.

The religious person opts for security in ignoring the world around them, the scientific person opts for insecurity in holding to no unimpeachable answers.

Personally I opt for the answer of making religion more scientific, but then I thrive in insecurity.

What I've seen in this thread is stabs at making science more religious and insisting there are dogmas that cannot be overturned (though couched in words that sound more like "since the Bible is true history, no honest science will ever find evidence to overturn it", nevertheless it amounts to saying that there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny).

Punk...I have highlighted a portion of your post.......have you written this before, or am I becoming telepathic? I have seen this before.....or not?

Teke
May 5th 2007, 10:16 PM
Well religion is often about dogma, and as a result answers.

What the Bible is about, and what we should get out of it is subject to some discussion on this board. Some would read it as a fact book full of answers to whatever question comes up (some of our creationist brethren come to mind).

Legalist come to mind also....;)



Perhaps the chasm between (christian) religion and science is a result of wanting the Bible to be something it is not?

You know I agree on this.:)

punk
May 5th 2007, 10:18 PM
Punk...I have highlighted a portion of your post.......have you written this before, or am I becoming telepathic? I have seen this before.....or not?

I've probably said something more or less similar one time or another.

OneStep
May 5th 2007, 10:21 PM
Whew!!!!!, Scared me there...I certainly did not want to be telepathic

punk
May 5th 2007, 10:24 PM
Legalist come to mind also....;)



You know I agree on this.:)

Of course if we start saying things like "The Bible asks far more questions than it answers" or "The Bible is a book about how we should act, and not a science text book" (both of which I would affirm), quite a few people out there are going to find it small comfort when compared to what they have given up in stopping viewing the Bible as "containing all the answers".

I often think the Bible is more of a mirror than anything else.

punk
May 5th 2007, 10:25 PM
Whew!!!!!, Scared me there...I certainly did not want to be telepathic

Yeah, you might find yourself having new and troubling obligations were that the case. :D

aliensyndm
May 5th 2007, 10:32 PM
Thinkingfaith ->> That's the same old you are clever I am dumb argument. Obviously I am not smart cos I don't agree with your view right ? If I studied more I would agree with you because I would see the evidence and I wouldn't be dumb anymore right ?

I would hazard a guess that plenty scientists who have studied WAY more than you have also seem to have problems with evolution and other scientific paradigms. I take it they are all dumb and not as smart as you either right ?

Are you actually a Christian thinkingfaith ? If so how do you choose which parts of the bible to believe ? Do you believe everything until science "proves" otherwise and then say those bits are wrong or something ?
Why believe any of it then ? Seems odd to me.

chal
May 5th 2007, 10:40 PM
If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese yet science demonstrates it is made of rock, would you assume your interpretation of the Bible was wrong or that the scientists lied?[/COLOR]

chal > I would not have to assume anything. Science's interpretation of the Bible moon-cheese would definitely be wrong, because as usual, they would be trying to interpret it by looking at it under a microscope in a lab, when in fact it must be eaten at a table to truely understand it.

First look at the Sun as a big Rye cracker. Then and only then Passagehopper, will you understand what turns the inner tides of scripture.

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 10:41 PM
Thinkingfaith ->> That's the same old you are clever I am dumb argument. Obviously I am not smart cos I don't agree with your view right ? If I studied more I would agree with you because I would see the evidence and I wouldn't be dumb anymore right ?

I would hazard a guess that plenty scientists who have studied WAY more than you have also seem to have problems with evolution and other scientific paradigms. I take it they are all dumb and not as smart as you either right ?

Are you actually a Christian thinkingfaith ? If so how do you choose which parts of the bible to believe ? Do you believe everything until science "proves" otherwise and then say those bits are wrong or something ?
Why believe any of it then ? Seems odd to me.

First, these are honest questions any educated Christian has these days. Things like evolution or the age of the earth are serious Christian issues--just look at the Republican debate this past week.

There are very few scientists who have problems with the age of the earth or evolution, and their conclusions are not substantiated by the scientific method. You are welcome to present opposing view points.

Questioning my Christianity is what I expect—it is what I have experienced here since I first began posting. If you have a Biblical basis please share it. Otherwise, how do you justify your evil statements?

pmckelvy
May 5th 2007, 10:50 PM
Questioning my Christianity is what I expect—it is what I have experienced here since I first began posting. If you have a Biblical basis please share it. Otherwise, how do you justify your evil statements?

I don't think AS meant that in a judgmental way just as a basis of where you are coming from. Honestly I was thinking that as well. You seem to say that if we don't take the Word of God with a grain of salt so to speak, that we are just ignorant folk. I also don't think questioning the truth of the Bible is a wise policy. We don't get to believe the good parts and discount the parts we don't like or understand, doesn't at all work like that. When called to be on the side of God or the side of science, which side would you assume a Christian to land on?

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 10:54 PM
I don't think AS meant that in a judgmental way just as a basis of where you are coming from. Honestly I was thinking that as well. You seem to say that if we don't take the Word of God with a grain of salt so to speak, that we are just ignorant folk. I also don't think questioning the truth of the Bible is a wise policy. We don't get to believe the good parts and discount the parts we don't like or understand, doesn't at all work like that. When called to be on the side of God or the side of science, which side would you assume a Christian to land on?

Can't you accept that your interpretation of scripture just might be incorrect? After all, scripture was used to teach geo-centerism. It's a clear Biblical teaching, yet no one I know still holds to it.

Isn't it possible you are mistaken?

DSK
May 5th 2007, 11:02 PM
Exactly. But when Christians ignore solid science in favor of their interpreations of scripture, we become fools.

For example one thing I see regularly on Christian websites is the idea that the dating methods used by scientists are flawed. They're not. They've been verified again and again. And again. Yet, because a Christian wants to interpret the Bible to teach the universe is only a few thousand years old, they say science doesn't count.

And those who might otherwise see Christianity as viable are discouraged from seeking Christ because of silly superstitions.

If you care to study why various dating methods are unreliable then go to the following link. - http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6a.htm

aliensyndm
May 5th 2007, 11:04 PM
My evil statements ? Erm what ? Which ones are those ? As said I am just trying to suss out your perspective on the whole thing. I don't get the toss out the bits of the bible that science says are wrong type attitude that's all. Or have I misinterpreted your stance ?

Is the bible the word of God or not ? That's what it's about surely ?
Is the word of God infallible ? Is God deceitful ?
Has he put things he knows are wrong in the bible or is it that perhaps it's us that either misinterprets them or perhaps we aren't actually quite as smart as we like to think.

Very few scientists ? I would say more than a very few. There are a few lists of such scientists on the net, let's have a quick google -

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Here are some more - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp

This guy has a good bit down the bottom about the relevant issues,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/roth.asp



Dr. Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. He holds a B.A. in biology from Pacific Union College and an M.S. in biology and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan. His research has been supported by U.S. government agencies. During his career he held numerous university positions, including professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University. During the latter appointment, Dr. Roth directed a university team for underwater research on coral, which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He has authored over 140 articles on origins issues and for 23 years edited the journal Origins.
Plus you also state that their conclusions are not substantiated by the scientific method. So scientists with degrees, PHDs and professorships - these people are ignorant of the scientific method because their interpretation of evidence is not the same as yours ?


So you are telling me this guy and many similarly qualified like him are all ignorant fools right ?

Being in a majority doesn't automatically make you right !

ThinkingFaith
May 5th 2007, 11:14 PM
My evil statements ? Erm what ? Which ones are those ? As said I am just trying to suss out your perspective on the whole thing. I don't get the toss out the bits of the bible that science says are wrong type attitude that's all. Or have I misinterpreted your stance ?

Is the bible the word of God or not ? That's what it's about surely ?
Is the word of God infallible ? Is God deceitful ?
Has he put things he knows are wrong in the bible or is it that perhaps it's us that either misinterprets them or perhaps we aren't actually quite as smart as we like to think.

Very few scientists ? I would say more than a very few. There are a few lists of such scientists on the net, let's have a quick google -

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Here are some more - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp

This guy has a good bit down the bottom about the relevant issues,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/roth.asp



So you are telling me this guy and many similarly qualified like him are all ignorant fools right ?

Being in a majority doesn't automatically make you right !

Yes, I am saying that these scientists are misrepresenting the common scientific thought and are doing so for their own individual agendas.

Please read this long rebuttal by real scientists before you post again:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=459467b912fc373b;act=ST;f=14;t=195 8

It addresses pretty much every one of the creationists assumptions.

pmckelvy
May 5th 2007, 11:31 PM
Yes, I am saying that these scientists are misrepresenting the common scientific thought and are doing so for their own individual agendas.

Please read this long rebuttal by real scientists before you post again:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=459467b912fc373b;act=ST;f=14;t=195 8

It addresses pretty much every one of the creationists assumptions.

Can you not see where maybe you sound more like your faith is based in the University system than in God? I don't say that's the case as I don't know you but can you really take offense to someone wondering? You're telling us that if we don't question the Bible and believe science over the Bible, that we are not educated Christians. From what I can gather from your posts the theme is" question the Bible, if there is any doubt, believe man" Isn't that exactly opposite to what we are taught by God? I think most of us do not dis-believe all things brought by science. But most understand that the Word of God is to be taken quite seriously. God Bless you on your walk with Christ.

Pat

aliensyndm
May 5th 2007, 11:49 PM
Would it surprise you to know that I have actually already read alot of that thread thinkingfaith ? The exact same attitude is there, only far more hostile , as is your one here. If anyone disagrees with the "professional scientists" on there they are dumb, ignorant etc. If they disagree then they aren't a scientist so their views don't count. Go figure eh.

I take it you do not believe in the Genesis account of creation then ? Nor do you believe people such as Adam or Eve ever existed ? Or the Genesis flood ? I'm curious as Jesus makes frequent references to the old testament and people in it as if they actually existed and lived.
He also says that in the beginning God made man male and female.
Does this mean you are saying Jesus is talking rubbish ?
This does seem to bring the whole Christianity thing into trouble surely.

ThinkingFaith
May 6th 2007, 12:44 AM
Can you not see where maybe you sound more like your faith is based in the University system than in God? I don't say that's the case as I don't know you but can you really take offense to someone wondering? You're telling us that if we don't question the Bible and believe science over the Bible, that we are not educated Christians. From what I can gather from your posts the theme is" question the Bible, if there is any doubt, believe man" Isn't that exactly opposite to what we are taught by God? I think most of us do not dis-believe all things brought by science. But most understand that the Word of God is to be taken quite seriously. God Bless you on your walk with Christ.

Pat

I don’t ask you to believe science and question the Bible, what I do ask is if you are willing to consider observed natural phenomena and possibly adjust your interpretation of the Bible based on what we know to be true.

For example: We know the earth revolves around the sun. Should we deny that based on the passages in the Bible which seem, at first blush, to teach the sun revolves around the earth?

There are many things we observe and verify in the natural world. Are we to deny those observations if they disagree with some people’s interpretation of the Bible?

ThinkingFaith
May 6th 2007, 12:51 AM
Would it surprise you to know that I have actually already read alot of that thread thinkingfaith ? The exact same attitude is there, only far more hostile , as is your one here. If anyone disagrees with the "professional scientists" on there they are dumb, ignorant etc. If they disagree then they aren't a scientist so their views don't count. Go figure eh.

I take it you do not believe in the Genesis account of creation then ? Nor do you believe people such as Adam or Eve ever existed ? Or the Genesis flood ? I'm curious as Jesus makes frequent references to the old testament and people in it as if they actually existed and lived.
He also says that in the beginning God made man male and female.
Does this mean you are saying Jesus is talking rubbish ?
This does seem to bring the whole Christianity thing into trouble surely.

I agree with you the non-Christians there are hostile, but they are also pretty convincing. What did you find a problem with their science or reasoning?

I believe the Genesis account is an allegory. It is a commonly held interpretation of the account--I am certainly not the only who sees it as such.

I am not saying Jesus was talking rubbish but that Jesus was simply preaching. If that causes you to bring into question you faith in Christ I have no answer for you.

aliensyndm
May 6th 2007, 01:47 AM
It doesn't cause me to question my faith because I believe God created the world in six days as he said he did. I believe Jesus was referring to real people that actually lived when he talks about the people from the old testament. You say he was preaching.....if he was referring to people that didn't exist I would call that deceitful ! He says things like...

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female

Mark 10:6

So are you saying God didn't make them male and female in the beginning ? Are you saying Jesus was just talking nonsense when he said God did this ? Is he also talking nonsense when he says that noone comes to the father except through him ? I don't see how you can pick and choose which parts you believe him.


Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps Genesis is all just a load of rubbish. Perhaps the people never existed. Alot of things don't really make sense though if that's the case. Alot of the Christian ideas have no basis if Genesis is all nonsene. If you are going to believe the bible is the inspired word of God then surely all of it is ? Not just the bits humans seem to think might be wrong.

Teke
May 6th 2007, 01:50 AM
After all, scripture was used to teach geo-centerism. It's a clear Biblical teaching, yet no one I know still holds to it.


Can you give an example or ref. of the clear biblical teaching? And when it began?
Hmm, Kilkenny???

I've heard a heliocentric universe implied by Isaiah 38.

ThinkingFaith
May 6th 2007, 07:04 PM
Can you give an example or ref. of the clear biblical teaching? And when it began?
Hmm, Kilkenny???

I've heard a heliocentric universe implied by Isaiah 38.

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

- Chronicles 16:30

The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
- Psalm 93:1

He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
- Psalm 104:5

Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.
- Hebrews 1:10

Who hath established all the ends of the earth?
- Proverbs 30:4

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?
- Job 38:4-6

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them.
- 1 Samuel 2:8

It is I who have firmly set its pillars.
- Psalm 75:3

The sun, moon, and stars were created after the "foundation of the earth" was laid.
- see Gen. 1:9-18

He can command the sun not to rise
- Job 9:7

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
- Ecclesiastes 1:5

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
- Joshua 10:12-13


The belief in a geocentric universe goes back to at least Agustine. There are certainly Bible literalists today who still argue for geocentrism.

ThinkingFaith
May 6th 2007, 08:26 PM
Can you not see where maybe you sound more like your faith is based in the University system than in God? I don't say that's the case as I don't know you but can you really take offense to someone wondering? You're telling us that if we don't question the Bible and believe science over the Bible, that we are not educated Christians. From what I can gather from your posts the theme is" question the Bible, if there is any doubt, believe man" Isn't that exactly opposite to what we are taught by God? I think most of us do not dis-believe all things brought by science. But most understand that the Word of God is to be taken quite seriously. God Bless you on your walk with Christ.

Pat

I take the Bible quite seriously. I also take the creation quite seriously. God told us to look to the creation to learn about him.

If the Bible taught the sky was green, yet I observed it to be blue, then I would assume I don't understand the Bible correctly, not that the observable creation is misleading.

pmckelvy
May 6th 2007, 08:40 PM
I take the Bible quite seriously. I also take the creation quite seriously. God told us to look to the creation to learn about him.

If the Bible taught the sky was green, yet I observed it to be blue, then I would assume I don't understand the Bible correctly, not that the observable creation is misleading.

Well then that is good to hear. At this point I'm going to just assume that I'm misunderstanding your approach to the same goal as me. At first it seemed like you were picking the Bible apart for the parts that were easy to believe. I believe you in saying that isn't the case. Praise God that he is so deep and loving that he allows us latitudes to come to him in different ways. Any God bless and thanks for the discussion.

Pat

ThinkingFaith
May 6th 2007, 08:47 PM
Well then that is good to hear. At this point I'm going to just assume that I'm misunderstanding your approach to the same goal as me. At first it seemed like you were picking the Bible apart for the parts that were easy to believe. I believe you in saying that isn't the case. Praise God that he is so deep and loving that he allows us latitudes to come to him in different ways. Any God bless and thanks for the discussion.

Pat

Pat,

First thanks for your nice words. I appreciate it.

I think too many people on Christian sites take the Bible seriously, but when someone takes both the Bible and science seriously they label them as having no or weak faith. As such it stifles these important conversations we NEED to be having to be effective as witnesses of Jesus.

As I have mentioned I am around non-Christians who take science seriously all the time. If I say "the earth is only 6,000 years old," they know better. They want to hear why I might believe that kind of thing when they have decades and decades of peer reviewed science showing just the opposite.

These aren't some kind of scientific speculation, they're observable fact.

One might was well swear the sky is green.

When as Christians we claim without basis science is wrong we become fools and the cause of Christ is harmed.

Teke
May 7th 2007, 01:11 AM
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

- Chronicles 16:30

The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
- Psalm 93:1

He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
- Psalm 104:5

Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.
- Hebrews 1:10

Who hath established all the ends of the earth?
- Proverbs 30:4

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?
- Job 38:4-6

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them.
- 1 Samuel 2:8

It is I who have firmly set its pillars.
- Psalm 75:3


The sun, moon, and stars were created after the "foundation of the earth" was laid.
- see Gen. 1:9-18

He can command the sun not to rise
- Job 9:7

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
- Ecclesiastes 1:5

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
- Joshua 10:12-13


The belief in a geocentric universe goes back to at least Agustine. There are certainly Bible literalists today who still argue for geocentrism.

I don't recall a theory formed from "foundation" in scripture, but "void" in the first verses.;)

It would seem the "literalist" skipped the first eight verse of Genesis to make their point.
Perhaps the ancient writings were misunderstood to mean geocentrism, when that isn't what they meant. From what I understand of their writings, they thought the universe as a shell with a firmament outside of it. From that view a heliocentric universe isn't an impossibility.

The discovery of the planet Mercury's liquid center has changed the thinking on how planets are formed. It was first thought that particles gathered in space and formed them. Now their looking at radial mixing as a new theory. Which to me sounds cyclic, and much like God in relation to our natural world and how it operates.

Seems I find some good points to all of them, geocentrism, heliocentric and cyclic. :)

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 01:33 AM
I don't recall a theory formed from "foundation" in scripture, but "void" in the first verses.;)

It would seem the "literalist" skipped the first eight verse of Genesis to make their point.
Perhaps the ancient writings were misunderstood to mean geocentrism, when that isn't what they meant. From what I understand of their writings, they thought the universe as a shell with a firmament outside of it. From that view a heliocentric universe isn't an impossibility.

The discovery of the planet Mercury's liquid center has changed the thinking on how planets are formed. It was first thought that particles gathered in space and formed them. Now their looking at radial mixing as a new theory. Which to me sounds cyclic, and much like God in relation to our natural world and how it operates.

Seems I find some good points to all of them, geocentrism, heliocentric and cyclic. :)

I once saw a wood carving print from some famous Christian leader's Bible--I think it was Luther though I can't remember now--showing the universe with Earth at the center and surrounded by several layers ending with a layer of water.

If I wasn't so lazy I would look it up on the net, though it's not got any real scientific value--it's just an oddity.

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2007, 01:36 AM
ThinkingFaith, as far as I know, no one is able to move the world. Can you move it? How about this scripture?

Job 26:7 - He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

If you choose to see me as unintelligent because we don't agree, that's unfortunate because you don't even know me. You wouldn't know that I went to an Ivy League school or that I take the words knowledge and science very seriously. I've only been saved for a bit more than eight of my 39 years. I have not been preprogrammed as a Bible thumper. Once I got saved, I read the Bible. It was on my second time through that I began to question some of the things I had been programmed to believe. The more I studied the subject, the more I believed the Bible.

God Bless!

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 01:55 AM
ThinkingFaith, as far as I know, no one is able to move the world. Can you move it? How about this scripture?

Job 26:7 - He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

If you choose to see me as unintelligent because we don't agree, that's unfortunate because you don't even know me. You wouldn't know that I went to an Ivy League school or that I take the words knowledge and science very seriously. I've only been saved for a bit more than eight of my 39 years. I have not been preprogrammed as a Bible thumper. Once I got saved, I read the Bible. It was on my second time through that I began to question some of the things I had been programmed to believe. The more I studied the subject, the more I believed the Bible.

God Bless!

I never said you were not intelligent, nor did I speculate on your education. If anything I said sounded any different, please understand that is not my intetion.

My only reason for this discussion is to help myself and other Christians to be able to share our faith more effectively. When we say things in public (this is a publically viewable blog) that misrepresent science or even basic scientific thought then we open our faith and our Lord up to ridicule.

I would rather hold myself, my brothers and my sisters to a higher standard. After all, if we don't police ourselves who will?

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 01:58 AM
The earth is being moved. Constantly. So, yes, there are forces able to move the earth.

When you quoted Job did you consider using one verse that "demonstrates" that the Bible is correct science that the other verses that show a lack of understanding are now open to use for the same purpose. 4 legged insects. The sun that moves and stops and moves again.

You can't have it both ways.

Teke
May 7th 2007, 02:02 AM
I once saw a wood carving print from some famous Christian leader's Bible--I think it was Luther though I can't remember now--showing the universe with Earth at the center and surrounded by several layers ending with a layer of water.

If I wasn't so lazy I would look it up on the net, though it's not got any real scientific value--it's just an oddity.

Not so odd.:saint:
That brings to mind an Eastern Orthodox icon of the the throne of God with the river of fire (a type of water related in a spiritual sense to God) proceeding from it.

Geocentrism and heliocentric are philosophical and theological concepts as well..
Since the nineteenth century with Ernst Mach, the views on geocentrism
and heliocentric have merged somewhat into what is known as Mach's Principle (geocentricity) by physicists.
Mach thought if there was an essential difference (geocentrism and heliocentric) all the rules of geometry would be violated.

And thank you also for the talk. :)

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2007, 02:09 AM
The earth is being moved. Constantly. So, yes, there are forces able to move the earth.

When you quoted Job did you consider using one verse that "demonstrates" that the Bible is correct science that the other verses that show a lack of understanding are now open to use for the same purpose. 4 legged insects. The sun that moves and stops and moves again.

You can't have it both ways.No, the earth is moving in its course. It is not being moved by some other force. Very different. As I posted in the other thread:

Do you believe in miracles? There are many very unscientific miracles in the Bible. A man dead four days comes alive again? A man walking on the raging sea? A man telling a storm to stop and it stopping? A man swallowed whole by a big fish and living to tell about it? A man struck blind on the road to Damascus who miraculously regains sight when scales fall off his eyes? There are so many miracles in the Bible, why question Joshua's? With God ALL things are possible, not just some things that fit the natural course.

VerticalReality
May 7th 2007, 03:13 AM
The passages of Scripture that have been quoted are not referring to the earth not revolving or spinning or any such other motion. It's talking about it being set where it is intended to be set and there is nothing that is going to move it from its intended position. As far as I'm concerned, any other interpretation is just looking for a reason to justify science of man over the Word of God.

In addition, the early church never viewed Genesis as allegorical and they never taught it that way either. Paul, along with the other apostles, believed in a very literal Genesis account.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 08:21 AM
The passages of Scripture that have been quoted are not referring to the earth not revolving or spinning or any such other motion. It's talking about it being set where it is intended to be set and there is nothing that is going to move it from its intended position. As far as I'm concerned, any other interpretation is just looking for a reason to justify science of man over the Word of God.

In addition, the early church never viewed Genesis as allegorical and they never taught it that way either. Paul, along with the other apostles, believed in a very literal Genesis account.

Do you believe the passage in Joshua is true? Did the sun stand still or did the earth stop rotating?

Paul may have believed many things that were incorrect--he could only know the things God revealed to him.

I understand you probably aren't going to agree that any other interpretation but yours is allowed, but you have to understand there are those of us with pure motivation who disagree with your interpretation, not simply because it disagrees with the observable universe, but also because we have seen over the centuries Christians adjusting their interpretations as well.

chal
May 7th 2007, 08:51 AM
When we say things in public (this is a publically viewable blog) that misrepresent science or even basic scientific thought then we open our faith and our Lord up to ridicule.

I would rather hold myself, my brothers and my sisters to a higher standard. After all, if we don't police ourselves who will?

chal > When we say things that misrepresent anything, we are not operating according to Biblical principles.

However, the Bible does not have to conform to current scientific thought. Misrepresenting something and placing it in the proper perspective are two quite different things. For science to be considered, it must conform to scripture, not vice versa.

There is no higher standard than scripture. If you want to hold Christians accountable, scripture is the only legitimate standard. Scripture-Plus (fill-in-the-blank) systems are not acceptable. This post is part of the policing you suggested. I'm holding you accountable to the only legitimate standard and it ain't dictated by some guy I don't know, with questionable motives who happens to wear a lab coat. It is dictated by someone I know intimately and trust beyond my own opinion.


ThinkingFaith; I don’t ask you to believe science and question the Bible, what I do ask is if you are willing to consider observed natural phenomena and possibly adjust your interpretation of the Bible based on what we know to be true.

chal > You want Christians, who believe in a God who is not subject to "natural phenomena," to adjust thier position according to natural phenomena. This doesn't make any sense from any standpoint.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 09:01 AM
chal > When we say things that misrepresent anything, we are not operating according to Biblical principles.

However, the Bible does not have to conform to current scientific thought. Misrepresenting something and placing it in the proper perspective are two quite different things. For science to be considered, it must conform to scripture, not vice versa.

There is no higher standard than scripture. If you want to hold Christians accountable, scripture is the only legitimate standard. Scripture-Plus (fill-in-the-blank) systems are not acceptable. This post is part of the policing you suggested. I'm holding you accountable to the only legitimate standard and it ain't dictated by some guy I don't know, with questionable motives who happens to wear a lab coat. It is dictated by someone I know intimately and trust beyond my own opinion.



chal > You want Christians, who believe in a God who is not subject to "natural phenomena," to adjust thier position according to natural phenomena. This doesn't make any sense from any standpoint.

That's where you and I differ. I do not believe the creation lies. So, if I observe the creation and see something that doesn't fit my pre-conceived notions of what it "ought" to be based on my Biblical interpretation then I see if it is possible I am misinterpreting the scripture.

It does make sense from most people's standpoint though I agree it may not from yours.

chal
May 7th 2007, 10:26 AM
That's where you and I differ. I do not believe the creation lies. So, if I observe the creation and see something that doesn't fit my pre-conceived notions of what it "ought" to be based on my Biblical interpretation then I see if it is possible I am misinterpreting the scripture.

It does make sense from most people's standpoint though I agree it may not from yours.

chal > I don't believe the creation lies either. I just choose to believe God's explanation over some guy in a lab coat. I can see where that may not make sense to you, because you think that science is the highest standard and that scripture is secondary at best.

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2007, 10:29 AM
Do you believe the passage in Joshua is true? Did the sun stand still or did the earth stop rotating?It was a miracle! Nowhere in the text does it say either the earth stopped rotating or anything scientific. It simply says that it happened. Just as it says that Jesus walked on the raging sea. That account gives no scientific reason why Jesus or even Peter, for a time, was able to do it.

In answer to your original question, I love science (knowledge). I also love God's word. Our human 'knowledge' base is constantly being increased and self-correcting. God's word is the same yesterday, today and forever. Science is seeking truth. God's word is the truth, and that truth never changes.

God Bless!

VerticalReality
May 7th 2007, 12:04 PM
Do you believe the passage in Joshua is true? Did the sun stand still or did the earth stop rotating?

Absolulely! Nothing is impossible with God.


Paul may have believed many things that were incorrect--he could only know the things God revealed to him.

Actually, Paul's writings were inspiried by the Holy Spirit, so any comments he made regarding Genesis that were in a literal sense were that way because the Holy Spirit revealed it that way to him.


I understand you probably aren't going to agree that any other interpretation but yours is allowed, but you have to understand there are those of us with pure motivation who disagree with your interpretation, not simply because it disagrees with the observable universe, but also because we have seen over the centuries Christians adjusting their interpretations as well.

Of course there are people "adjusting" their interpretation. The bible says that in latter times many will depart from the faith, give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, while being turned aside to fables.

The fact is, the only reason people started believing that Genesis is allegorical is because the science of man has told them so. So, we have a fallible man trying to change the infallible Word of God to fit his scientific agenda.

Teke
May 7th 2007, 01:46 PM
The passages of Scripture that have been quoted are not referring to the earth not revolving or spinning or any such other motion. It's talking about it being set where it is intended to be set and there is nothing that is going to move it from its intended position. As far as I'm concerned, any other interpretation is just looking for a reason to justify science of man over the Word of God.

I don't think that was challenged. Nor do I believe someone is looking for a reason to justify science over the bible.


In addition, the early church never viewed Genesis as allegorical and they never taught it that way either. Paul, along with the other apostles, believed in a very literal Genesis account.

This is incorrect, and I will give you many accounts to that truth if you like. Spiritual concepts have always been taught allegorically, even tho they may have historical confirmation. The Jews have always known this. One familiar with this style of writing for teaching (verbally in private) would know this to be true. The particular style used in Genesis is cyclic (according their teaching on cosmic cycles) and as such is how the Jews taught on Genesis.

One example.

Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai in the 2nd century wrote:

"Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. See now. The most visible part of a man are the clothes that he has on, and they who lack understanding, when they look at the man, are apt not to see more in him than these clothes. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body.
Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."

The Jewish taught Paul, apparently believed allegorically as well as historically, see Gal. 4:22-26 where he states it is allegorical in verse 24 as he teaches on this particular Genesis account.

I have no doubt the Apostles followed the same traditional way of teaching.

Teke
May 7th 2007, 02:00 PM
chal > You want Christians, who believe in a God who is not subject to "natural phenomena," to adjust thier position according to natural phenomena. This doesn't make any sense from any standpoint.

Hmmm.....
It would seem it did to Jesus. As He taught with natural phenomena spiritual truths for us to perceive. ex. Matt. 6, Luke 12 etc.
It is customary in scripture for God to use natural phenomena (His creation), OT and NT, to relate His truths to us.

VerticalReality
May 7th 2007, 02:10 PM
I don't think that was challenged. Nor do I believe someone is looking for a reason to justify science over the bible.

Yes, it was challenged.



This is incorrect, and I will give you many accounts to that truth if you like. Spiritual concepts have always been taught allegorically, even tho they may have historical confirmation. The Jews have always known this. One familiar with this style of writing for teaching (verbally in private) would know this to be true. The particular style used in Genesis is cyclic (according their teaching on cosmic cycles) and as such is how the Jews taught on Genesis.

No, it's not incorrect.



One example.


The Jewish taught Paul, apparently believed allegorically as well as historically, see Gal. 4:22-26 where he states it is allegorical in verse 24 as he teaches on this particular Genesis account.


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.

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2007, 02:18 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 02:24 PM
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.:hmm:
Did Jesus not command us to look beyond the veil (the material), to a deeper meaning and truth?

Teke
May 7th 2007, 02:26 PM
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.:saint:

Whispering Grace
May 7th 2007, 02:27 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 02:49 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 04:18 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 04:47 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 04:53 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 05:21 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 06:10 PM
Then the same would apply scientifically as well. As I stated previously, science can only prove God, not disprove Him.:saint: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
May 7th 2007, 06:28 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 06:38 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 07:12 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 09:03 PM
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
May 7th 2007, 09:08 PM
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.:confused

Whispering Grace
May 7th 2007, 09:17 PM
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.:confused

I know the intended meaning....Genesis is a literal account of the Lord's Creation. You

Whispering Grace
May 7th 2007, 09:20 PM
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.:confused

I know the intended meaning....Genesis is a literal account of the Lord's Creation. You can look in the Bible and see that several inspired writers of Scripture refered to the Genesis accounts as being literal, historic events.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 09:27 PM
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.

1. How much time elapsed between Adam's creation and the recognition he needed Eve?
2. This nowhere says either one was created mature. So, yes, you are adding that assumption into your interpretation. He created a male human and a female human, that's all the Word says.


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.

So you think the serpent in Genesis is just a metaphor for Satan and the Genesis serpent wasn't really a snake at all?


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.

My point exactly.

One more question...

On a number of occasions I have had to help farm animals have babies. Most often cows. Why is childbirth for cows so painful? Isn't that a curse specifically on Eve and her female children?

"Death came to all men because all sinned." When did death come to animals and why?

punk
May 7th 2007, 09:39 PM
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 even if your eyes said the sky was blue, if the Bible said the sky was green you would conclude your eyes weren't seeing color correctly?

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2007, 09:47 PM
ThinkingFaith, you seem to enjoy twisting words. :rolleyes: Read Genesis 2:7 again please:
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.

God formed MAN! How is that adding anything? It doesn't say He formed baby or boy but MAN.

Where did I say the serpent in Genesis was a metaphor? :hmm: I said the serpent in the Genesis account was cunning. Then I showed a metaphor in Revelation. Are you really reading my post or just making some assumption as to what I mean?

As to your cows childbirth and death:

Romans 8:23 - For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The whole of creation is subject to suffering and death because sin entered the world through Adam. Your cows are a part of creation. That's according to scripture. This is why this is in our future:

Isaiah 11:6-8
6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.

BTW, your take on scripture does not bother me. Just curious, why do my well thought out beliefs seem to cause trouble for you? :hmm:

Teke
May 7th 2007, 09:49 PM
I know the intended meaning....Genesis is a literal account of the Lord's Creation. You can look in the Bible and see that several inspired writers of Scripture refered to the Genesis accounts as being literal, historic events.


Then how would one handle contradictions, such as Genesis to say the stars were created after the earth, yet Job (an older text than the Genesis text) says the earth was created after the stars. Gen. 1:16-19, Job 38:4-7

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 09:56 PM
ThinkingFaith, you seem to enjoy twisting words. :rolleyes: Read Genesis 2:7 again please:
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.

God formed MAN! How is that adding anything? It doesn't say He formed baby or boy but MAN.

The word translated "man" here is "adam." It is also the word used for "mankind." Genesis 2:7 could just as well be translated "God formed Adam" or "God formed mankind."


Where did I say the serpent in Genesis was a metaphor?


Just as Herod is like a fox (also cunning), so Satan is like a serpent.

From that statement I thought you were saying since the first is a metaphor, so is the second.


BTW, your take on scripture does not bother me. Just curious, why do my well thought out beliefs seem to cause trouble for you? :hmm:

Why would you think it bothers me?

VerticalReality
May 7th 2007, 09:57 PM
So even if your eyes said the sky was blue, if the Bible said the sky was green you would conclude your eyes weren't seeing color correctly?

Yes. If I believe what I'm seeing is blue, but the bible says it is green, I would conclude that I, in my fallible state, don't have a clear understanding of what blue really is. The truth is what Scripture presents. Everything else falls in line with that or we simply do not have a clear understanding.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 10:01 PM
Yes. If I believe what I'm seeing is blue, but the bible says it is green, I would conclude that I, in my fallible state, don't have a clear understanding of what blue really is. The truth is what Scripture presents. Everything else falls in line with that or we simply do not have a clear understanding.

Why think your observation, not your interpretation, is in error?

punk
May 7th 2007, 10:03 PM
Yes. If I believe what I'm seeing is blue, but the bible says it is green, I would conclude that I, in my fallible state, don't have a clear understanding of what blue really is. The truth is what Scripture presents. Everything else falls in line with that or we simply do not have a clear understanding.

Hmmm.

In that case you have set the Bible beyond any standard of truth or falsehood. There is now no way to confirm or deny the veracity of the Biblical text.

You now cannot prove the Bible is true to anyone, since it is beyond any measure of truth. So, the Bible is now useless for evangelism, it can only have meaning for people who already believe it has meaning.

Of course, there is also no way to confirm that one reading is better than another since comparison to reality or the historical record is impossible.

In fact if I choose to understand "day" as "indeterminate period of time", you cannot prove me wrong, since you have no way to establish that other uses of "day" refer to 24 hour days, since you have set the Bible beyond truth and falsehood.

If you say to me that Hebrew understands the word translated as "day" to be a 24 hour day, I will simply say, "Well, unfortunately the Hebrew language has been using the word incorrectly. The Bible is true regardless of how Hebrew-speakers speak."

Studyin'2Show
May 7th 2007, 10:09 PM
Why would you think it bothers me?Your posting style gives that appearance. I pretty much call it like I see it, in scripture and in science. I believe true science upholds scripture. BTW, since you seem to question that God made man mature, how about looking at this one again?

Genesis 2:22 - Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

What of God taking a rib from man and making woman? Surely this is the mature form, woman, wife. :hmm:

God Bless!

aliensyndm
May 7th 2007, 10:17 PM
Remember nowhere in the bible does it say God created the world 6000 years ago. People have assumed they can use genealogies for chronological purposes and it's not a reasonable assumption for many reasons, the purpose of Genesis is not chronology ! I'm not saying it isn't 6000 years old, just that it isn't actually stated unlike other things such as God created the universe in six days.

The thing about metaphors etc, I posted this in another thread....



For you know quite well that the day of the Lord’s return will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night.

1 Thessalonians 5:2

There's a simile being used to describe the return of Jesus. It's not saying he is a thief, it's just using the same technique to get across the point that his return will be unexpected. Noone expects a thief in the night......otherwise you would prepare for it.


However, you then get other passages which I don't think you can claim are similies or metaphors or any other kind of language technique.
We have the Genesis account of creation. It says God created the universe in 6 days and he created man and woman. I don't see how that can be metaphorical or symbolism. Especially also when we have Jesus saying things such as...

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’

Matthew 19:4

It says it in Genesis, we then have Jesus saying it. I'm sure he also refers to Adam and other Old Testament figures as real people....not just inventions or symbolism ! So quite how people can say the Genesis account is not supposed to be taken literally I cannot understand.



Also in regards to classification/label. God's way of classifying animals/beasts might well be different to our own. He may class everything that lives in the sea/ocean as a fish.........in our way of classifying animals things like whales and dolphins are not classed as fish as they take their oxygen from the air, rather than from the water.
It doesn't mean though that if God called what we recognise as a whale a fish that he has gotten it wrong !

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 10:27 PM
Your posting style gives that appearance. I pretty much call it like I see it, in scripture and in science.

Not really seeing how my posting style is a problem. I disagree with your interpretation, but I don't engage in ad hominems.


I believe true science upholds scripture.

So science properly understood and the Bible properly understood must be in harmony? Good, reliable, tested, falsifiable science shows the earth to be billions of years old. So since this science is well done and well documented, how does that change your interpretation of Genesis 1?


BTW, since you seem to question that God made man mature, how about looking at this one again?

Genesis 2:22 - Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

What of God taking a rib from man and making woman? Surely this is the mature form, woman, wife.

The word here translated "woman" is derived from “adam” and can just as easily be translated "female" or "womankind."

Again this is one very viable interpretation.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 10:32 PM
Remember nowhere in the bible does it say God created the world 6000 years ago. People have assumed they can use genealogies for chronological purposes and it's not a reasonable assumption for many reasons, the purpose of Genesis is not chronology ! I'm not saying it isn't 6000 years old, just that it isn't actually stated unlike other things such as God created the universe in six days.

The thing about metaphors etc, I posted this in another thread....

[/color]


Also in regards to classification/label. God's way of classifying animals/beasts might well be different to our own. He may class everything that lives in the sea/ocean as a fish.........in our way of classifying animals things like whales and dolphins are not classed as fish as they take their oxygen from the air, rather than from the water.
It doesn't mean though that if God called what we recognise as a whale a fish that he has gotten it wrong !

One of the easiest ways to spot a metaphor is to see if some non-human thing is given the characteristics of a human. Like a serpent speaking.

If one believes the Bible as first written was infallible, why would it contain a passage talking about a fish when he meant a whale? Why wouldn't the genealogies be able to be used as a timeline?

chal
May 7th 2007, 11:02 PM
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.

If my interpretation of the Bible tells me that the sky is green, while my eyes interpretation of the sky tell me that it's blue and I choose to believe God's perfect word, over my imperfect eyes, that is a far cry from claiming to see things that aren't there. I may be wrong in my interpretation of it, but you can't say that there is no basis for my claim. The basis is scripture to the best of my ability to understand it. Your claim of "obvious reality," is based on science to the best of your ability to understand it. Both conclusions are based on interpretations. If you place science as the standard or bottom line above and beyond scripture, then science is your god.

I won't address the "literal 6 day creation," for several reasons. First, that argument usually goes in circles, I don't believe that it's the proper intrpretation of scripture (I could care less what science says) and it would also take the thread OT. My point is not that you should interpret scripture literally when it's not intended that way, but that scripture nevertheless must be placed above scientific method as the Christian standard. Science must line up with scripture (interpreted properly, not necessarily always literally).

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Whispering Grace
May 7th 2007, 11:02 PM
One of the easiest ways to spot a metaphor is to see if some non-human thing is given the characteristics of a human. Like a serpent speaking.

You don't think God can make a serpent speak?

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 11:08 PM
You don't think God can make a serpent speak?

Yes, if God is all powerful He can certainly make a serpent speak. That's not the point. The point is to explain the kind of things one looks for to know when we are reading a metaphor. Animals talking like humans are a big clue.

Whispering Grace
May 7th 2007, 11:15 PM
Yes, if God is all powerful He can certainly make a serpent speak. That's not the point. The point is to explain the kind of things one looks for to know when we are reading a metaphor. Animals talking like humans are a big clue.

How do you know God wasn't literally making a serpent talk, especially after you just said He can do anything? That makes no sense.

The only way the metaphor claim works is if God can't make a serpent talk.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 11:18 PM
If my interpretation of the Bible tells me that the sky is green, while my eyes interpretation of the sky tell me that it's blue and I choose to believe God's perfect word, over my imperfect eyes, that is a far cry from claiming to see things that aren't there.

You are correct. It is claiming something you do see isn't there. As Monty Python's Black Knight said, "It's only a flesh wound."


I may be wrong in my interpretation of it, but you can't say that there is no basis for my claim. The basis is scripture to the best of my ability to understand it. Your claim of "obvious reality," is based on science to the best of your ability to understand it. Both conclusions are based on interpretations. If you place science as the standard or bottom line above and beyond scripture, then science is your god.

Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. If I find two sources of "truth" that disagree then either my interpretation is wrong or one of the two isn't true.

"Science" is an oft misunderstood word. It's just the study of the creation. Are there things we don't know yet? Sure. But there are also things we know very well and have known and observed for centuries.

When I find verified science disagreeing with my understanding of scripture I would always first check the science. But if the science is well established then I would consider whether my understanding of scripture is flawed.


I won't address the "literal 6 day creation," for several reasons. First, that argument usually goes in circles, I don't believe that it's the proper intrpretation of scripture (I could care less what science says) and it would also take the thread OT. My point is not that you should interpret scripture literally when it's not intended that way, but that scripture nevertheless must be placed above scientific method as the Christian standard. Science must line up with scripture (interpreted properly, not necessarily always literally).

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I spend much of my time talking to scientists about my faith. They ask me about my faith. They ask me to share my faith. Well established science is just as "true" as 2+2=4. So when they point out the inconsistencies between established science and the Bible, it's not just some mental debate for me. It's real. I need to have a better answer than "I trust the Bible above all things."

I need to be able to give them a reason for the hope that I have. And I do.

I trust God above all things. My interpretation of the Bible is imperfect. My understanding of the creation is imperfect. But I have solid reason and evidence behind my faith.

ThinkingFaith
May 7th 2007, 11:21 PM
How do you know God wasn't literally making a serpent talk, especially after you just said He can do anything? That makes no sense.

The only way the metaphor claim works is if God can't make a serpent talk.

No, the metaphor claim works because it is a clear principle not just of Biblical interpretation but literary interpretation as well. When we read "O Captain, My Captain" we understand the Captain is a metaphor for Lincoln.

The same principle that says Herod wasn't a fox applies here: Satan isn't a snake.

chal
May 7th 2007, 11:38 PM
I will bow out now. What is being presented here is a God-plus system with a repeated and cycled argument. No sense beating a dead horse.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

framed;
02675 2675 katartizo kat-ar-tid'-zo
from 2596 and a derivative of 739; to complete thoroughly, i.e. repair
(literally or figuratively) or adjust:--fit, frame, mend, (make)
perfect(-ly join together), prepare, restore.
see GREEK for 2596
see GREEK for 739

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 12:06 AM
No, the metaphor claim works because it is a clear principle not just of Biblical interpretation but literary interpretation as well. When we read "O Captain, My Captain" we understand the Captain is a metaphor for Lincoln.

The same principle that says Herod wasn't a fox applies here: Satan isn't a snake.

Again, you haven't shown how it is a metaphor. And as I said, several inspired writers of other books of the Bible clearly refer to Genesis as being literal, so your assessment comes up short.

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2007, 01:30 AM
The word here translated "woman" is derived from “adam” and can just as easily be translated "female" or "womankind."To be his wife, and he said she was good so they must have been at least teenagers because if he was any younger he would have said, "Eww, cooties!" :lol:

TF, this is just starting to be silly. What is the point? We disagree. Now what? My Ivy League education did not come from Walmart. As I've said before, I did not grow up as a believer. In fact, just about six years ago I was an evolution believer. I have studied these issues for five solid years and I see things differently than you seem to. But that's ok. Believers need not agree on every point. I think what's important is that we can all see that the Bible is indeed true. If you need to see Genesis as solely an allegory, so be it. I don't need to. I can see it on every dimension as flawless and still see true observable, testable science as valuable. But really, as believers, now what? Do you feel it's necessary for everyone to agree with your position for us to be brothers and sisters in Christ? Just curious. :hmm:

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 11:55 AM
To be his wife, and he said she was good so they must have been at least teenagers because if he was any younger he would have said, "Eww, cooties!" :lol:

TF, this is just starting to be silly. What is the point? We disagree. Now what? My Ivy League education did not come from Walmart. As I've said before, I did not grow up as a believer. In fact, just about six years ago I was an evolution believer. I have studied these issues for five solid years and I see things differently than you seem to. But that's ok. Believers need not agree on every point. I think what's important is that we can all see that the Bible is indeed true. If you need to see Genesis as solely an allegory, so be it. I don't need to. I can see it on every dimension as flawless and still see true observable, testable science as valuable. But really, as believers, now what? Do you feel it's necessary for everyone to agree with your position for us to be brothers and sisters in Christ? Just curious. :hmm:

Yes we see it differently and I am sorry if I offended you. You used Adam as an example of why you believe the earth was created with apparent age. I simply showed why I disagreed. I have trouble seeing how that is silly or offensive.

The apparant age debate is a very serious one and one on which a number of Christians hang their 6,000 year hat on. I don't care that you disagree but I do wonder why. I simply asked you for your reasoning and questioned some of its flaws. That's pretty much how we all learn. That's pretty much what you had to go through at any Ivy League college.

There are those here who's posts I've read who have begun to question their faith because they seem to get the impression that the only way to interpret Genesis is literally. I am trying to show the scripture supports an allegorical view as well. Is that not worth discussing?

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 12:09 PM
In fact, just about six years ago I was an evolution believer.

:agree:

I fully believed in evolution for much of my adult life.

TF.....what I don't understand, honestly, is some people's insistence that evolution/old earth/etc. has anything to do with the Christian faith.

Christians are not of this world. This earth isn't even our true home. I know on both sides of the issue, there are people determined to "prove" themselves, but to me, it simply doesn't matter.

Christians are on this earth to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to show people the way to eternal life. We are here on a mission and are, in essence, "strangers in a strange land". We don't belong here and we will not stay here. Our Lord is coming back for us, and He will make a new heaven and earth.

So, to be quite frank, please explain to me why it matters to me what science tells me about the age of the earth and evolution. I worship Jesus Christ, not science. I follow Jesus Christ, not science. I live for Jesus Christ, not science.

And more importantly, why does it matter to you what I believe about evolution, etc?

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 12:56 PM
what I don't understand, honestly, is some people's insistence that evolution/old earth/etc. has anything to do with the Christian faith.

There is a dicotomy being taught that is harmful to the body of Christ--if one accepts old earth or evolution then they cannot be a Christian. You've seen it on this board. You've heard it from Ken Hamm and it is a commonly held belief.

When we don't present alternatives to this teaching many Christians have serious struggles in their faith (which is what I said to S2S above.)


Christians are not of this world. This earth isn't even our true home. I know on both sides of the issue, there are people determined to "prove" themselves, but to me, it simply doesn't matter..

Then stop posting about it. No one is forcing you to discuss something you don't care about.


Christians are on this earth to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to show people the way to eternal life. We are here on a mission and are, in essence, "strangers in a strange land". We don't belong here and we will not stay here. Our Lord is coming back for us, and He will make a new heaven and earth.

So, to be quite frank, please explain to me why it matters to me what science tells me about the age of the earth and evolution. I worship Jesus Christ, not science. I follow Jesus Christ, not science. I live for Jesus Christ, not science.

And more importantly, why does it matter to you what I believe about evolution, etc?

What you believe about evolution, etc. doesn't really matter to me. What does matter to me are those who will come to this thread and see there are alternatives to a literal Genesis that will also hold up to scientific scrutiny. You may not care at all about science. Great. Good for you. I don't have that luxury.

As I mentioned in the original post, I am wondering if in public we don't need to get far more serious about science. You may not think that is necessary. I disagree. Junk science in the name of Christ is still lying in the name of Christ. It hurts our witness and it hurts the faith of those who understand science yet are told their science prevents them from being a Christian.

So I believe it is important to talk about these things.

VerticalReality
May 8th 2007, 01:53 PM
So I believe it is important to talk about these things.

I think the apostle Paul would have certainly disagreed with you. He was not fond of the wisdom of men, and he didn't view trying to debate unbelievers on the level of human intellect as something at all profitable. If you have the power of the Spirit operating through you there shouldn't be any need to be able to discuss evolution or creation or anything else to an unbeliever.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 02:10 PM
I think the apostle Paul would have certainly disagreed with you. He was not fond of the wisdom of men, and he didn't view trying to debate unbelievers on the level of human intellect as something at all profitable. If you have the power of the Spirit operating through you there shouldn't be any need to be able to discuss evolution or creation or anything else to an unbeliever.

Paul spoke at the Areopogus and began his speaking with a very human, intellectual argument. Acts 17. Please note the number of times Paul--just in Acts 17--is said to be disputing or reasoning.

I shouldn't discuss anything with an unbeliever? How will they believe if no one speaks to them? Romans 10.

I think you are mistaken because Paul put his confidence in God rather than in human wisdom. That doesn't mean he didn't ever discuss, argue or reason with non-Christians.

VerticalReality
May 8th 2007, 02:46 PM
Paul spoke at the Areopogus and began his speaking with a very human, intellectual argument. Acts 17. Please note the number of times Paul--just in Acts 17--is said to be disputing or reasoning.

I have read fine. Have you also not noticed that Paul learned his lesson from this and changed his outlook due to these events? He first came with intellectual reason and he didn't get the best results from his efforts.



Acts 17:32-34
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” So Paul departed from among them. However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.


He then left there and headed to Corinth and changed his approach in a more Spirit-led direction, as we can see in 1 Corinthians 2. Approaching an unbeliever through intellect and reason is pretty fruitless. If you have no power, you have nothing to back up the assertions that you are making. As you can see, a good portion of the unbelievers simply mocked Paul or said they would follow up with him later.


I shouldn't discuss anything with an unbeliever? How will they believe if no one speaks to them? Romans 10.

You are to be a witness to the unbeliever with the Spirit and of power. Not with human intellect.


I think you are mistaken because Paul put his confidence in God rather than in human wisdom. That doesn't mean he didn't ever discuss, argue or reason with non-Christians.

Actually, he put his confidence in the power of God, not in words. He actually warned the Corinthians about the method you are suggesting.



1 Corinthians 4:18-20
Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.


You can use the human wisdom if you'd like, but I'll just stick with the power of the Holy Spirit. As you can see, Paul's approach using intellect and reason only brought a few converts. However, using an approach of the Spirit and of power brings about a whole lot more!

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 03:15 PM
There is a dicotomy being taught that is harmful to the body of Christ--if one accepts old earth or evolution then they cannot be a Christian. You've seen it on this board. You've heard it from Ken Hamm and it is a commonly held belief.

I think the issue is whether one trusts the Bible as the Word of God or not. If we don't trust His Word, despite what the world tell us, how can we trust Him?

As I said before, God is supernatural. You are arguing the natural here, and God transcends the natural.

The problem I see with a lot of "evolutionists" is that they dismiss anything in the Bible that seems the least bit impossible by natural, human standards and instead choose to believe only what they can see and what modern science tells them is possible.

The Bible says with God ALL things are possible and blessed are those who don't see and yet still believe.


When we don't present alternatives to this teaching many Christians have serious struggles in their faith (which is what I said to S2S above.)

And you don't think Christians have struggles with their faith when people such as yourself come to a Christian board and say that what we believe in the Bible to be literal truth is not? How are you helping those who believe in a 6 Day Creation by coming here and saying they are wrong and science is right?



Then stop posting about it. No one is forcing you to discuss something you don't care about.


I do care when people who come to conservative Christians boards and push the evolution agenda.



What you believe about evolution, etc. doesn't really matter to me. What does matter to me are those who will come to this thread and see there are alternatives to a literal Genesis that will also hold up to scientific scrutiny. You may not care at all about science. Great. Good for you. I don't have that luxury.


You don't have that luxury? Why not? Is your faith in God or in science?


As I mentioned in the original post, I am wondering if in public we don't need to get far more serious about science.

No.

What Christians need to get far more serious about is getting out in this world and spreading the Gospel. Science doesn't mean a thing when people's souls are condemned to an eternity in hell.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 03:43 PM
I have read fine. Have you also not noticed that Paul learned his lesson from this and changed his outlook due to these events? He first came with intellectual reason and he didn't get the best results from his efforts.

He then left there and headed to Corinth and changed his approach in a more Spirit-led direction, as we can see in 1 Corinthians 2. Approaching an unbeliever through intellect and reason is pretty fruitless. If you have no power, you have nothing to back up the assertions that you are making. As you can see, a good portion of the unbelievers simply mocked Paul or said they would follow up with him later.

Have you not read Acts 18? Paul is described as reasoning with the Jews and Greeks in Corinth. The same way he did in Berea, Thessalonica and Athens. Yes I have read I Cor 2, but to say Paul changed the way he was preaching because it wasn't working is an argument from silence.


You are to be a witness to the unbeliever with the Spirit and of power. Not with human intellect.

Actually, he put his confidence in the power of God, not in words. He actually warned the Corinthians about the method you are suggesting.

You can use the human wisdom if you'd like, but I'll just stick with the power of the Holy Spirit. As you can see, Paul's approach using intellect and reason only brought a few converts. However, using an approach of the Spirit and of power brings about a whole lot more!

I suspect there are few on this board who have seen or followed up on as many powerful moves of God as I have. What makes you think I deny the power of God because I insist on talking to non-Christians about Jesus in ways they understand?

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 03:56 PM
I think the issue is whether one trusts the Bible as the Word of God or not. If we don't trust His Word, despite what the world tell us, how can we trust Him?

This is why many struggle with their faith after reading the literalists interpretation of scripture. Just as you imply here, no one can trust Jesus if he doesn't trust your interpretation of scripture.

I simply present an alternative way at looking at scripture. I understand you disagree, but to insinuate I cannot trust Jesus is beyond ludacrous. It is one of the reasons why others who struggle in their faith are scared to ask questions, lest they be label as unfaithful.


As I said before, God is supernatural. You are arguing the natural here, and God transcends the natural.

God is the creator. He tells us to look to the creation to know he is God. When I look to the creation I don't believe it is misleading.



The problem I see with a lot of "evolutionists" is that they dismiss anything in the Bible that seems the least bit impossible by natural, human standards and instead choose to believe only what they can see and what modern science tells them is possible.

The Bible says with God ALL things are possible and blessed are those who don't see and yet still believe.

Did I mention evolution in this thread? I'm not aware that I did.

Are you putting down the faith of those who have seen evidence of God's working? If so that means you are putting down the faith of Thomas, Peter, Paul--all of the apostles. You are in direct oppositions to one of the reasons Paul says we should believe: That many have seen the risen Christ (I Cor 15.)

I have seen many powerful moves of God and I do believe God is able to do anything He chooses. What I disagree with are those who believe they have a corner on Biblical interpretation and question the faith of anyone who has a different interpretation.


And you don't think Christians have struggles with their faith when people such as yourself come to a Christian board and say that what we believe in the Bible to be literal truth is not? How are you helping those who believe in a 6 Day Creation by coming here and saying they are wrong and science is right?

I have never said those who believe in a 6 day literal creation are not saved or cannot trust God, I simply supported my belief in a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't come here to "help literalists"--I was very open about why I started this thread: It was to help in winning those who take science seriously.

There are many who are the voice of literalism. I wanted people to know there is another option that still honors God's word.


I do care when people who come to conservative Christians boards and push the evolution agenda.

Again I am not aware that I said anything in this thread about evolution.


You don't have that luxury? Why not? Is your faith in God or in science?

My faith is in God. The reason I don't have the option of ignoring science is simply because most of the people I share Christ with are scientists or are very familiar with science. When they point to errors in the Bible I need to be able to present why I still believe and why they ought to believe as well.

That's why I don't have the luxury of ignoring problematic Biblical passages nor science.



No.

What Christians need to get far more serious about is getting out in this world and spreading the Gospel. Science doesn't mean a thing when people's souls are condemned to an eternity in hell.[/quote]

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 04:48 PM
TF....you know very well that evolution is one of the divisive issues in regard to science and the Bible.

And for the record, I don't believe God's creation lies either. I believe man has it wrong, not God.

Jesus Christ referred to the Flood as being a literal historic event. I have no reason to doubt Him. Do you believe what Jesus Christ told us about the Flood, or do you believe what man tells you about the Flood?

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 04:52 PM
Are you putting down the faith of those who have seen evidence of God's working? If so that means you are putting down the faith of Thomas, Peter, Paul--all of the apostles. You are in direct oppositions to one of the reasons Paul says we should believe: That many have seen the risen Christ (I Cor 15.)

Yes, they saw the risen Christ. How many did? A few hundred?

Paul was giving a testimony. He didn't need to provide physical evidence of Christ for anyone, but gave a testimony of his own experience with the supernatural God......just as God calls us to do.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 05:21 PM
TF....you know very well that evolution is one of the divisive issues in regard to science and the Bible.

Yes, but this thread is about whether we take science seriously. I intentionally kept the debate about the veracity of evolution behind.


And for the record, I don't believe God's creation lies either. I believe man has it wrong, not God.

Specifically what do you believe man has wrong when it comes to our understanding of the creation?


Jesus Christ referred to the Flood as being a literal historic event. I have no reason to doubt Him. Do you believe what Jesus Christ told us about the Flood, or do you believe what man tells you about the Flood?

I believe the account of Noah is taken from a generations old oral history and represents a local flood. I also believe Jesus using the flood as an example is similar to him using parables--whether or not the account was true, it was familiar and made familiar points to the listeners.

Here's a question for you along the same line: How many days and nights was Jesus in the tomb? He tells us he will be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights (Matthew 12:40.) When was he crucified, buried and resurrected in terms of days of the week? Most Bible scholars teach a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 05:23 PM
Yes, they saw the risen Christ. How many did? A few hundred?

Paul was giving a testimony. He didn't need to provide physical evidence of Christ for anyone, but gave a testimony of his own experience with the supernatural God......just as God calls us to do.

We believe because of the "evidence of the miracles themselves."

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 05:41 PM
Specifically what do you believe man has wrong when it comes to our understanding of the creation?

Anything that goes against God's Word.



I believe the account of Noah is taken from a generations old oral history and represents a local flood. I also believe Jesus using the flood as an example is similar to him using parables--whether or not the account was true, it was familiar and made familiar points to the listeners.


A local flood? The Bible says no such thing:

Genesis 7:

20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.
24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

And since when did Peter speak in parables?

2 Peter 2:

5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly...



Here's a question for you along the same line: How many days and nights was Jesus in the tomb? He tells us he will be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights (Matthew 12:40.) When was he crucified, buried and resurrected in terms of days of the week? Most Bible scholars teach a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection.

What does this have to do with science?

aliensyndm
May 8th 2007, 05:54 PM
Thinkingfaith-By your logic I could say absolutely anything in the entire bible is not meant to be taken literally and is not true.
Jesus spoke in parables yes, his apostles even asked him why he did this.
He also spoke about real people and real events too, there is a difference.

This passage worries me slightly....


My faith is in God. The reason I don't have the option of ignoring science is simply because most of the people I share Christ with are scientists or are very familiar with science. When they point to errors in the Bible I need to be able to present why I still believe and why they ought to believe as well.

That's why I don't have the luxury of ignoring problematic Biblical passages nor science.

Mistakes in the bible ? Do you believe the bible is the word of God ?
If so how on earth can there be mistakes ?!? God can perform miracles, God spoke the universe into existence, even the winds and water obey him, yet you think he has mistakes in his word ?!?! Boggles the mind that.
Of course there can be translation errors and the like but that's not what we are referring to here.

You are still under some delusion that man has all the answers and that to believe the bible means you have go against science and deny scientific "facts". You seem to have an awful lot of faith in these scientists. Do you think they are all beyond pride and other agendas ? You have a lot of faith in them.

As I've said many times before,....do you believe that the entire universe was compacted into an infinitely dense particle/singularity (that somehow created itself out of nothing) ? Do you believe this then exploded and formed the universe ? Do you believe that somehow the various elements formed as protons and neutrons fused ? Do you believe somehow the planets, stars, galaxies all then formed from this explosion somehow ? You then also believe earth was one of these planets and that somehow life managed to create itself on this planet. You then also believe that this life gradually progressed and evolved into more complex life forms. All this with no intelligent guiding force ?
That's a serious leap of faith !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All the above is supposed to be science remember, you are the one who says we should get with the program with regards to science.
That is the scientific explanation. There's not an awful lot scientific about it really but if you dare say that you are told you are dumb, stupid, ignorant and not a real scientist, great eh ?
Thing is, most atheists believe the above account explains the origin of the universe and therein lies the problem.

How do you believe the universe was created ? Do you even believe God created it ? I am beginning to wonder.

VerticalReality
May 8th 2007, 06:02 PM
What does this have to do with science?

I was thinking the same thing. If I didn't know any better, I would think there was an agenda here to try and cast doubt on Scripture.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 06:03 PM
As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, I believe the Bible was not dictated by God but was inspired by God's working with mankind. As such it is many men's best picture of God's dealing with man. It is written from man's standpoint.

I do not believe it is "perfect," I believe it is "through a glass darkly." As such I don't feel a need to explain obvious contradictions and mis-statements in the Bible, nor the seeming disparity between the genocidal God of the Old Testament and Jesus' teachings in the New.

I also understand many of you will find this objectionable. I try not to mention it too often here because it seems to bring a reactionary, knee jerk response--often angry. I try to avoid that.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 06:05 PM
What does this have to do with science?

Nothing. It has to do with how you view the Bible and the words Jesus spoke. If Jesus said he would be in the ground 3 nights and 3 days, then either that was true or it wasn't. Most Bible scholars--even the literalists--have trouble reconciling this with other passages of scripture.

You asked me my opinion about the flood. It reflected my personal view of scritpture. I simply asked you a question so I could understand how you deal with problematic passages.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 06:17 PM
You are still under some delusion that man has all the answers and that to believe the bible means you have go against science and deny scientific "facts". You seem to have an awful lot of faith in these scientists. Do you think they are all beyond pride and other agendas ? You have a lot of faith in them.

Absolutely not. In fact, their pride is what makes them more likely to get it right than wrong. They love punching holes in one another's flawed arguments and demonstrating why they are wrong.

I don't believe man has all the answers. I also don't believe the Bible is the only place we learn about God. Anyone who believes they have God figured out is a fool--we never will.


As I've said many times before,....do you believe that the entire universe was compacted into an infinitely dense particle/singularity (that somehow created itself out of nothing) ? Do you believe this then exploded and formed the universe ? Do you believe that somehow the various elements formed as protons and neutrons fused ? Do you believe somehow the planets, stars, galaxies all then formed from this explosion somehow ? You then also believe earth was one of these planets and that somehow life managed to create itself on this planet. You then also believe that this life gradually progressed and evolved into more complex life forms. All this with no intelligent guiding force ?

I have no clue how the universe was formed. I do believe the visible universe was formed by God, I just don't have a clue how He did it. Nor do I claim to know enough about God to speculate.

My personal leaning is to believe God operates according to the laws of the universe, but the laws of the universe He operates according to are far beyond anything we understand.

How does God regrow a limb? Beats me. But how does a doctor reattached a limb? Don't know that one either. God has a way of doing things far beyond what any of us comprehends. Maybe we'll understand more in time, but I doubt we will ever understand it all.



All the above is supposed to be science remember, you are the one who says we should get with the program with regards to science.
That is the scientific explanation. There's not an awful lot scientific about it really but if you dare say that you are told you are dumb, stupid, ignorant and not a real scientist, great eh ?
Thing is, most atheists believe the above account explains the origin of the universe and therein lies the problem.

How do you believe the universe was created ? Do you even believe God created it ? I am beginning to wonder.

First, even atheists who are up on science do not believe we have the answer to the origin of life (abiogenesis.) We have some speculation but not hard science. One commonly accepted theory is life was "planted" here.

Second, many of the things you mentioned are very much verifiable via scientific method. They aren't simply accepted on "faith." The idea that science is just speculation is a Christian myth.

Why don't you tell me *how* you believe God created man from the dust of the ground? I'll bet you don't know, you just know He did it. The HOW escapes us.

One of the goals I see in science from a Christian standpoint is to learn more about the "hows" and to learn in the process more about the Creator.

Teke
May 8th 2007, 06:20 PM
TF, me thinks your thread has gone haywire.:lol:


My faith is in God. The reason I don't have the option of ignoring science is simply because most of the people I share Christ with are scientists or are very familiar with science. When they point to errors in the Bible I need to be able to present why I still believe and why they ought to believe as well.

That's why I don't have the luxury of ignoring problematic Biblical passages nor science.

From this quote by you posted by the previous poster. I would like to address this. From your statement above, your faith is in God. If it is your faith you wish to share with these scientists, then why not rather explain Christ to them, than trying to prove the bible.

I do not believe you need to prove your faith to them, especially with the bible, unless your faith is in the bible.
And you do have the "luxury of ignoring problematic biblical passages" by your liberty in Christ.

If your scientific coworkers do not understand the metaphysical aspect of the bible in relation to the church of Christ, then it is for them to seek those answers from God. As you will never know what they are really questioning or denying. Since the bible isn't a science book, they can only look at it scientifically from a philosophical point.

Here is an article, I believe is relevant to this conversation. And something we should keep in mind in our respect for each others beliefs.


Here I Stand
DOUBT & THE COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS

John Garvey

There has been an interesting recent debate about faith and doubt, religious belief and atheism (science and religion could be part of this list). Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic and the author of The Conservative Soul (HarperCollins), and Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation (Alfred A. Knopf), have had at it on the Web site Beliefnet. Harris argues that all religion is lethal, and that those Christians who are not fundamentalists don’t really understand that religion inherently tends toward fundamentalism and intolerance. Sullivan counters this, in his book and in the course of this debate, by emphasizing the role that reasonable doubt plays in any serious theology. Doubt is, in a sense, a form of humility.

On the whole, I agree with Sullivan’s approach, although there is a danger here. This approach could be seen more as a way of hedging your bets than as a form of faith-a way of half believing, as it were: after all, you could be wrong.

And of course you could be. Sullivan is right to stress humility and a respect for the opinions of others. But there may be a more effective way to approach this. Rather than emphasize doubt, it might make more sense to speak of the place out of which one believes-the community of faith, the tradition, the thing handed on to you.

Rather than say that I know what I believe, I think it is closer to the truth to say that I know the framework within which I believe, and doubt, and wonder. I know the persons who move and compel me-Paul, the saints, people I have known whose lives and witness matter deeply to me, all of them gathered in sometimes complicated ways in an assembly into which we are baptized, and within which we share the Eucharist-a word that means “thanksgiving.” This assembly is centered on Jesus, who saves us all, despite us.

All of what we usually see as the church-dogma, the creed, etc.-has to do with the person of Jesus, and unless it is seen always in relation to his person, it is distorted. Christian faith must not be seen as a series of propositions to which one assents. When membership in the church is reduced to this level, it cannot provide us with a community within which people may be transformed. Faith has to do with a relationship with someone, not something. It is not a party line. Seeing who this person is, as clearly as we can, is the reason for dogma.

The Orthodox anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) of St. Basil the Great, which is said on the Sundays of Lent and on some other feasts, speaks of the way in which it is only through the person of Jesus that we understand anything at all about our truest relationship with God:

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and Savior, our hope, who is the image of your goodness, the seal of your true likeness, showing forth himself in you, Father-the living word, the true God, the eternal wisdom, the life, the sanctification, the power, the true light, through whom the Holy Spirit was revealed-the Spirit of truth, the gift of sonship, the pledge of future inheritance, the first fruits of eternal blessings, the life-creating power, the fountain of sanctification, through whom every creature of reason and understanding worships you and always sings to you a hymn of glory, for all things are your servants.

This outpouring may be a more moving statement of the living relationship between the Trinity and us than any creed. (It is also a powerful demonstration of the reason any Christian faith must be Christocentric.) We come to this as a community rather than as individuals, some of us more doubtful than others. We try to live in a way that reflects our belief that death and the fear of death do not define us, that this enemy has been overcome in Christ, in the hope of resurrection.

As Hebrews 11 tells us, this is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” And we try to move toward the fullness of what this means from below, not asking for, or needing, proof or verification. Our ordinary relationships with wives and husbands and friends could not survive that sort of demand, much less the connection we have with Jesus in this hopeful, and hoped-for, relationship.

from Commonwealmagazine.org
John Garvey, the author, is an Orthodox priest

Teke
May 8th 2007, 06:26 PM
Nothing. It has to do with how you view the Bible and the words Jesus spoke. If Jesus said he would be in the ground 3 nights and 3 days, then either that was true or it wasn't. Most Bible scholars--even the literalists--have trouble reconciling this with other passages of scripture.

You asked me my opinion about the flood. It reflected my personal view of scritpture. I simply asked you a question so I could understand how you deal with problematic passages.

Tho this is for another thread. Your 3 day, night, question is not problematic if you use the reference scripture gives you on it, Jonah.;)

punk
May 8th 2007, 07:01 PM
It is starting to sound as if some folks want to say that the central miracle of Christianity is the Bible rather than Christ's death and resurrection.

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 07:07 PM
It is starting to sound as if some folks want to say that the central miracle of Christianity is the Bible rather than Christ's death and resurrection.

How do you know the account of His death and resurrection wasn't just a metaphor or symbolic? Why do you take that as a literal historic account?

punk
May 8th 2007, 07:47 PM
How do you know the account of His death and resurrection wasn't just a metaphor or symbolic? Why do you take that as a literal historic account?

Because we have access to God without the Bible.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 07:54 PM
TF, me thinks your thread has gone haywire.

Good thing you are here to keep it on track.



From this quote by you posted by the previous poster. I would like to address this. From your statement above, your faith is in God. If it is your faith you wish to share with these scientists, then why not rather explain Christ to them, than trying to prove the bible.

My statement was incomplete. It should have read "I try to show them why I still believe in Christ and that they need to do the same."

One thing I learned quickly when I began to share my faith with my friends was their problem was not belief in a god, per se, but a belief in the Bible. They could see obvious flaws in the Bible yet were told the Bible was inerrant.

My goal is to show them Christ. Sorry I wasn't more clear.


And you do have the "luxury of ignoring problematic biblical passages" by your liberty in Christ.

I could choose to ignore them without any impact on my salvation, but I choose to address them for the sake of my friends.

Unless I am missing your point here Teke (and I may be--you think more deeply than I seem to), then I think we are in agreement. Christ reality is demonstrated in many ways and we are to testify to Him, not to a book.

I did like the article you posted, especially the Heb 11 explanation.

If I am missing something here, let me know.

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 07:57 PM
Because we have access to God without the Bible.

That didn't answer my question.

punk
May 8th 2007, 08:18 PM
That didn't answer my question.

It certainly did answer the question.

We believe in the Bible because of God, we do not believe in God because of the Bible.

Thus all that we need as Christians we can get from God directly.

The Bible is simply a tool to help us along the way.

If God tells us the death and resurrection is literal, so be it.

If God does not tell us the creation is literal, so be it.

There is no absolute lurking out there saying "the Bible is all literal", or "the Bible is all figurative", for the simple reason that we believe in God, we do not believe in the Bible.

aliensyndm
May 8th 2007, 08:19 PM
Absolutely not. In fact, their pride is what makes them more likely to get it right than wrong. They love punching holes in one another's flawed arguments and demonstrating why they are wrong.



So you actually believe many of these scientists have no agendas ?
They would never try to force their "beliefs" one somoene else ?
The only kind of things they like to demonstrate are say mechanisms of evolution......ooh look you got the mechanism wrong, it works like this.
You won't ever find the line of thought.....hey perhaps it's cos evolution didn't happen etc.
You have alot more faith in them than me then.


I have no clue how the universe was formed. I do believe the visible universe was formed by God, I just don't have a clue how He did it. Nor do I claim to know enough about God to speculate.

Oh I though you were quite up on science ? Science apparently knows how the universe was formed, it was called the big bang. Do you not believe that ?


My personal leaning is to believe God operates according to the laws of the universe, but the laws of the universe He operates according to are far beyond anything we understand.[/QUOTE/

God operates according to the laws of the universe ?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What ?!?!?!?!?!? If someone is omnipotent and beyond time and outwith time they aren't bound by the laws of the universe, isn't that the point ?


[quote]How does God regrow a limb? Beats me. But how does a doctor reattached a limb? Don't know that one either. God has a way of doing things far beyond what any of us comprehends. Maybe we'll understand more in time, but I doubt we will ever understand it all.

Go back 1000 years and let me show someone a video recorder
and they would think you had some sort of God like power, but I am still operating within the laws of the universe. Do you think all God does is just some complex stuff we don't understand yet ?


First, even atheists who are up on science do not believe we have the answer to the origin of life (abiogenesis.) We have some speculation but not hard science. One commonly accepted theory is life was "planted" here.

In fact have they not given up trying to create life in the lab ? Yet the boldy proclaim it definitely must have happened because we are here.
Oh and it wasn't via God, it was some sort of self-replicating molecule that formed and then evolved, apparently.


Second, many of the things you mentioned are very much verifiable via scientific method. They aren't simply accepted on "faith." The idea that science is just speculation is a Christian myth.

Verifiable ? Like declaring that the rate of radio-active decay never changes over billions of years, that's verifiable is it ? You cannot ever verify something like that !
Nowhere have I said that science is just speculation.
What happens though is that your world view can drastically effect how you interpret evidence that you find. A creationist may see a geogrpahical feature and think the flood is the best explanation, an atheist sees the same feature and says millions of years of erosion caused it.


Why don't you tell me *how* you believe God created man from the dust of the ground? I'll bet you don't know, you just know He did it. The HOW escapes us.

I don't think it's anything my human brain could comprehend. The same way I can't ever picture someone being outwith time. The same way I cannot imagine infinity.

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.“And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

Isiah 55:8

Difference here is we have an intelligent, omnipotent creator who can literally create something out of nothing. Whereas in science we don't have that, we have the universe creating itself out of nothing. How did it manage to do that then ?



One of the goals I see in science from a Christian standpoint is to learn more about the "hows" and to learn in the process more about the Creator.


Great but just keep this verse in mind....

Fools base their thoughts on foolish assumptions,so their conclusions will be wicked madness;

Ecclesiastes 10:13

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 08:36 PM
We believe in the Bible because of God, we do not believe in God because of the Bible.

I actually agree with this. But I contend that once we come to saving faith in Jesus Christ, God reveals the truth of the Bible to us.



Thus all that we need as Christians we can get from God directly.


That is a very slippery slope and a very easy way to dismiss the truth of God's Word.

And the Bible DID come from God directly, by the way.


If God tells us the death and resurrection is literal, so be it.

If God does not tell us the creation is literal, so be it.

If science were somehow able to prove Jesus Christ never existed, would you still believe His death and resurrection was a literal historic event? Or would it be shelved right there with the creation and flood as being metaphorical?

I think it's convenient for a lot of people that it can't be disproven with science because many people trust science over God's Word.


There is no absolute lurking out there saying "the Bible is all literal", or "the Bible is all figurative", for the simple reason that we believe in God, we do not believe in the Bible.

To believe in God is to believe His Word, which is the Bible. I don't see how one can be a Christian and not believe in the Bible.

punk
May 8th 2007, 08:49 PM
That is a very slippery slope and a very easy way to dismiss the truth of God's Word.

And the Bible DID come from God directly, by the way.



I'd contend that insisting on a blindly literal reading of the Bible is a very easy way to render it ludicrous, and thus cause one to dismiss the truth of God's word.

The Bible is true within its appropriate context, that is as a guide to how one ought to live the Christian life, and as inspiration. It is not a science-book.




If science were somehow able to prove Jesus Christ never existed, would you still believe His death and resurrection was a literal historic event? Or would it be shelved right there with the creation and flood as being metaphorical?

I think it's convenient for a lot of people that it can't be disproven with science because many people trust science over God's Word.



If science were to do such a thing, and it is difficult to see how it would exactly, indeed we would be forced understand that God is speaking of a metaphorical event through which we understand and relate to Him.

But bear in mind, since none of us here actually interacted with the historical Jesus, we are in fact basing our faith and actions on nothing more than a story that has been handed down to us, the question of historicity doesn't change the fact that all we have is the story.




To believe in God is to believe His Word, which is the Bible. I don't see how one can be a Christian and not believe in the Bible.



There is believing in the Bible in its appropriate place and context, and then there is believing in the Bible in every and all context, even those it was never intended to address.

By claiming God's word applies in areas it was never meant to address we are both missing what God was talking about, and making a mockery of His word.

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 08:58 PM
If science were somehow able to prove Jesus Christ never existed, would you still believe His death and resurrection was a literal historic event? Or would it be shelved right there with the creation and flood as being metaphorical?


If science were to do such a thing, and it is difficult to see how it would exactly, indeed we would be forced understand that God is speaking of a metaphorical event through which we understand and relate to Him.

Wow.

............

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 09:02 PM
Since when is science the be all and end all?

VerticalReality
May 8th 2007, 09:06 PM
I'd contend that insisting on a blindly literal reading of the Bible is a very easy way to render it ludicrous, and thus cause one to dismiss the truth of God's word.

Could that be because . . .

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

punk
May 8th 2007, 09:13 PM
Wow.

............

You said "proved", which is to say "established as an indisputable fact that such and such is the case".

So if science proves Jesus never existed as a historical person, then, well Jesus never existed as a historical person.

I suspect you meant something weaker than "proved" though.

I mean suppose we built a time machine, went back in time to Jesus' day and discovered, lo and behold, he never existed.

Would you insist on believing he existed even if travelling back in time you yourself found he didn't?

punk
May 8th 2007, 09:14 PM
Since when is science the be all and end all?

Science is simply the evidence and the evaluation of the evidence.

I mean, you do think the evidence of your everyday life is worth something right?

Or do you think courts of law are ridiculous as evidence is a meaningless notion?

punk
May 8th 2007, 09:15 PM
Could that be because . . .

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Funny, I'd contend that the natural man insists on the literal reading, because the true spiritual import is "foolishness" to them.

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2007, 09:25 PM
Science is simply the evidence and the evaluation of the evidence.

I mean, you do think the evidence of your everyday life is worth something right?

Or do you think courts of law are ridiculous as evidence is a meaningless notion?Those in power during the time of Christ said that the evidence showed that He had not resurrected. This is the story the powers that be spread. How much was their evidence worth? BTW, evidence that is testable, provable, repeatable, is very different than the many assumptions that attempt to turn data into time frames.

God Bless!

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 09:29 PM
So you actually believe many of these scientists have no agendas
They would never try to force their "beliefs" one somoene else ?
The only kind of things they like to demonstrate are say mechanisms of evolution......ooh look you got the mechanism wrong, it works like this.
You won't ever find the line of thought.....hey perhaps it's cos evolution didn't happen etc.
You have alot more faith in them than me then.?

Everyone who I know who went into science had some agenda. That doesn't change. But if you start saying they are trying to force their "beliefs" on someone else, in most all cases I would disagree.

In general I have found scientists open to new thoughts and ideas when I have presented them, but they expect my thinking and methodology to be impeccable.


Oh I though you were quite up on science ? Science apparently knows how the universe was formed, it was called the big bang. Do you not believe that ?

I think no scientifically informed person will say we know for certain how the universe was formed. In fact just today we began studying the largest supernova ever seen to learn what we can about the creation of the universe.

There are several different cosmological theories, and I don't necessarily see all of them as being "god-exclusive."





My personal leaning is to believe God operates according to the laws of the universe, but the laws of the universe He operates according to are far beyond anything we understand.

God operates according to the laws of the universe ?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What ?!?!?!?!?!? If someone is omnipotent and beyond time and outwith time they aren't bound by the laws of the universe, isn't that the point ?

Go back 1000 years and let me show someone a video recorder
and they would think you had some sort of God like power, but I am still operating within the laws of the universe. Do you think all God does is just some complex stuff we don't understand yet ?


Let's see if we can calm down a little mister exclamation point :D

God established the laws that govern the universe. The Bible nowhere tells us he suspends those laws--at least I can't think of a scripture that tells us he does.

I believe God exists outside of our time. But there are many things that exist outside of our time.

Just because we don't know HOW God does a thing does not mean he suspends the laws he put in place. It just means we don't know how. If Isaiah is right, then we won't ever understand how he does most of what he does.


In fact have they not given up trying to create life in the lab ? Yet the boldy proclaim it definitely must have happened because we are here.
Oh and it wasn't via God, it was some sort of self-replicating molecule that formed and then evolved, apparently.

Yes, scientists are studying the ability of life to self-organize. Will they succeed? It doesn't really matter to me. If they succeed it shows how amazing the creation truly is. It does not mean God did not create life here.






Verifiable ? Like declaring that the rate of radio-active decay never changes over billions of years, that's verifiable is it ? You cannot ever verify something like that !

Why do you believe radio-active decay rates vary? If you have evidence of such, then you can easily demonstrate why you believe what you do.

But if all you have is speculation, no one will listen to you. This is the type of thing scientists do every day. They question and come up with new ideas of how to explain the universe. They then test and peer review results.


Nowhere have I said that science is just speculation.
What happens though is that your world view can drastically effect how you interpret evidence that you find. A creationist may see a geogrpahical feature and think the flood is the best explanation, an atheist sees the same feature and says millions of years of erosion caused it.

That's what's great about the scientific method--and this happens in archeology and geology all the time. Someone looks at a formation and trys to demonstrate its age. Someone else comes along and disagrees. They both perform experiements, write peer reviewed papers and in most cases it becomes obvious who was correct.

Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, OEC, YEC doesn't really matter--the scientific method eliminates opinon and speculation in most things.



I don't think it's anything my human brain could comprehend. The same way I can't ever picture someone being outwith time. The same way I cannot imagine infinity.

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.“And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

Isiah 55:8


Difference here is we have an intelligent, omnipotent creator who can literally create something out of nothing. Whereas in science we don't have that, we have the universe creating itself out of nothing. How did it manage to do that then ?

I'm not sure where you get the idea science teaches the universe was created from nothing.





Great but just keep this verse in mind....

Fools base their thoughts on foolish assumptions,so their conclusions will be wicked madness;

Ecclesiastes 10:13

Maybe we both should?

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 09:36 PM
And the Bible DID come from God directly, by the way.

The only part of the Bible I am aware of written by "the finger of God" was the Ten Commandments. The rest was written by men inspired of God. They each use different verbage, style and even different names for God.

Are you saying God dictated the Bible just as He did the 10 Commandments?

punk
May 8th 2007, 09:38 PM
Those in power during the time of Christ said that the evidence showed that He had not resurrected. This is the story the powers that be spread. How much was their evidence worth? BTW, evidence that is testable, provable, repeatable, is very different than the many assumptions that attempt to turn data into time frames.

God Bless!

The word was "proved" so that means *really* good evidence *really* well evaluated.

That's why I brought up the hypothetical time machine.

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2007, 09:41 PM
God established the laws that govern the universe. The Bible nowhere tells us he suspends those laws--at least I can't think of a scripture that tells us he does.Matthew 14:25-29
25 Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea. 26 And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out for fear.
27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.”
28 And Peter answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.”
29 So He said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.

That seems pretty much like suspending those laws. ;)

God Bless!

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 09:55 PM
Matthew 14:25-29
25 Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea. 26 And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out for fear.
27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.”
28 And Peter answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.”
29 So He said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.

That seems pretty much like suspending those laws. ;)

God Bless!

"Seems like" and "is" are two different things. I don't know how Jesus walked on the water, no one does as far as I know.

I have seen solid objects float in mid air--motionless with no support. I know how it was done, and it all worked in the natural world, but someone who didn't know the science or methodology might think it was supernatural.

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2007, 10:01 PM
"Seems like" and "is" are two different things. I don't know how Jesus walked on the water, no one does as far as I know.

I have seen solid objects float in mid air--motionless with no support. I know how it was done, and it all worked in the natural world, but someone who didn't know the science or methodology might think it was supernatural.So, do you believe Jesus is a magician, like David Blaine or do you believe He suspended the laws of nature to WALK on the water?

chal
May 8th 2007, 10:08 PM
So, do you believe Jesus is a magician, like David Blaine or do you believe He suspended the laws of nature to WALK on the water?

This is why I bowed out of the argument, before the "swoon theory," rears it's ugly head.

ThinkingFaith
May 8th 2007, 10:14 PM
So, do you believe Jesus is a magician, like David Blaine or do you believe He suspended the laws of nature to WALK on the water?

I believe Jesus walked on water--I have no clue how He did it, I tend to think Jesus knew far more about the natural world than we do. He's the same one who commands winds and waves. I've tried that too, it didn't work for me. I figure there's more here than we know.

Chal I am hoping you were just trying to be funny. The essence of the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The "swoon theory" is heresy.

But how did Jesus rise from the dead? Beats me. But He did.

You guys seem to think I am taking something away from God by saying he obeys the laws he puts in place. Wouldn't that mean Jesus didn't need to die because God could have just suspended blood atonement? After all, who put the Law in place initially?

chal
May 8th 2007, 10:47 PM
Chal I am hoping you were just trying to be funny. The essence of the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The "swoon theory" is heresy.

chal > Not joking. Check your PM box.

Studyin'2Show
May 8th 2007, 10:55 PM
This is why I bowed out of the argument, before the "swoon theory," rears it's ugly head.
I've thought about leaving a couple of times but I do enjoy good discussion. I'd just like to see more based on scripture. :hmm:

I believe Jesus walked on water--I have no clue how He did it, I tend to think Jesus knew far more about the natural world than we do. He's the same one who commands winds and waves. I've tried that too, it didn't work for me. I figure there's more here than we know.

But how did Jesus rise from the dead? Beats me. But He did.

You guys seem to think I am taking something away from God by saying he obeys the laws he puts in place. Wouldn't that mean Jesus didn't need to die because God could have just suspended blood atonement? After all, who put the Law in place initially?So, how'd He create the whole universe in 6 days? Beats me. But His word says He did! ;)

Teke
May 8th 2007, 11:27 PM
You guys seem to think I am taking something away from God by saying he obeys the laws he puts in place.

I think it’s more like the laws obey Him. ;)




Wouldn't that mean Jesus didn't need to die because God could have just suspended blood atonement? After all, who put the Law in place initially?

Let’s not stir me up on that theology. :spin: It would take this thread off track.


One thing I learned quickly when I began to share my faith with my friends was their problem was not belief in a god, per se, but a belief in the Bible. They could see obvious flaws in the Bible yet were told the Bible was inerrant.

My goal is to show them Christ. Sorry I wasn't more clear.


I could choose to ignore them without any impact on my salvation, but I choose to address them for the sake of my friends.

Unless I am missing your point here Teke (and I may be--you think more deeply than I seem to), then I think we are in agreement. Christ reality is demonstrated in many ways and we are to testify to Him, not to a book.


While I agree, it’s not the book. If you read what you wrote me back to yourself, I think you’ll see what your really saying is that you need to know more about the bible to explain to your friends.
You don't need science to do that. Some good critical text notes will do that.:idea:


It is starting to sound as if some folks want to say that the central miracle of Christianity is the Bible rather than Christ's death and resurrection.

Yeah, I guess I should have bolded this part of the Garvey quote I posted.

“All of what we usually see as the church-dogma, the creed, etc.-has to do with the person of Jesus, and unless it is seen always in relation to his person, it is distorted. Christian faith must not be seen as a series of propositions to which one assents.”
John Garvey

Whispering Grace
May 8th 2007, 11:27 PM
So, how'd He create the whole universe in 6 days? Beats me. But His word says He did! ;)

Amen.

It is very telling to me that there are people who can have lots of faith in the supernatural.......as long as science doesn't say it didn't happen.

But the minute science says it didn't happen, then there's no more faith.

Teke
May 8th 2007, 11:50 PM
It is very telling to me that there are people who can have lots of faith in the supernatural.......as long as science doesn't say it didn't happen.

But the minute science says it didn't happen, then there's no more faith.

Sounds like the "supernatural" and the "science" people have a problem, since faith doesn't depend on either one. :saint:

aliensyndm
May 9th 2007, 12:28 AM
Everyone who I know who went into science had some agenda. That doesn't change. But if you start saying they are trying to force their "beliefs" on someone else, in most all cases I would disagree.



I've just finished reading a book called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, perhaps you've heard of it ?



Just because we don't know HOW God does a thing does not mean he suspends the laws he put in place. It just means we don't know how. If Isaiah is right, then we won't ever understand how he does most of what he does.



OK so basically God is just like a really really good magician then ?
Anything Jesus did was just a really amazingly brilliant trick which we don't understand ? You are giving me the impression you think Jesus just knew loads more stuff than we did rather than actually being anything special.


Why do you believe radio-active decay rates vary? If you have evidence of such, then you can easily demonstrate why you believe what you do.


Should the burden of proof not be on the scientist to show they are constant rather than me to show they vary ? I am not the one saying the earth/universe is X million/billion years old based on conclusions from them.




I'm not sure where you get the idea science teaches the universe was created from nothing.


Hahahhaha is that a joke ? Big bang.....singularity......just pondering how scientists might suppose this singularity got here ? It's not something they like to address really, wonder why eh ?


But if all you have is speculation, no one will listen to you. This is the type of thing scientists do every day. They question and come up with new ideas of how to explain the universe. They then test and peer review results.

Many scientists have more than speculation, but it doesn't matter what you show to someone who is convinced of a particular theory. They will simply mould the explanation of the evidence to fit the paradigm, rather than the other way around. Someone could stumble upon a colony of live trilobites tomorrow and scientists would be scratching their head wondering how this colony managed to survive for 500 million years.
The thought they might not be 500 million years old or they might not have evolved would never even enter their head.

Perhaps it's not the intention does anyone else find this thread almost seems like only taking the bible literally when it doesn't conflict with the holy grail that is science and passing off God's works as fancy magic tricks we just don't understand yet ? I bet when Jesus rose from the dead he said............ TA-DA !!!!!!!!!!!

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 12:39 AM
While I agree, it’s not the book. If you read what you wrote me back to yourself, I think you’ll see what your really saying is that you need to know more about the bible to explain to your friends.

You don't need science to do that. Some good critical text notes will do that.

Actually most of the time I don't discuss the Bible with my friends. Instead I often talk about why I have faith; why I believe the God of the Bible is real.

If I didn't communicate that clearly that's my fault. Or it's possible I'm self-deceived, but I don't think so [insert irony icon here]

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 12:50 AM
I've just finished reading a book called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, perhaps you've heard of it ?

And non-Christians have given Dawkins a hard time about his "evangelical atheism."


OK so basically God is just like a really really good magician then ?
Anything Jesus did was just a really amazingly brilliant trick which we don't understand ? You are giving me the impression you think Jesus just knew loads more stuff than we did rather than actually being anything special.

Magicians use natural means (which we understand) to decieve us to believe they did something they really didn't do. Jesus really raised Lazarus from the dead, changed water into wine, walked on water, healed a man born blind.

It's not a "trick," but just because we don't know how he accomplished these things does not make them "outside of the natural" (or supernatural.)


Should the burden of proof not be on the scientist to show they are constant rather than me to show they vary ? I am not the one saying the earth/universe is X million/billion years old based on conclusions from them.

Yes the burden of proof initially was on scientists who use certain dating methods, and they have done that. If you don't trust their experiments, then it is up to you to demonstrate why those experiments are flawed.


Hahahhaha is that a joke ? Big bang.....singularity......just pondering how scientists might suppose this singularity got here ? It's not something they like to address really, wonder why eh ?

They address it regularly.


Many scientists have more than speculation, but it doesn't matter what you show to someone who is convinced of a particular theory. They will simply mould the explanation of the evidence to fit the paradigm, rather than the other way around. Someone could stumble upon a colony of live trilobites tomorrow and scientists would be scratching their head wondering how this colony managed to survive for 500 million years.
The thought they might not be 500 million years old or they might not have evolved would never even enter their head.

Do you have an example of this happening? If not, then this is an unsupported assertion.


Perhaps it's not the intention does anyone else find this thread almost seems like only taking the bible literally when it doesn't conflict with the holy grail that is science and passing off God's works as fancy magic tricks we just don't understand yet ? I bet when Jesus rose from the dead he said............ TA-DA !!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry if I represented it this way. That's certainly not what I believe or practice. There are all kinds of things I don't understand how God did--the resurrection being the most astounding one. Science will never explain most of the acts of God and I do not expect it to. But I believe when we understand the Bible correctly and we understand science correctly the two will be in harmony.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 12:58 AM
Science will never explain most of the acts of God and I do not expect it to. But I believe when we understand the Bible correctly and we understand science correctly the two will be in harmony.

What in science says someone can rise from the dead?

How do we harmonize what science simply cannot explain?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 01:04 AM
But I believe when we understand the Bible correctly and we understand science correctly the two will be in harmony.

As long as the Bible is interpreted to fit what science tells us, there is harmony. Is that right? You honestly don't see that as putting science above the Bible?

rchivers
May 9th 2007, 01:14 AM
Science is of man and that makes it flawed. Concepts that humans can grasp will never be able to explain many biblical events.

I agree that we will never understand certain things. Perhaps those things are impossible for us to understand... at least in this life. That does not mean they did not happen.

Faith is such a critical part of our belief.

Teke
May 9th 2007, 01:34 AM
Actually most of the time I don't discuss the Bible with my friends. Instead I often talk about why I have faith; why I believe the God of the Bible is real.

If I didn't communicate that clearly that's my fault. Or it's possible I'm self-deceived, but I don't think so [insert irony icon here]

Well we all start a divine ascent from one way or another. :lol:
Personally I'm not so bold. I talk about scripture. At one job I had I would tell them bible stories. Most folks have heard of them, but don't know much about them having never read them either. The bible is a wonderful book full of human passion for God. There are stories of love, war, martyrs, prophets, kings and kingdoms etc. Something for everyone.:D

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 02:08 AM
What in science says someone can rise from the dead?

Nothing. I think it is likely we will never be able to explain how God brings someone back from the dead. So we accept it happened.


How do we harmonize what science simply cannot explain?

We don't. We accept there are certain observations we cannot explain at this time via the scientific method. This happens all the time in all branches of science.


As long as the Bible is interpreted to fit what science tells us, there is harmony. Is that right? You honestly don't see that as putting science above the Bible?

If our properly understood observations of the creation (science) disagree with our interpretation of a particular scripture, then since truth must always agree with truth I would adjust my scriptural interpretation. That is not putting "science" above "the Bible" it is simply an acknowledgment that truth is truth.

At what point does one truth become superior to another?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 02:17 AM
If our properly understood observations of the creation (science) disagree with our interpretation of a particular scripture, then since truth must always agree with truth I would adjust my scriptural interpretation. That is not putting "science" above "the Bible" it is simply an acknowledgment that truth is truth.

At what point does one truth become superior to another?


It most certainly appears that you put science above the Bible. Your starting point is science, not the Bible. Science is your truth and you adjust God's Word to fit your truth.

Teke
May 9th 2007, 02:20 AM
At what point does one truth become superior to another?

Good question.:)

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 02:32 AM
It most certainly appears that you put science above the Bible. Your starting point is science, not the Bible. Science is your truth and you adjust God's Word to fit your truth.

It depends. Truth is truth. Certain things in the scripture are not a matter of interpretation--like the resurrection. Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead. No matter what we see about the impossibility of teh dead to be brought to life days later, I accept the Biblical account. I can't explain it, probably never will be able to, but I accept it as true.

I think Teke's point is well made: At what point does truth trump truth?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 02:39 AM
It depends. Truth is truth. Certain things in the scripture are not a matter of interpretation--like the resurrection. Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead. No matter what we see about the impossibility of teh dead to be brought to life days later, I accept the Biblical account. I can't explain it, probably never will be able to, but I accept it as true.

So if science proved that Jesus never rose from the dead (humor me here), you would accept the literal Biblical account over science?


I think Teke's point is well made: At what point does truth trump truth?

What you take as truth in science, I don't (old earth, evolution, etc). There is no struggle between the two. God's Word is my standard, not science. God's Word is my truth. Nothing in the natural, humanistic world trumps it.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 02:43 AM
I truly hope no one participating in this thread is trolling for quotes to take to another site. That would really disappoint me if that were the case.

And considering guests aren't even allowed on this part of the board, I find it really sad that a member of this board is doing that.

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 03:19 AM
So if science proved that Jesus never rose from the dead (humor me here), you would accept the literal Biblical account over science?

What you take as truth in science, I don't (old earth, evolution, etc). There is no struggle between the two. God's Word is my standard, not science. God's Word is my truth. Nothing in the natural, humanistic world trumps it.


You use the word "proved" but I don't think that's what you mean.

Proved means just what it says: Proved. It doesn't mean "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "the preponderence of the evidence" it means PROVED. It would mean that as a historical fact Jesus did not rise from the dead.

If that happened I would be presented with a quandry: How do I explain the many miracles that could only be explained by my daily seeking to love, serve and worship the Christian God?

It would likely be a major crisis for me as I tried to reconcile the fact of the miracles with the fact of no resurrection.

Truth always agrees with truth.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 03:26 AM
You use the word "proved" but I don't think that's what you mean.

Proved means just what it says: Proved. It doesn't mean "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "the preponderence of the evidence" it means PROVED. It would mean that as a historical fact Jesus did not rise from the dead.

I've heard many people say evolution, old earth, etc have been proven. Do you agree?


It would likely be a major crisis for me as I tried to reconcile the fact of the miracles with the fact of no resurrection.

See...there would be no crisis for me. I KNOW my Lord. I know Him intimately. I don't care what science says. He is as alive as you and I are.

Does it not send red flags up to you that science could cause you to question your faith or have a major crisis of faith?


Truth always agrees with truth.

Sure it does. You and I disagree on what is truth.

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 03:42 AM
I've heard many people say evolution, old earth, etc have been proven. Do you agree?

Evolution is the best explanation for the data we have. The old earth is the best explanation for the data we have.


See...there would be no crisis for me. I KNOW my Lord. I know Him intimately. I don't care what science says. He is as alive as you and I are.

Does it not send red flags up to you that science could cause you to question your faith or have a major crisis of faith?

You are carless with your words: You said Jesus did not rise from the dead. I would think everyone--you included--should struggle knowing that was fact. What you meant was "some people seem to believe based on the evidence Jesus didn't rise from the dead." That's a huge difference.

I think you meant the second rather than the first, though I suspect you didn't catch the nuance.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I see no way anyone could dis-prove this, though you presented me with the hypothetical idea it was possible.

I think you can't appreciate what your own question presented.


Sure it does. You and I disagree on what is truth.

Please explain how truth can disagree with truth?

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2007, 10:55 AM
Well we all start a divine ascent from one way or another. :lol:
Personally I'm not so bold. I talk about scripture. At one job I had I would tell them bible stories. Most folks have heard of them, but don't know much about them having never read them either. The bible is a wonderful book full of human passion for God. There are stories of love, war, martyrs, prophets, kings and kingdoms etc. Something for everyone.:D :agree:We don't often agree, Teke, but when we do I think we agree very strongly. I love scripture as well and often speak it to those around me. I believe it speaks for itself.

Thinking Faith, I don't disbelieve science. I actually really enjoy science. I don't disagree with the empirical data. The place where my belief varies from what many scientists believe is with the as*umptions that come from that data. Truth is most assuredly relevant, so it is the point that moves from true empirical science to something not so clear. For example, a certain rock has x amount of Potassium 40. I would agree. Potassium 40 produces Argon 40 at a particular rate. I would agree. The rock containing x amount of Argon 40 dates the rock at y amount of years. This is the point at which my disagreement comes in. We've have moved well beyond a simple 2+2=4 fact. First, there are many other factors than those that are apparent. When testing the decay rate that moves Potassium 40 to Argon 40, it was done in a lab under pristine circumstances. However, there are many other factors that can contaminate the data in a real world application, like heat. Also, for the results to be accurate, there could have been no other source that would have added Argon 40 to the rock. We don't know that. Then, to accept the date that was extrapolated from the data, we would also need to accept that nothing in this closed world system has changed over x amount of time. How can anyone know that when these things were not scientifically documented?

Scripture gives us a glimpse into history. It speaks of a globally catastrophic event that changed everything. It historically documents this event as the dividing line between lifespans that lasted over 900 years and lifespans that began to decline sharply at that very point. You see, the Bible doesn't give us the scientific data but it does give us historical data.
You are carless with your words: You said Jesus did not rise from the dead. I would think everyone--you included--should struggle knowing that was fact. What you meant was "some people seem to believe based on the evidence Jesus didn't rise from the dead." That's a huge difference.I didn't see where she said Jesus did not rise from the dead. Can you point out the post please? :hmm: I hope I have show how it is not what is empirically true that changes. Truth is always truth. However, the truth is not the date of the rock or the possibility of evolution, that is what is being extrapolated from the data. We just interpret that true data, differently!

God Bless!

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 12:18 PM
Evolution is the best explanation for the data we have. The old earth is the best explanation for the data we have.

So it's simply the "best explanation" and not a proven theory in your eyes? So why do you put so much stock in it then? Why do you let something that is merely the "best explanation we have right now" trump the Word of God?

You said truth cannot disagree with truth. So you are saying old earth, evolution, etc is truth? How can it be truth if it hasn't been proven?


You are carless with your words: You said Jesus did not rise from the dead. I would think everyone--you included--should struggle knowing that was fact. What you meant was "some people seem to believe based on the evidence Jesus didn't rise from the dead." That's a huge difference.

No, I didn't choose my words carelessly. I chose them for a purpose. Many people believe evolution is a fact....it is actually taught in many public schools as fact. Many people believe it has been proven and no longer falls under the realm of "well, this is the best theory we have now".

I wish you could see how your faith is decided by science and not the other way around. You can have faith that Jesus Christ rose from the dead because science hasn't told you otherwise. You can have faith that there is a God because science hasn't told you otherwise.

So what happens when science tells you Jesus never existed? What happens to your faith then? I hope you see what a precarious position that puts you in.

Our faith should transcend anything in this world. Anything. Including science. Jesus Christ is NOT of this world and neither are we as Christians.



I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I see no way anyone could dis-prove this, though you presented me with the hypothetical idea it was possible.

Isn't it convenient that it can't be proven? What happens to your faith when it is proven?

Honestly TF.....all of the "scientific proof" in the world wouldn't cause me to stop believing in Jesus Christ because I know with every fiber of my being that He is real and He is alive.

I worry for anyone who would ditch their faith in Him the second science says He didn't exist. What kind of faith is that?


Please explain how truth can disagree with truth?

Once more, truth doesn't disagree with truth. You and disagree on what is truth.

ThinkingFaith
May 9th 2007, 12:23 PM
Here is the quote from WhisperingGrace:


So if science proved that Jesus never rose from the dead (humor me here), you would accept the literal Biblical account over science?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 12:29 PM
So you're saying evolution and an old earth haven't been proven? Why do you call it truth then?

Teke
May 9th 2007, 01:49 PM
It most certainly appears that you put science above the Bible. Your starting point is science, not the Bible. Science is your truth and you adjust God's Word to fit your truth.

WG, what if science was a starting point for someones truth? Is that a bad thing. Shall we check the scriptures on this and make some speculations.

Recall the Magi from the east in scripture used "a" science (astrology) to find Christ at His birth (as prophecied by the Gentile, Balaam, in his fourth parable, Numbers 24:15-24). The star began leading them before He was even born.
Their science combined with faith found Him, whereas Herod's science (mathematics concluded He was two yrs old) did not.

Now let's take this back even further to Abraham, before there was a bible. In Genesis 25:6 Abraham gives gifts to his son's from the concubine and sends them "east".

Let's suppose father Abraham having no bible, has learned a science, such as astrology which he has passed on to his sons, that they will know the story of God's plan written in the stars, and when the Messiah will arrive the stars proclaim also.

Is this wrong, I don't see why.

If I recall the book of Enoch and our scriptures, proclaims the heavens declare Him. Meaning the stars. So before any written word on paper, God has already written it in His creation, the heavens (stars).

Here (http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append12.html) is some info on the stars and scripture. What we know now as the zodiac, could be a corruption of what Adam and his descendent's used as God's word written in the stars, never to be removed.

Here (http://philologos.org/__eb-tws/) is an even more in depth look at the stars by EW Bullinger, "The Witness of the Stars" (1893).

Studyin'2Show
May 9th 2007, 05:04 PM
Here is the quote from WhisperingGrace:
So if science proved that Jesus never rose from the dead (humor me here), you would accept the literal Biblical account over science?How do you see that as her saying Jesus never rose from the dead? :hmm: It clearly a question, not a statement.

punk
May 9th 2007, 05:30 PM
I don't see how Christianity can ignore science.

The central part of Christianity's claim to uniqueness is the historical life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and his subsequent resurrection.

It is because Jesus was a real human in history that Christianity can claims to set itself apart from other religions. Certainly religions can reconcile myths, but they cannot reconcile divergent history.

But the very fact that Christianity asserts the historical truth of Jesus of Nazareth, means that it is setting itself on the dock (as it were) and making itself subject to evidence that can disprove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (and a purely mythical religion is never subject to disproof).

The central claim of Christianity is a claim subject to scientific evaluation, and the very existence of Christianity rests on that scientific/historical claim.

Christianity must coexist with science in a way other religions need not.

VerticalReality
May 9th 2007, 05:40 PM
I think the point here is that there is a lot of things out there that mankind believes they have "proven". However, just because mankind believes they have proven something through fallible methods doesn't mean they have found truth. Satan is the father of lies, and he is quite capable of having a very large influence on what the methods of man conclude.

I think the point is that someone with a true relationship and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ wouldn't lose faith simply because of what the science of man claims to have proven. If the Social Security Office called me tomorrow and claimed they have documented proof that my wife didn't exist, I would say they are mistaken. Why? Because I know her and I speak with her on a daily basis. I have a relationship with her. We should have the same relationship with our Lord.

Therefore, I don't care one ounce about what some self-proclaimed smart guy has to say about what he has or hasn't proven. My standard is the Word of God because that is what the Lord I have a relationship with gave me to go by. If something doesn't line up with that Word, it just ain't true. Period.

My entire life I was taught that scientists had documented proof along with a fossil record that the brontosaurus was real and most certainly existed at one time. They even went so far as to describe to me this creature's characteristics all the way down to its diet. What happened? We find out after I don't know how many years of teaching it as fact that this brontosaurus never existed.

No matter how much evidence the science world claims to have, it won't amount to a hill of beans to me.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 05:49 PM
Amen, VR. Amen.

punk
May 9th 2007, 06:01 PM
I'm noting we are getting into that muddy blurring of the distinction between "prove" and "claim to have proven".

This muddy thinking has really lowered the value of this conversation.

If something is proven, it is proven, that is it is true, and that is that.

If someone claims to have proven something that doesn't mean they have proven it.

The question that came up (twice) was whether one would discontinue believing in Christ if scientists proved Christ didn't exist. Unfortunately the questioner tended to understand this as being a question of whether one would discontinue believing in Christ if scientists claimed to have proven Christ didn't exist.

Claims are ignored all the time, but insistence in the face of overwhelming evidence makes one little better than the flat-earther denying the Earth is round despite photographs of the Earth taken from space.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 06:03 PM
So Punk....is evolution proven in your eyes? What about the age of the earth?

punk
May 9th 2007, 06:09 PM
So Punk....is evolution proven in your eyes? What about the age of the earth?

"Evolution" is a big catch all label for a very large number of subtopics.

Are all the subtopics all correct? Certainly not. So "evolution" is not proven.

It is an ongoing investigation, "proven" would imply the research is at an end. I anticipate new discoveries are still there to be made.

As far as the age of the Earth, I'm inclined to say that an age on the order of billions of years is much more likely than the alternatives given the present state of knowledge. That still isn't "proven", that is most likely belief given the current state of knowledge.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 06:11 PM
And what happens when science did prove Jesus Christ never existed and you [general] turned your back on Him, only to find out later it was a huge error (and don't tell me science hasn't proven something only to find it an error).

I can't understand how you do not see the issue here. I see a HUGE problem when people's faith is ruled by science. That, to me, does not seem like solid faith but one that ebbs and flows with the winds of science.

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 06:12 PM
"Evolution" is a big catch all label for a very large number of subtopics.

Are all the subtopics all correct? Certainly not. So "evolution" is not proven.

It is an ongoing investigation, "proven" would imply the research is at an end. I anticipate new discoveries are still there to be made.

As far as the age of the Earth, I'm inclined to say that an age on the order of billions of years is much more likely than the alternatives given the present state of knowledge. That still isn't "proven", that is most likely belief given the current state of knowledge.

So if those things are not proven, why do you put so much stock in them, to the point of adjusting your interpretation of the Bible to fit them?

punk
May 9th 2007, 06:15 PM
And what happens when science did prove Jesus Christ never existed and you [general] turned your back on Him, only to find out later it was a huge error (and don't tell me science hasn't proven something only to find it an error).

I can't understand how you do not see the issue here. I see a HUGE problem when people's faith is ruled by science. That, to me, does not seem like solid faith but one that ebbs and flows with the winds of science.

If they "proved" it then it would never be in error. It is a done fact.

I believe I made that point a few posts back.

They might claim to have proven it, and claims can turn out to be wrong.

Please ask the question correctly:

What if scientists claimed to have proven that Jesus never existed?

VerticalReality
May 9th 2007, 06:25 PM
If they "proved" it then it would never be in error. It is a done fact.

I believe I made that point a few posts back.

They might claim to have proven it, and claims can turn out to be wrong.

Please ask the question correctly:

What if scientists claimed to have proven that Jesus never existed?

You may not realize it, but you are saying here that there is no way to ever prove anything at all. We can never know through fallible methods of man whether something is fact or fiction. It's an impossibility. So, why put ones faith in something that can never produce truth ever?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 06:27 PM
If they "proved" it then it would never be in error. It is a done fact.

I believe I made that point a few posts back.

They might claim to have proven it, and claims can turn out to be wrong.

Please ask the question correctly:

What if scientists claimed to have proven that Jesus never existed?

I think you are splitting hairs unnecessarily. The point is that there IS some point where science could make you turn away from your faith in Jesus Christ.

You claim it would have to be something beyond any doubt, yet you put your trust in other scientific findings that aren't proven and adjust your interpretation of Scripture by them. Why would the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ be any different?

And you make a valid point. Science is fallible. That is why it amazes me that people let science guide their faith. They are choosing to put their trust in fallible men instead of the infallible Lord. And that is a recipe for disaster where faith is concerned.

punk
May 9th 2007, 06:31 PM
You may not realize it, but you are saying here that there is no way to ever prove anything at all. We can never know through fallible methods of man whether something is fact or fiction. It's an impossibility. So, why put ones faith in something that can never produce truth ever?

Oh I realize what I'm saying.

Scientific methods are fallible.

But, anytime I, a fallible human, read a book my interpretation is subject to as much error as physical methods of measurement in science.

So maybe I claim to have firsthand knowledge of God, but that is still my fallible human experience.

There is no non-fallible source of information available to fallible human beings. The fallible human being is always capable of screwing up or otherwise misinterpreting the input information.

That is why we have to weigh all the information available to us.

Teke
May 9th 2007, 06:40 PM
You may not realize it, but you are saying here that there is no way to ever prove anything at all. We can never know through fallible methods of man whether something is fact or fiction. It's an impossibility. So, why put ones faith in something that can never produce truth ever?

According to scripture, we don't have to prove truth, God proclaims it. We just recognize it or not.

And, no, we are not to trust our salvation to man. (Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, [nor] in the son of man, in whom [there is] no salvation.)

So what does science have to do with our salvation, nothing. Can we study, science, mathematics, history, geology, astrology, etc., sure. God wants His people to have knowledge. Do we need all that knowledge.....no, but it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to know about the world around you and God's people in different cultures. It would likely make one more like Paul, "all things to all men". And Christianity less cult like.

ThinkingFaith
May 11th 2007, 02:52 PM
I don't mean to be cranky, but common guys, know what the words mean; know what the scientific method is.

First of all, "proven" is a word that has a specific meaning. When something has been proven then it is true. Period. It doesn't mean "we have overwhelming evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If any of us is going to use the word "proved" then let's use it with its correct definition.

If it was PROVEN Jesus never existed, it would mean Jesus never existed. I humored you guys on that one--as you asked--but you missed the meaning of "proven" even after both Punk and I explained it to you all.

Second, the scientific method by its very nature means many things cannot be "proven," even if they can be demonstrated to explain certain observations.

I guess from now on I will have to ask what meaning you are placing on words before I answer a question.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 03:51 PM
If it was PROVEN Jesus never existed, it would mean Jesus never existed. I humored you guys on that one--as you asked--but you missed the meaning of "proven" even after both Punk and I explained it to you all.

And again, if science PROVED Jesus never existed, I'd still go right along believing in Him.

Science is NOT my be all and end all. I understand there is a realm beyond what science can even get close to touching. So I don't really care what science PROVES. Faith that is guided by PROOF is no faith at all!



Second, the scientific method by its very nature means many things cannot be "proven," even if they can be demonstrated to explain certain observations.


So then why do you put so much stock in the age of the earth and evolution if it hasn't been proven, especially when it goes against the very Word of God? You said yourself something is not true until it's proven. So why would you alter your view of Scripture by something that isn't even true?

punk
May 11th 2007, 04:31 PM
And again, if science PROVED Jesus never existed, I'd still go right along believing in Him.

Science is NOT my be all and end all. I understand there is a realm beyond what science can even get close to touching. So I don't really care what science PROVES. Faith that is guided by PROOF is no faith at all!



So then why do you put so much stock in the age of the earth and evolution if it hasn't been proven, especially when it goes against the very Word of God? You said yourself something is not true until it's proven. So why would you alter your view of Scripture by something that isn't even true?

This is akin to saying you'd believe heavier things fall faster than light things despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary.

Or that you'd believe the Earth was flat even if you were sent up in a spacecraft and orbited the Earth and could see it out the window.

Basically you are saying you have no interest in truth whatsoever and only want to have your beliefs.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:04 PM
Basically you are saying you have no interest in truth whatsoever and only want to have your beliefs.

My beliefs ARE the truth. I have the Holy Spirit of God within me who testifies to the truth.

Has science proven that people can't walk on water? What does the empirical evidence say?

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:06 PM
My beliefs ARE the truth. I have the Holy Spirit of God within me who testifies to the truth.

Has science proven that people can't walk on water? What does the empirical evidence say?

You are changing the subject.

The issue is, if it were proven and established as an undeniable fact that Jesus never existed in any way on this Earth, you would assert he did regardless.

That is a disinterest in truth.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:12 PM
You are changing the subject.

The issue is, if it were proven and established as an undeniable fact that Jesus never existed in any way on this Earth, you would assert he did regardless.

That is a disinterest in truth.

Please answer my question. Has science proven that people cannot walk on water? What does the empirical evidence show?

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:12 PM
You are changing the subject.

The issue is, if it were proven and established as an undeniable fact that Jesus never existed in any way on this Earth, you would assert he did regardless.

That is a disinterest in truth.

That is putting my faith in God and not man.

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:14 PM
Please answer my question. Has science proven that people cannot walk on water? What does the empirical evidence show?

There is no point in answering your question because you have no interest in truth.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:17 PM
There is no point in answering your question because you have no interest in truth.

Why won't you answer the question?

Or how about dead people coming spontaneously coming back to life? Has science proven that to be impossible? What does the empirical evidence show us?

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:20 PM
Why won't you answer the question?

Or how about dead people coming spontaneously coming back to life? Has science proven that to be impossible? What does the empirical evidence show us?

I'll answer the question just as soon as you affirm a quite reasonable statement:

If presented with incontrovertable and undeniable proof that Jesus never existed, then I will affirm that Jesus never existed.

This should be a gimme.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:21 PM
There is no point in answering your question because you have no interest in truth.

Oh, I am very interested in the Truth.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:22 PM
I'll answer the question just as soon as you affirm a quite reasonable statement:

If presented with incontrovertable and undeniable proof that Jesus never existed, then I will affirm that Jesus never existed.

This should be a gimme.

If presented with incontrovertable and undeniable proof that Jesus never existed, I would still keep right on believing in Him.


Sorry, not a gimme.

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:27 PM
If presented with incontrovertable and undeniable proof that Jesus never existed, I would still keep right on believing in Him.


Sorry, not a gimme.

Like I said, you are not interested in truth.

A person interested in truth is always prepared to have their beliefs corrected, and in fact wants to have false beliefs corrected, if they happen to hold false beliefs.

Personally I'm prepared to have any belief overturned if the evidence demands it.

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:34 PM
Anyway, just to show I have no fear of answering the walking on water question.

I'd say that it is highly unlikely though not impossible that any human being A is able to walk on water. So if random John Doe came up to me tomorrow and said "I can walk on water", I'd be skeptical (as I'm sure you would).

In fact that is the scientific answer, since a person walking on water isn't physically impossible, just very very very unlikely.

I see no reason to deny that Jesus walked on water.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:37 PM
Anyway, just to show I have no fear of answering the walking on water question.

I'd say that it is highly unlikely though not impossible that any human being A is able to walk on water. So if random John Doe came up to me tomorrow and said "I can walk on water", I'd be skeptical (as I'm sure you would).

In fact that is the scientific answer, since a person walking on water isn't physically impossible, just very very very unlikely.

I see no reason to deny that Jesus walked on water.

What in science says it is possible for a man to walk on water or rise from the dead?

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:38 PM
Like I said, you are not interested in truth.

I already know the truth.


Personally I'm prepared to have any belief overturned if the evidence demands it.

And that, to me, is putting science before God.

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:41 PM
What in science says it is possible for a man to walk on water or rise from the dead?

People come back from the dead quite frequently these days in hospitals.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:45 PM
People come back from the dead quite frequently these days in hospitals.


What in science says it is possible for people dead for THREE DAYS to spontaneously come back to life?

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:46 PM
I already know the truth.



And that, to me, is putting science before God.

I'd contend that anyone too confident they already have the truth really has not interest in having the truth per se, but is really very interested in believing they have the truth.

That makes them sort of like the poor person who tries to pretend they aren't poor by owning designer clothes.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 05:47 PM
That makes them sort of like the poor person who tries to pretend they aren't poor by owning designer clothes.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying you don't believe Jesus Christ is the truth?

punk
May 11th 2007, 05:51 PM
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying you don't believe Jesus Christ is the truth?

Actually what I am saying is that since I believe Jesus Christ is the truth I am perfectly capable of saying:

If confronted with undeniable evidence that Jesus never existed, I would have to deny he existed.

Since I have every reason to believe that such evidence will never come up. If my belief is true then I will never be confronted with the undeniable evidence, so I have no problem with the statement.

You, on the other hand, refuse to affirm the statement, which tells me that you think some such evidence just might well come up, and then you'd be in a tough place.

Personally, I'd say my willingness to affirm the statement in italics means my belief that Jesus is the truth is stronger than yours, because I'm willing to go out on a limb that you aren't willing to even look at. ;)

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 06:06 PM
Actually what I am saying is that since I believe Jesus Christ is the truth I am perfectly capable of saying:

If confronted with undeniable evidence that Jesus never existed, I would have to deny he existed.

Since I have every reason to believe that such evidence will never come up. If my belief is true then I will never be confronted with the undeniable evidence, so I have no problem with the statement.

If this is the case, please show me where science says that it is possible for a man dead three days to spontaneously rise from the dead.



You, on the other hand, refuse to affirm the statement, which tells me that you think some such evidence just might well come up, and then you'd be in a tough place.


I'm telling you it doesn't matter what science says. I'd still believe. I worship God, not science.



Personally, I'd say my willingness to affirm the statement in italics means my belief that Jesus is the truth is stronger than yours, because I'm willing to go out on a limb that you aren't willing to even look at. ;)

That's interesting considering you adjust God's Word to fit what science tells you.

You exalt science to a place where I do not. Jesus Christ is my truth. I start with Him and work my way out. Science is your truth. You start with it and work your way out.

I am never going to be led astray by the ways of this world when Jesus Christ is my truth and my starting point. HE IS THE TRUTH. Anything that would/could/did/might say He didn't exist is wrong. Period.

punk
May 11th 2007, 06:14 PM
If this is the case, please show me where science says that it is possible for a man dead three days to spontaneously rise from the dead.



I'm telling you it doesn't matter what science says. I'd still believe. I worship God, not science.




That's interesting considering you adjust God's Word to fit what science tells you.

You exalt science to a place where I do not. Jesus Christ is my truth. I start with Him and work my way out. Science is your truth. You start with it and work your way out.

I am never going to be led astray by the ways of this world when Jesus Christ is my truth and my starting point. HE IS THE TRUTH. Anything that would/could/did/might say He didn't exist is wrong. Period.

No, I just grant the evidence of my senses some value.

And incidently the Bible is just sensory evidence as well, since you read it with your eyes.

Why favor the sensory evidence of the text over sensory evidence of the color of the sky? (going back to the "what if the Bible said the sky were green" line of thought)

rchivers
May 11th 2007, 06:18 PM
No, I just grant the evidence of my senses some value.

And incidently the Bible is just sensory evidence as well, since you read it with your eyes.

Why favor the sensory evidence of the text over sensory evidence of the color of the sky? (going back to the "what if the Bible said the sky were green" line of thought)


I've been watching this thread and it is quite interesting.

One thing I wanted to add about the senses this is that it is pretty easy to fool or deceive our senses, so its hard to rely on them sometimes.

punk
May 11th 2007, 06:21 PM
I've been watching this thread and it is quite interesting.

One thing I wanted to add about the senses this is that it is pretty easy to fool or deceive our senses, so its hard to rely on them sometimes.

Oh it is.

And people misread texts all the time.

A simple example which I think most people on this board may have been guilty of:

The Christmas story as traditionally presented on TV and pageants differs markedly from the story as presented in Matthew and Luke. Most people will tend to misread Matthew and Luke to agree with their expectations of the Christmas story from TV and pageants.

So they read the text to agree with prior expectations of what the text is supposed to be saying.

chal
May 11th 2007, 06:36 PM
No, I just grant the evidence of my senses some value.

And incidently the Bible is just sensory evidence as well, since you read it with your eyes.

Why favor the sensory evidence of the text over sensory evidence of the color of the sky? (going back to the "what if the Bible said the sky were green" line of thought)

If you read the Bible only with your eyes, then you missed the whole point.

punk
May 11th 2007, 06:39 PM
If you read the Bible only with your eyes, then you missed the whole point.

If we can read it without the eyes, why bother to have it as a book to begin with?

Clavicula_Nox
May 11th 2007, 06:50 PM
I don't see any problem with questioning our faith. Questioning and introspection are the best ways of keeping things honest, and through the end, should our faith survive the testing again and again, then the truth will become quite obvious. Yes?

chal
May 11th 2007, 07:45 PM
If we can read it without the eyes, why bother to have it as a book to begin with?

Braille?????????? :P

punk
May 11th 2007, 07:54 PM
Braille?????????? :P

You know what I meant.

ThinkingFaith
May 11th 2007, 08:24 PM
Punk,

Good posts.


And again, if science PROVED Jesus never existed, I'd still go right along believing in Him.

Dictionary.com:

Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. [Emphasis mine]

To which I suspect someone will respond: "Oh yeah, well a belief in science is delusional."

Which would simply prove the point.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 08:27 PM
Punk,

Good posts.



Dictionary.com:

Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. [Emphasis mine]

To which I suspect someone will respond: "Oh yeah, well a belief in science is delusional."

Which would simply prove the point.

Since Punk won't answer my question, what in science says a person can be dead for three days and then spontaneously come back to life?

And what in science says man can walk on water?

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 08:29 PM
Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. [Emphasis mine]

And dare I ask.....are you saying my belief in Jesus Christ is a delusion? I sincerely hope that's not the case.

ThinkingFaith
May 11th 2007, 08:34 PM
And dare I ask.....are you saying my belief in Jesus Christ is a delusion? I sincerely hope that's not the case.

WG, God love ya, you can't seem to read for comprehension. I don't know why, and I don't see how Punk could have been any clearer.

No I don't believe you faith in Christ is delusional.

When you say Jesus rose "spontaneously from the dead," please define what you mean. I hate to try to answer your question when I'm not sure how you are defining your terms. If you want to just post the scriptures picturing what you are asking that's fine too, I just don't want to get into another situation where you used words that had a different meaning in your mind than everywhere else. I don't mean to be offensive, but you still have no clue what some of the things you wrote actually mean.

And I don't think anyone here is going to be able to show you.

punk
May 11th 2007, 08:36 PM
Since Punk won't answer my question, what in science says a person can be dead for three days and then spontaneously come back to life?

And what in science says man can walk on water?

Like I said, in terms of physics both processes are entirely possible, just very very very unlikely.

It is entirely possible for water molecules to clump together and have enough upward momentum to support a footstep at the right time and place to support human weight just by pure chance.

Its just unlikely.

Similarly there is nothing stopping processes in a human body from violating entropy long enough to restore a dead person to life.

It is just unlikely.

But then, my focus was in statistical mechanics, so I tend to look at most physical "laws" as what happens most all the time just because of the way the statistics work out.

Clavicula_Nox
May 11th 2007, 08:54 PM
Since Punk won't answer my question, what in science says a person can be dead for three days and then spontaneously come back to life?

And what in science says man can walk on water?

Nothing that I'm aware, but as far as I'm aware, science doesn't say that it is impossible, just that it is improbable. Science at least holds itself open to the possibility of either event.

Whispering Grace
May 11th 2007, 08:54 PM
It is entirely possible for water molecules to clump together and have enough upward momentum to support a footstep at the right time and place to support human weight just by pure chance.

Huh? Clumping of water molceules with an upward momentum at just the precise time to support a human footstep?




Similarly there is nothing stopping processes in a human body from violating entropy long enough to restore a dead person to life.


A dead for THREE DAYS person?

Sounds like "Night of the Living Dead" to me.....I think they call that science fiction for a reason. :hmm:

And that honestly begs the question....

Do you attribute those specific miracles in the Bible to random chance?

Clavicula_Nox
May 11th 2007, 08:57 PM
Huh? Clumping of water molceules with an upward momentum at just the precise time to support a human footstep?




A dead for THREE DAYS person?

Sounds like "Night of the Living Dead" to me.....I think they call that science fiction for a reason. :hmm:

And that honestly begs the question....

Do you attribute those specific miracles in the Bible to random chance?

Labelling something science fiction because of a lack of understanding is just asinine. Space travel, breaking the sound barrier, firearms, sustained mechanical flight, television, radio, cloning, transplant surgery, etc ad infintium. All of these things were called science fiction at one time or another, all of these things have happened and many are quite common today.

Let's lose the lack of honesty here, or simply drop the subject.

Studyin'2Show
May 11th 2007, 08:59 PM
WG, God love ya, you can't seem to read for comprehension. I don't know why, and I don't see how Punk could have been any clearer.

No I don't believe you faith in Christ is delusional.

When you say Jesus rose "spontaneously from the dead," please define what you mean. I hate to try to answer your question when I'm not sure how you are defining your terms. If you want to just post the scriptures picturing what you are asking that's fine too, I just don't want to get into another situation where you used words that had a different meaning in your mind than everywhere else. I don't mean to be offensive, but you still have no clue what some of the things you wrote actually mean.

And I don't think anyone here is going to be able to show you.Well, you are being EXTREMELY offensive. What's the deal! We are ALL supposed to be Christians here and your post here is entirely uncalled for. WhisperingGrace has made no personal attacks on you, only on the doctrine you seem to hold very dear. Shame on you!

Clavicula_Nox
May 11th 2007, 09:04 PM
Well, you are being EXTREMELY offensive. What's the deal! We are ALL supposed to be Christians here and your post here is entirely uncalled for. WhisperingGrace has made no personal attacks on you, only on the doctrine you seem to hold very dear. Shame on you!

I don't see how. ThinkingFaith just wants a unity of language, which is necessary when discussion science. It wasn't a personal attack, it was an attempt to allow honesty and understanding to finally reach the discussion.

Shame on you for being so quick to get offended instead of wanting to talk about things like adults, which involves using the correct terminology.

slightlypuzzled
May 11th 2007, 09:10 PM
I am locking this thread for further review...........