Science and the Bible...

[junobet]

4 minutes ago, Ezra said:

First of all Higher Criticism (priestly source, Jahwist source, etc.) has been thoroughly debunked, and secondly it is really a stretch to call Genesis 1 and 2 "poetry".  So if you wish to put your faith in the broken reed of the so-called *assured results of modern biblical scholarship* that's your choice.  For those of us who don't accept that nonsense, Moses personally wrote the Torah under Divine inspiration, and the Jews have always adhered to that position.

Well, higher criticism is still alive and kicking at both the Protestant and Catholic Theological Seminaries over here in Germany, and I hear also in Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge ...

But maybe you know how Moses personally wrote an account of his own death. *scratches head*

Edited January 14, 2016 by junobet

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, junobet said:

But maybe you know how Moses personally wrote an account of his own death. *scratches head*

Just as Christ, Peter, and Paul prophesied of their own deaths.

[Bonky]

Tristen:

Thanks for your input.  I agree 100% that science deals with levels of confidence not absolute proofs etc.   I'm not entirely sure I agree with the scientific method not giving us confidence about things that happened in the past.  I think there are probably varying levels of confidence given the specific circumstance or case.  Also of course it doesn't shed light on supernatural events but then what does?

With regard to your list I've tried to read it carefully and I agree it is a large topic as you state.  I personally find myself unmoved by prophecy and the logically self-consistent argument.   To me prophecy should be quite clear and I whenever I try to get to the bottom of a prophecy claim there is often just so much wiggle room either way to say it's fulfilled or not fulfilled.  Just like you state why didn't God just come out and say he used evolution, I could say why didn't God just come out in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to the child as "Yeshua son of Mary"?   There are other prophecies I've seen where you have a location that will be desolate or destroyed or a place that will "dry up" etc but no details on when or how etc.  I happen to think those details are pretty important.  

I myself don't bother with biblical "contradictions" because i think it's hard to really nail down something as a contradiction or confirm a suggested remedy.  I just find the whole subject matter to be of little interest.  

I don't dismiss the points you've made, I just personally don't see enough to warrant your initial premise [infallibility etc].   Perhaps I'm more comfortable with doubt than certainty.  

 

 

 

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, completedbeliever1 said:

This is a great post...

I agree on most everything, except "Denying our children education in evolution theory will leave them unequipped to deal with what faces them in the real world."

I am reminded of how the FBI can spot fake US currency.  

They study the real currency.  It is that simple.  

We too need to know the real from the fake by knowing the real so well, we can spot a fake from a mile away.

 

Hi CB1,

 

I wasn’t for an instant suggesting that creationism not be taught. Rather that we live in a world saturated with evolutionary theory, and having a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary theory (including its logical weaknesses) will better prepare our children from the bombardment of secular ideas, and equip them to provide a defence of the Bible against accusations that our faith is anti-intellectual or anti-science or ignores evidence etc.

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Bonky said:

Tristen:

Thanks for your input.  I agree 100% that science deals with levels of confidence not absolute proofs etc.   I'm not entirely sure I agree with the scientific method not giving us confidence about things that happened in the past.  I think there are probably varying levels of confidence given the specific circumstance or case.  Also of course it doesn't shed light on supernatural events but then what does?

With regard to your list I've tried to read it carefully and I agree it is a large topic as you state.  I personally find myself unmoved by prophecy and the logically self-consistent argument.   To me prophecy should be quite clear and I whenever I try to get to the bottom of a prophecy claim there is often just so much wiggle room either way to say it's fulfilled or not fulfilled.  Just like you state why didn't God just come out and say he used evolution, I could say why didn't God just come out in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to the child as "Yeshua son of Mary"?   There are other prophecies I've seen where you have a location that will be desolate or destroyed or a place that will "dry up" etc but no details on when or how etc.  I happen to think those details are pretty important.  

I myself don't bother with biblical "contradictions" because i think it's hard to really nail down something as a contradiction or confirm a suggested remedy.  I just find the whole subject matter to be of little interest.  

I don't dismiss the points you've made, I just personally don't see enough to warrant your initial premise [infallibility etc].   Perhaps I'm more comfortable with doubt than certainty.  

 

 

 

Hi Bonky,

 

You said, “I'm not entirely sure I agree with the scientific method not giving us confidence about things that happened in the past.  I think there are probably varying levels of confidence given the specific circumstance or case”

The scientific method attributes mathematical confidence to claims based on direct observations of experimental results. Since we cannot perform experiments in the past, we are obligated to adopt a method; one-step, logically removed from the scientific method. We can only test current evidence against a model/story of what might have happened in the past – but not what actually happened (i.e. we can’t perform experiments on the actual claim).

Even if all the current facts can be interpreted as evidence supporting a particular past claim, there is no logical way to verify that this story describes what actually happened to produce these facts. It is possible that a completely different story could have produced the same facts.

Consider a forensic analogy; A fact might be the accused’s fingerprints on the weapon. Did the accused commit the crime, or did the accused pick up the weapon in case they needed to defend themselves, or did the weapon belong to the accused, or was there a struggle during which the fingerprints could have been transferred, or had the accused had some previous access to the weapon, etc.? By this example we see that multiple stories can account for the same facts. No amount of experimentation can provide observations of the actual event (i.e. in-motion).

Confidence can only be attributed to past claims by committing the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. The logic is as follows;

If A, then B

B. Therefore A

 

So if our past claim is correct, we would expect to find certain facts

We find these facts. therefore we are confident that our past claim is true.

 

If you swallow broken glass, you’ll get a sore throat

Billy has a sore throat. Therefore Billy must have swallowed broken glass

This final example demonstrates the fallacy – obviously, there are other possible causes of a sore throat. Likewise, there is no way to verify any past claim – regardless of whether the all the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the claim. Even contrary facts can be dismissed as ‘we haven’t yet figured out how to reconcile these facts with our past claim’.

Subjective confidence can obviously be attributed to past claims (i.e. you might have the personal opinion that consistency with facts justifies your personal confidence in a past claim), But there is no logical way to apply direct mathematical confidence (i.e. scientific confidence) to such a claim. We can only apply such confidence to claims of current natural phenomena.

 

“Also of course it doesn't shed light on supernatural events but then what does?”

You can no more provide direct observations of the Big Bang or the Common Ancestry of all life, than I can provide direct, natural observations of any supernatural claim. It’s the same logical weakness being addressed (i.e. claims lacking the capacity for direct, natural observation).

 

“Perhaps I'm more comfortable with doubt than certainty.”

So I would question your consistency? Not only are we addressing the same logical weakness, but the same rational methodology is being used to provide a logical work-around of that weakness – i.e. a model is provided, and the expectations of that model compared to the extant facts. Do you apply equal “doubt” to Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry?

 

 

[completedbeliever1]

On 1/14/2016 at 8:46 PM, junobet said:

 

Well, with all due respect for your personal opinions, let it be said that the vast majority of this world’s Christians don’t have the slightest problem to see spiritual truth in Genesis and to also accept the scientific consensus about evolution.

Actually there’s only two kinds of people who think Genesis is to be read literally: atheists à la Dawkins and fundamentalist evangelicals. And the latter are a rather recent phenomenon in the history of Christianity. So you may be interested in this article, that tells us how Genesis has traditionally been read and how these readings and evolution are in no conflict whatsoever:

---

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science.  St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-1791), and others supported the idea of Accommodation.  In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.  In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation.  St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.  The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

Introduction

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.

Early Christian Thought

To understand how Genesis was interpreted during ancient times, see John Walton's Reconciling Science with Scripture and Denis Lamoureux'sThe Ancient Science in the Bible and The Message-Incident Principle from our Science and the Sacred blog.

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.¹

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.² In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.³

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.⁴

Later Christian Thought

There are many other non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1–2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion and was strongly influenced by Augustine. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings.

In Summa Theologica, he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:

"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world."⁵

Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the eighteenth century—just before Darwin published The Origin of Species—in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought the scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,

"The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them."⁶

Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details] but to lead us to God.”⁷

In the nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary was known for its staunch defense of conservative Calvinism and the absolute authority of Scripture. Perhaps the most noted Princeton theologian of that era, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution as giving the proper scientific account of human origins. He believed that hearing God’s voice in Scripture and the findings of solid scientific work were not at odds. As historian Mark Noll puts it, “B. B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.”⁸

Conclusion

The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The discoveries of modern science should neither be seen as the instigator of some abandonment of trust in Scripture, nor as contradictory to Scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of Scripture’s meaning.

Augustine offers this advice:

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."⁹

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

 

The 6 day model is how YAHVAH wanted things to work.  We have six days to work, and we rest the seventh.  The LAND is to be worked for 6 years, and rest the 7th.  So too must the EARTH work for 6000 years and rest for the 7th 1000 years.

Everything works off of the number system.  

The first day was the light.
The second day was the expanse.
The third day was the dry land, and the seas, trees, grass, and herbs.
The fourth day was the sun, moon, and stars.
The fifth day was the birds and fish, .
The sixth day was the animals, and humans.
The seventh day was the day of rest.

There is a reason for this order.

Days 1, 4, and 7 ~~ Light, sun, moon, stars, rest.
Days 2, and 5 ~~ Expanse, birds, fish.
Days 3, and 6 ~~ Land, sea, all plants, trees, animals, man.

These are also the 1000 year time periods.  So far earth has gone through almost all 6.  We will come to that in 2068.

The first 1000 years were the children of light, and that started in 3930 B.C.
The second 1000 years were the times of division of families.
The third 1000 years was the families growing in the earth.
The fourth 1000 years was the first century church
The fifth 1000 years was the time of earth being given the gospel.
The sixth 1000 years was the time where the church began to be more worldly.
And the seventh 1000 years is for the EARTH to rest from its work.

The real point that I was trying to make with the numbers is that they had to originate from somewhere. 
But there is much more to it.

The Feasts, the plagues, the set order of the planets, the laws of the universe.  And on an on follow laws.  Follow a set order.

Gravity follows an inverse square law.
As do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, and sound.
Objects fall from the speed of light, and electromagnetism, into time ability to put invariables to patterns in space.
All bodies would fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
Distance fallen in successive equal time intervals is proportional to the ODD NUMBERS.
1-------1-----1---------------------1
4-------4-----4---------------------4
9-------9-----9---------------------9
16------16----1+6=7-------------7
REVERSE 25------25----2+5=7-------------7
36------36----3+6=9-------------9
49------49----4+9=13 1+3=4--4
64------64----6+4=10 1+0=1--1
81------81----8+1=9-------------9
"Balance and purification" using Gematria-Digital Rooting. Force Decreases as the square of the distance Increases. Here we are doing away with action at a distance.

Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein did away with this and thought in terms of "instantaneous Fields".

Instantaneous Fields of Extreme Energy Field Concentration built off of Electromagnetism and the speed of light. Unifying all space-time.

The multiplication chart is a space-time grid Expanding and contracting. When we multiply, what are we doing? We are balancing polarities, or variables of a language.

What language? Hebrew. 

Any language can be assigned as alpha-numeric, but only the Hebrew language can show how all existence was spoken and created.

We are multiplying consonants of an alphabet, but instead of letters, we are using numbers. This organizes, structures, and balances the language.

Order governs space-time. The universe is communicating with us. The universe is consience, alive. This conscience is Pre-existing, which means that eternal laws exist.

Time repeats as patterns of pre-existing history. Based on immutable laws. Pre-existing laws.

If YAHVAH is eternal, so are his laws that govern eternity. They do not change. The same at rest or in motion. Every one exists in some time, some speed, or some motion.

Events are formed, or consequences occur based on choices made measured off of conscience laws that exist and govern space-time. Everything answers to intelligent design, and is formed accordingly. Space is always filled, it is never empty. YAHVAH is omnipresent. It remains filled with electromagnetism, a life force, and light, photons which are the fabric of space-time.

Information, consciousness, is free flowing, yet travels with light in time. Particle-Wave interaction. Space: relating to occupying or having a period of Time. also its duration. A limited extent in one, two, or three dimentions. Distance, area, volume. A boundless 3 dimentional extentin which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction. Space in Geometry is the set of ALL points.

Time: All space-time are unified to the speed of light. Light: a mathmatical constant relating to units of time to the units used for space. What is the speed of light?

James Clark Maxwell unified the electric force and magnetic force to the speed of light.

Electromagnatism and light speed are one in the same. He showed that light of any kind is energy carried in waves of electric and magnetic fields that continually regenerate each other.

The set feasts of YAHVAH:

Feasts were the true instrument in order, structure, and cycles revealing events here on earth. Set times to act and recognise events around us, built on seasons.

This revealed repeating events(patterns)in history. From past, present, and future.

Ecclesiastes 1:9,10 and 3:15. Rev. 1:8.

#1: Passover 14th of nissan, Abib (March-April)
#2: Unleavened Bread 15th-21st of Abib
#3: First Fruits 16th of Abib
#4: Second "little" passover 14th of Iyyar
#5: Pentecost 50 days after First friuts 6th of Sivan
#6: Rosh Hashana (new year) 1st of Tishri
#7: Yom Kippur (day of atonement) 10th of Tishri
#8: Sukkot (ingathering) 15th-21st of Tishri
#9: Hanukkah (lights) 25th of Kisleu 8 days
#10: Purim 13-15th of Adar.

The year does not begin in January. New years day was moved from March 25th to January 1st. The new year should begin at the Vernal Equinox, when day and night are equal. The UNIVERSAL calender is lunar/solar in nature. This system combined is the system in which the universal calender is based.

It is not based exclusively on the moon or sun, but reconciles the difference in a mode of calculation in which Months are reckoned according to the moon, while years are calculated according to the sun. Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8:6

Intercalculation: 7 times in 19 years the lunar months became adjusted to the seasons. As a result, the 14th universal month day of the start of Passover, personifying the cosmic energy force of Aries, never will occur prior to the sun sign Aries: March 21st-April 23rd, the terminating date of Aries.

[Bonky]

Tristen while I agree that we may not have mathematical certainty about scientific claims of the past, I don't know that all claims are then necessarily affirming the consequent.  You used two wonderful examples of affirming the consequent and I see the clear pattern.  Someone is coming to a conclusion where there are obvious alternative causes.  Let me provide two scenarios that are similar but show where I'm coming from.

Scenario A.

One afternoon, my son comes home from work waking me up from a nap.  He says to me "Hey dad I'm heading out to a friends, I let the dog in by the way....he was outside begging to come back inside".   My son leaves the house and I soon see my dog shaking water off his coat.  I notice that my son wasn't wet but my dog is.  I say to myself "Hey someone hosed my dog down!".  

Scenario B.

One afternoon, my son comes home from work waking me up from a nap.  He says to me "Hey dad I'm heading out to a friends, I let the dog in by the way....he was outside begging to come back inside".   My son leaves the house and I soon see my dog shaking water off his coat.   I notice that my son wasn't wet but my dog is.  While I'm puzzled by this I decide to head to the store in town to get groceries.  As I get outside I notice everything is wet outside.  The whole car ride to the store I notice everything is wet.  Conclusion, it rained recently and my son was sheltered from the rain while my dog was not.

Is scenario B affirming the consequent?  This is why I said it depends on the scenario, how many data points do we have?  If you're making a conclusion on one small data point and ignoring other LIKELY possibilities then yeah you're committing a fallacy.   I don't think we can whitewash all scientific claims about the past and say they're affirming the consequent.   I realize my example wasn't about the deep past but I think the principle stands.  

Regarding your statement of the supernatural, would you say that the big bang has just as much going for it as the case for the existence of demons?  Another words because we don't have direct observable of either therefore they are both on par with each other in terms of support?  

I currently believe that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.  I do not hold this as an unshakable truth no.  I don't reject that a creator was involved but at the same time I don't affirm one either.   I'm sure Richard Dawkins would speak differently on this but then I don't have his training and background.  You asked about the Big Bang, as far as I know there are still competing models of our Universe and it's origin so yeah I see room for skepticism or criticism etc.  

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bonky

[junobet]

On 14.1.2016 at 10:24 PM, Ezra said:

Just as Christ, Peter, and Paul prophesied of their own deaths.

What? So Jesus wrote the Gospels and the Bible tells us how Peter and Paul died???

Never mind.

For the sake of argument let’s just take your premise on board  that Genesis 1-2 is a factual, inerrant and chronologically precise text-book on natural history rather than an amazingly beautiful piece of ancient literature that tells us deep theological truths:

If that is so, surely you can tell me what God created first: plants or people?

[Ezra]

3 minutes ago, junobet said:

If that is so, surely you can tell me what God created first: plants or people?

That's way too easy. Plants feed people (and animals) so plants first, then people (Gen 1:11,12;28-30).  With reference to the garden of Eden, it could have been created just after Adam was created, or created before with all the other plants, but mentioned after Adam's creation. It is a very minor digression.

BTW someone said that Moses could not have written about his own death. Why not? He was writing under Divine inspiration. He also wrote that he was the meekest man on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3).  How in the world would he have known this unless God revealed it to him (and it was no boast, just a plain statement of fact).

[junobet]

19 minutes ago, Ezra said:

That's way too easy. Plants feed people (and animals) so plants first, then people (Gen 1:11,12;28-30).  With reference to the garden of Eden, it could have been created just after Adam was created, or created before with all the other plants, but mentioned after Adam's creation. It is a very minor digression.

BTW someone said that Moses could not have written about his own death. Why not? He was writing under Divine inspiration. He also wrote that he was the meekest man on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3).  How in the world would he have known this unless God revealed it to him (and it was no boast, just a plain statement of fact).

So you notice ‘minor digressions’ but you still maintain that the Bible is factually inerrant.

What about the water: Was there water to begin with or was everything dry to begin with?

Minor digressions I suppose.

As for Moses writing the Torah: call me a bone-dry sola scriptura Protestant, but I like to stick to the text rather than bend over backwards to project my pre-conceived traditional views into it. And nowhere in the Torah does it claim that Moses wrote all of it.

Walk in peace, brother