A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[RV_Wizard]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The text itself tells us that they aren't literal days.   They aren't time periods at all, but aspects of God's creation.

Of all the dumb things you've posted, that may well be the dumbest.  If an evening and morning is not a measurement of time, what does it measure?  Weight?  "How much does that cow weigh?"  "Oh, about an evening and a morning."  Depth?  "How deep is the pool?"  "It's an evening and a morning deep."  Temperature?  "How warm is it out?" "It's an evening and a morning."

I'm pretty sure you're the ONLY person here that believes that.

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You just want to make it a physical image.   But that's not possible.   God is a spirit, and Jesus says a spirit has no body.   The image is in our minds and souls.  

So God started as plankton, evolved into an amphibian, crawled onto land, morphed into a primate and finally walked upright?  Is that your image of God?  

God said He created man from the dust of the earth.  You say that man evolved from simpler life forms.  Only one of you can be right.  Personally, I'm putting my faith in God's word over yours.  You can't deny that you refuse to believe much of the Bible including most of Genesis.  You even pretend that you can have a flood greater than the mountains on low lying land with easy run-off to the sea.  That's the hogwash you expect us to believe is scientific?

As I've always said, anyone who believes in both the Bible and evolution has a good understanding of neither.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Scott Free said:

Is God's day spoken from His perspective the same as a day from our point of view? Is there a way to quantify God's timescale?

It appears that the "days" are symbolic of the different aspects of creation.

Drawing basically on Genesis 1:1, Augustine came to the amazing insight accepted today even by modern cosmologists that “the world was not created in time but with time.”

...

Augustine advocated the view of “instantaneous creation,” believing God had created all things, including time, from nothing (known as the doctrine of creation ex nihilo). However, he remained noncommittal as to how the specific creation days are best understood. In his classic work the City of God he wrote: “What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.”² Augustine finally came to the tentative exegetical conclusion that God actually created only one day (an instantaneous moment) but that single creation day was presented in Scripture as recurring seven times.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101/creation-what-kind-of-days-are-these

 

[The Barbarian]

The text itself tells us that they aren't literal days.   They aren't time periods at all, but aspects of God's creation.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

I'm pretty sure you're the ONLY person here that believes that.

Certainly, many Christian scholars understand this:

However, the presence of a sequence must not be obvious to everyone.  When Hummel comments on day 1 (verse 4) and day 4 (verse 14) of creation week, he points out that

Our problem of how the earth could be lighted (v. 4) before the sun appeared comes when we require the narrative to be a strict chronological account.  (Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible, InterVarsity Press, 1986, p. 209, italics in original)

Mickelsen reminds us that

Biblical narratives about creation are written in the style and outlook of ancient people. … events are not necessarily recounted in chronological order. … Chronology was not as important to ancient writers as it is to us.

Poetic sequence, subject matter, logic, or some other factor often determined the arrangement rather than chronology  (A Berkeley Mickelsen & Alvera M. Mickelsen, Understanding Scripture: How to Read And Study the Bible, Hendrickson, 1992, p. 103-104).

… it appears likely that it [Genesis] is written within a literary framework rather than in a chronological or scientific framework. This in no way lessens the great truths the creation account teaches. … God moved in an orderly way from a chaotic situation to one of form and beauty.  (op. cit. p. 107)

The purpose of this paper is to show that the six days of creation recorded in Genesis 1 represent six different aspects of creation, not six strictly sequential stages of creation.  This view is not motivated by a need to adapt the interpretation of Genesis 1 to the opinions of modern popular science.  We are not trying to make room for billions of years because we do not feel that there is good evidence for billions of years.  Rather, this view comes primarily from the application of the important hermeneutical principle of context, as will be explained in the following sections.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the material recorded in the six days of creation can be characterized as both topical and chronological.  This same characteristic is easily observed when you compare the first account of creation in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 with the second account of creation in Genesis 2:4-25.  It is also easily observed when you examine chapters 3 through 11 of Genesis.  (See the section entitled Reiteration in the paper Genesis 1-11.)

https://www.ronleigh.com/bible/six-days/index.htm

You need to read your Bible and learn about what Biblical scholars actually have found.

You just want to make it a physical image.   But that's not possible.   God is a spirit, and Jesus says a spirit has no body.   The image is in our minds and souls.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

So God started as plankton, evolved into an amphibian, crawled onto land, morphed into a primate and finally walked upright?  Is that your image of God?  

One of the problems for you, is that you don't follow text very well.   I just showed you that such a belief is wrong.   You want to make it a physical image, but that's not possible.   Such a faulty belief leads to what you just wrote.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

God said He created man from the dust of the earth.

Life was brought forth from the Earth, as God willed.  I think you'll admit that much.   You just don't approve of the way He did it.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

You even pretend that you can have a flood greater than the mountains on low lying land with easy run-off to the sea.

That's what happened to the mountains in the Black Sea Basin.   You keep forgetting.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I've always said, anyone who believes in both the Bible and evolution has a good understanding of neither.

As several people have tried to show you, one does not "believe in" any scientific theory.  Your beliefs are faulty.   One accepts theories on the evidence, or not at all.   And yes, you don't have a good understanding of the Bible, either.

That's fixable.   But first you have to be willing to accept God's creation on His terms, not yours.

 

Edited February 20 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Our problem of how the earth could be lighted (v. 4) before the sun appeared comes when we require the narrative to be a strict chronological account.  (Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible, InterVarsity Press, 1986, p. 209, italics in original)

Leave it to you to find a "Christian scholar" who is unaware that light was created in the third verse of the first chapter of Genesis.  If you have to ask how the earth can be lighted after the creation of light, you really aren't much of a Biblical scholar, now, are you?

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Biblical narratives about creation are written in the style and outlook of ancient people. … events are not necessarily recounted in chronological order. … Chronology was not as important to ancient writers as it is to us.

So when one reads the first day, the second day, the third day etc, we are not to assume chronological order JUST BECAUSE they are written in chronological order.  Further, we shouldn't assume that a certain body of water is wet just because every other body of water is wet, and by definition water is wet.  Brilliant!  I think that sheds a new light on the term "educated beyond their intelligence."

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

It should be no surprise to anyone that the material recorded in the six days of creation can be characterized as both topical and chronological.  This same characteristic is easily observed when you compare the first account of creation in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 with the second account of creation in Genesis 2:4-25. 

This so-called expert thinks there are two creation accounts.  There is ONE account of creation.  The second chapter starts, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."  It then goes into greater detail about the formation of man and his placement in the garden of Eden.

1 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."  The mysteries of the Scriptures are not revealed to the unsaved.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Life was brought forth from the Earth, as God willed.  I think you'll admit that much.

Genesis 1:31. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."  You always deliberately leave this out because it renders your evolution claim void and illustrates the dishonesty with which you intentionally quote verses out of context.  You cannot argue the dishonesty with which you present this argument.  Anyone capable of reading can see it.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

That's what happened to the mountains in the Black Sea Basin.   You keep forgetting.

Two words: topographical map.  One look and anyone can see that your argument has no basis in fact.

[Scott Free]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Drawing basically on Genesis 1:1, Augustine came to the amazing insight accepted today even by modern cosmologists that “the world was not created in time but with time.”

That is interesting. I like to consider the creation stories a visions similar the those of Daniel and John. They are definitely not eye witness accounts, but seem to be spiritually appraised visions. As our empirical understanding grows, it becomes evident the strict literal interpretation is preposterous and we are dealing in prophetic vision with layers of meaning.

Edited February 20 by Scott Free
Spelling Corretion

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Leave it to you to find a "Christian scholar" who is unaware that light was created in the third verse of the first chapter of Genesis.

He was referring to the lack of sun to have regular days.  But you knew that.

28 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So when one reads the first day, the second day, the third day etc, we are not to assume chronological order

In fact, as St. Augustine pointed out they aren't even time periods.

29 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

This so-called expert thinks there are two creation accounts.  There is ONE account of creation. 

You were probably unaware that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have difference accounts.   One says the world was made in a day, and the other says six days.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth

31 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

1 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 don't think you're necessarily unsaved.    You just don't approve of everything God did at creation.   He doesn't really care; your salvation doesn't depend on that.

33 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Genesis 1:31. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." 

Which contradicts Gen. 2:4.    If you insist on revising the "days" to be literal time periods.   Otherwise, no problem.

35 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Two words: topographical map.  One look and anyone can see that your argument has no basis in fact.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.9GPrYIdw9d29XauMsN1jsgHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=2ae89c2df42f5d633171ed0eafd141722780408566a3f765df9923048b46a60e&ipo=images

Notice the basin is ringed by mountains. that are now submerged and being covered by sediment from the new coastline. 

6,000-Year-Old Submerged Settlement Shows Black Sea Level Was Lower 5,000 Years Ago 

https://www.ancientpages.com/2020/11/30/6000-year-old-submerged-settlement-shows-black-sea-level-was-lower-5000-years-ago-black-sea-deluge-theory/

Submerged Prehistoric Settlements along the Western Black Sea Coast: the Problem of Situation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270449862_Submerged_Prehistoric_Settlements_along_the_Western_Black_Sea_Coast_the_Problem_of_Situation

 

Scientific analysis of the expedition’s archaeological materials, conducted under the direction of chief archaeologist Fredrik Hiebert of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, included radiocarbon dating of wood from the shipwreck and five wooden artifacts recovered from an apparent archaeological site discovered about 300 feet (about 100 meters) below the surface of the Black Sea. The site was near the submerged ancient coastline, flooded several thousand years ago.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngnews/blacksea.html

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

He was referring to the lack of sun to have regular days. 

A day comes from a single rotation of the earth relative to a point of light.  First it was light, then it was the sun.  You know that, and still you pretend otherwise.

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In fact, as St. Augustine

Augustine's opinions on this manner were repudiated both before and after he made them.  Again, he has a minority view.  Jesus trusted the Scriptures, Augustine did not.

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You were probably unaware that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have difference accounts.

Had you ever actually READ the Bible you would understand that Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account, despite lies to the contrary.

Genesis 2 takes a closer look at the creation of man. This passage is not a second creation account, nor is it contradictory to Genesis 1. Genesis 2 simply takes a step away from a linear report to refocus the reader on God’s unique work concerning man. God formed man from the dust of the earth He had previously created. After forming man’s body, God breathed life—a soul—into him. The fact that God chose to form man this way shows His great care in this process.  source

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which contradicts Gen. 2:4.    If you insist on revising the "days" to be literal time periods. 

There is no contradiction in Genesis four, especially if you actually read Genesis 2:1-3.  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Notice the basin is ringed by mountains. that are now submerged and being covered by sediment from the new coastline. 

Notice that the Black Sea drains to the Aegean Sea, then to the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic.  Also, notice that NO ACCOUNT puts Noah's location in Turkey.  More dishonesty, and poorly thought out dishonesty at that.  Also, your article references that time of the submerged villages as several thousand years ago, which is, coincidentally, when the whole world was flooded.

The heavens proclaim the glory of God, even if you deny it at every opportunity.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

A day comes from a single rotation of the earth relative to a point of light. 

If that was true, moonrise would be morning.   You already know this; why pretend you don't?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Augustine's opinions on this manner were repudiated both before and after he made them. 

Disagreement is not repudiation.    You just don't like the fact that most Christians accepted his understanding.

If you had read the Bible you would probably  be aware that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have difference accounts.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Had you ever actually READ the Bible you would understand that Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account

God says it is.  I believe Him.   You should, too.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth

(found some one who denies what God says in Genesis 2:4)

Sorry, I'll go with God's opinion.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Notice that the Black Sea drains to the Aegean Sea, then to the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic.  Also, notice that NO ACCOUNT puts Noah's location in Turkey. 

Black Sea isn't in Turkey.   Go look it up.   You were wrong about the mountains being covered by the sea, too.

Why not just accept God and His glory as He is?

 

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

If that was true, moonrise would be morning.

If the moon were the only source of light, that would be the case.  However, the moon was created with the sun on day four, so the entity called light was what shone on the earth.  Pretending not to be able to grasp this only makes you look foolish.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Disagreement is not repudiation.

They were repudiated.  

It was not until the fourth century that Gnostic and Manichaean influence started to infiltrate the Christian Church, polluting it with their doctrines. Augustine, after saturating himself in Gnostic philosophy for many years, joined the Church and became a Bishop. He then began to contradict what the Church had always taught on human nature and the freedom of man’s will and taught in accordance with the Gnostic views of human nature and free will. The Church, through the influence of Augustine, began to embrace and teach the doctrine of natural inability.

It is an undisputed and known fact of history, admitted by Augustine’s admirers and supporters in their historical accounts of his life, that Augustine was influenced by, and a member of, the Manichaean Gnostic sect. John K. Ryan, in his introduction to “The Confessions of Saint Augustine” said, “The two great intellectual influences upon Augustine prior to his conversion were Manicheism and Greek Philosophy.”[42] In their introduction to “The Confessions of Augustine,” John Gibb and William Montgomery said, “In the same year in which he read the Scriptures and was disappointed in them, Augustine joined the Manichaean sect…”[43] They also said, “For nearly nine years Augustine was a Manichaean Auditor. At first he was a zealous partisan who contended publicly for his new faith, and did not hesitate to ridicule the doctrines of the Church and especially the Old Testament Scriptures…” source

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

If you had read the Bible you would probably  be aware that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have difference accounts.

The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest); Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.  source

Why is it that you seem to understand nothing about the Bible?

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Black Sea isn't in Turkey.

No, Turkey borders the Black Sea. If one proceeds north from Mesopotamia to the Black Sea he ends up in...... wait for it.... TURKEY!!!

Seriously, your attacks on the Bible are the lamest arguments there are.  You need to hang with a more up to date crowd of atheists.  There are better attacks out there. 

[The Barbarian]

If "big light in the sky defined days, then moonrise would be morning.   It's the sun that determines days and mornings.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If the moon were the only source of light, that would be the case. 

No, that's wrong.  By definition, it requires a sun.  Pretending not to be able to grasp this only makes you look foolish.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

They were repudiated.  

No, you merely disagreed.   But you and your fellow objectors aren't very credible, compared to people like Augustine.  Sorry.

If you had read the Bible you would probably  be aware that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different accounts.  Why is it that you seem to understand nothing about the Bible?

(remarks that the Bible never specifically said Noah was in Turkey)

The Black Sea is not Turkey.   But if  one proceeds south from the Black Sea, he ends up in...... wait for it.... Mesopotamia.

No coincidence, I think.   Why not just give up and let it be God's way?

 

 

Edited February 21 by The Barbarian