A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[teddyv]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:38 AM, The_Patriot21 said:

There really is nothing to question. I just showed you in context exactly what they mean, it's not rocket science.

To date you haven't actually provided any evidence to the contrary. You've just said you doubt our ability to understand them.

Well, see there is the problem. You doubt YOUR ability to understand them. The doubt lies with you and YOUR understanding.

Now I know how that comes across online, but it's not meant to be an attack but to drive home a point. In that it's something I said earlier.

The Bible is never wrong. Ever. The evidence never contradicts the Bible, ever. But our understanding can be wrong.

You've allowed earthly ideas and lies from the scientific community to cloud YOUR understanding of the scripture.

The error here lies in YOUR understanding of the text. Because you are placing your trust in man made science, over that of the Bible.

Which is something YOU need to work on. Because there is absolutely no way to read the creation account any other way. I've shown you the evidence, you cannot refute it, and you know it based upon the fact you won't even try.

The creation account is 100% true as it is written in the Bible, God created everything in 7 literal, consecutive, 24 hour days. Any other interpretation is a lie and contrary to scripture.

I will not continue this debate anymore as it is obvious it's not really a debate, and I can't force you to believe it.

However if you really want to reconcile science in the Bible I encourage you to do some actual research. I would start with www.answersingenesis.com for a whole slew of resources from credible, creation scientists, many of whom have phds from big name colleges.

 

 

 

 

 

No.  @Scott Free is correct in applying caution and nuance to an ancient text as well as applying sensible hermeneutics of asking who was it it written by, when and to whom.. You, like Answers in Genesis you would recommend, fall into the trap of viewing the Bible through the lens of Modernity, exemplified by the modern YEC proponents.

AiG is fundamentally flawed in their approach regardless of how many Ph.D.s they employ. Their explanations are ad hoc and they do not look into implications or their hypotheses beyond the soundbite. They promulgate a hyper-macroevolution while denying evolutionary theory. They promote their brand of creationism as the foundation of the gospel, which is their biggest failure.

[The_Patriot21]

22 minutes ago, teddyv said:

No.  @Scott Free is correct in applying caution and nuance to an ancient text as well as applying sensible hermeneutics of asking who was it it written by, when and to whom.. You, like Answers in Genesis you would recommend, fall into the trap of viewing the Bible through the lens of Modernity, exemplified by the modern YEC proponents.

AiG is fundamentally flawed in their approach regardless of how many Ph.D.s they employ. Their explanations are ad hoc and they do not look into implications or their hypotheses beyond the soundbite. They promulgate a hyper-macroevolution while denying evolutionary theory. They promote their brand of creationism as the foundation of the gospel, which is their biggest failure.

Well, you can believe that but it is contrary to the Bible.

And if it is contrary to the Bible then it is wrong, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

No.  @Scott Free is correct in applying caution and nuance to an ancient text as well as applying sensible hermeneutics of asking who was it it written by, when and to whom.. You, like Answers in Genesis you would recommend, fall into the trap of viewing the Bible through the lens of Modernity, exemplified by the modern YEC proponents.

AiG is fundamentally flawed in their approach regardless of how many Ph.D.s they employ. Their explanations are ad hoc and they do not look into implications or their hypotheses beyond the soundbite. They promulgate a hyper-macroevolution while denying evolutionary theory. They promote their brand of creationism as the foundation of the gospel, which is their biggest failure.

I mean no offense when I ask this.  I am genuinely interested in knowing how you stumbled into the Christian Camp if you believe what the Bible says is bogus, or suggest that God didn't know what He was talking about when He told you what He did.  How did you arrive at God, at all, if you don't believe what He said in Genesis about what He did?  You speak of hermeneutics, but you cannot possibly understand how hermeneutics works if you arrive at evolution theory when applying those rules, and saying the people who actually do understand them are fundamentally flawed.

Are you sure you are not applying Eisegesis to your interpretation of the Bible, to try to squeeze in evolution because that's what you prefer?  Is there any reason that an all powerful God could not create Earth and the entire universe in literal days?

To be clear, why do you believe in God Almighty if you literally don't believe in the what the Bible has to say about Him, or what He did in creation? 

[The Barbarian]

Show me a historical doctrine published by Popes or Bishops in council, declaring the Earth to be only a few thousand years old.

(declines to do so)

No one else can find any such thing, either.   Are you starting to figure this out?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Show me a historical document from any respected clergyman prior to the 16th century claiming that the earth is greater than 10,000 years old. 

So Church leaders began thinking in terms of millions of years about the same time scientists found evidence that it is that old.    Almost immediately.   Why?  Because there was no church doctrine denying that it is that old.

 Your argument, then, is foolish.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The point is, NOBODY is on record of having DISPUTED the plainly written text which says God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh

As you saw, St. Augustine plainly showed that they could not be so.   And no one thought to argue with him.

George McCready Price (26 August 1870 – 24 January 1963) was a Canadian creationist. He produced several anti-evolution and creationist works, particularly on the subject of flood geology. His views did not become common among creationists until after his death,

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I still don't know who he is. 

He's the reason you're a YE creationist, unless you happen to be a Seventh-Day Adventist.    Price is the guy who started training evangelicals to accept the Adventist position.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What is important is what the Bible says about it. 

And you were shown that the text itself says the days couldn't be literal ones.   Why not just accept it God's way?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Was it Morris or Moses who presented the 10 Commandments? 

Moses presented it; Morris and other YE creationists just revised it to make it more acceptable to them.   You constantly misrepresent the Bible as written.     Even ancient Christians knew the days of creation couldn't be literal ones.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Further, Jesus was the last prophet.  All who came after Him presenting new doctrine are false. 

And yet you follow the doctrines of an Adventist "prophetess." 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Well, you can believe that but it is contrary to the Bible.

It's contrary to some modernist revisions of the Bible.   But that's quite a different thing.

[The Barbarian]

16 minutes ago, Sparks said:

mean no offense when I ask this.  I am genuinely interested in knowing how you stumbled into the Christian Camp if you believe what the Bible says is bogus, or suggest that God didn't know what He was talking about when He told you what He did. 

I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that, if  your interpretation is correct, God didn't know what He was talking about.

God has then final say here, not modern YE creationist doctrine.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 2/3/2024 at 5:57 AM, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible is never wrong. Ever. The evidence never contradicts the Bible, ever. But our understanding can be wrong...

Hence the passage in Genesis that says the sky has windows in it through which rain can fall.    The story includes figurative language.   How much?    Well, it's clearly indicated.   We should all be humble enough not to decide for God how much figurative language should be allowed to Him.

 

[Sparks]

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that, if  your interpretation is correct, God didn't know what He was talking about.

God has then final say here, not modern YE creationist doctrine.

You have the final misinterpretation of what God said, it seems.  I wonder if you understand that Creationism is the belief in what God said about his creation?   

[Sparks]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

Hence the passage in Genesis that says the sky has windows in it through which rain can fall.    The story includes figurative language.   How much?    Well, it's clearly indicated.   We should all be humble enough not to decide for God how much figurative language should be allowed to Him.

You should probably quote the scripture you reference if you plan to make a point about it.

[RV_Wizard]

47 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So Church leaders began thinking in terms of millions of years about the same time scientists found evidence that it is that old.    Almost immediately.   Why?  Because there was no church doctrine denying that it is that old. 

Your argument is spurious and sophomoric.  There was not doctrine denying evolution either, because Satan hadn't presented the idea yet.  There isn't any doctrine regarding flying pink whales who breathe fire and poop windmills either, because nobody ever claimed there was.  Nobody denied the creation until false teachers began spreading the false religion of evolution.  Note: you don't see a special condemnation of Islam either, because it also came later.  However, we WERE warned about false teachers.