A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Scott Free]

On 1/30/2024 at 6:34 PM, RV_Wizard said:

That is the great lie of evolution

The Bible is intended to be theological messaging. Using the Bible as a source for empirical scientific research is misappropriating the purpose of God's written Word. It is like using a car to perform surgery because it drove them to the hospital.

[FJK]

46 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

The Bible is intended to be theological messaging. Using the Bible as a source for empirical scientific research is misappropriating the purpose of God's written Word. It is like using a car to perform surgery because it drove them to the hospital.

Is this implying that the Bible should be considered in secondary source of Truth compared to other sources that are more knowledgeable and reliable?

[Scott Free]

5 minutes ago, FJK said:

Is this implying that the Bible should be considered in secondary source of Truth

What do you mean by "truth"? The science of today will be as ridiculous tomorrow as Victorian science is to us today. The Bible glosses over the exact mechanics of creation. Much of it is speculation on our part, but the Ideal of God being the source of an orderly universe and Jesus' prophecies and fulfillment stand the test of time.

[FJK]

11 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

The Bible glosses over the exact mechanics of creation.

Genesis 2:7 " The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing." (CEV) seems rather exact to me.

[Scott Free]

1 minute ago, FJK said:

Genesis 2:7 " The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing." (CEV) seems rather exact to me.

So, a handful of soil to God is exactly like us picking up dirt? Is the phrase "God breathed life into man," a literal, detailed description of what exactly transpired physiologically? Or is it something said simply so we can get our heads around it.

[FJK]

5 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

So, a handful of soil to God is exactly like us picking up dirt? Is the phrase "God breathed life into man," a literal, detailed description of what exactly transpired physiologically? Or is it something said simply so we can get our heads around it.

Just do the same and you'll show how it's really done.

BTW, don't use God's dirt, create your own.

[other one]

The problem starts when people start considering the Bible as a science book.

[Scott Free]

1 minute ago, FJK said:

Just do the same and you'll show how it's really done.

BTW, don't use God's dirt, create your own.

To create, say a computer from scratch. You would not just squeeze sand together. You would go through a series of very complex steps. The same with creating a garden planet from only hydrogen as a starting material.

[Scott Free]

14 minutes ago, other one said:

The problem starts when people start considering the Bible as a science book.

God's Word is so much more. It is interesting debating Creationist when they substitute the Gospel for this. Being threatened by the worlds partial understanding shows insecurity, not faith.

Edited February 2, 2024 by Scott Free

[FJK]

1 minute ago, Scott Free said:

To create, say a computer from scratch. You would not just squeeze sand together. You would go through a series of very complex steps. The same with creating a garden planet from only hydrogen as a starting material.

You seem to be implying that man has the same power of creation of God or that God has no greater power to create than man.

I think this thinking is in error.

FWIW, Hydrogen is built from smaller particles which are also built from smaller particles and those smaller particles themselves being built from smaller particles, or so science tells us, so where did all that stuff that was brought into existence in Genesis 1:1 actually come from?

(Duct taping your head to keep it from exploding  is advised before pursuing this too deeply)