A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Scott Free]

25 minutes ago, FJK said:

I think this thinking is in error.

You are right. What do we really know about the subject? I simply teach the creation story as a message, that God created in an orderly series of graduated peaceful steps, expressed poetically in a way we can understand. We really know nothing more than that.

Edited February 2, 2024 by Scott Free

[The_Patriot21]

See your right in that the Bible is for theological studies, but your wrong in thinking it can't be applied to science.

The Bible is God's completely inherent, perfect word. God will not lie. If the Bible said something happened a certain way, then it happened that way. Period. 

So therefore all actual science supports the Biblical account.

If your evidence is contrary to the Bible, either your evidence is wrong, or your understanding of the evidence is wrong.

Because man's understanding of science can indeed be wrong. We are flawed creatures and capable of mistakes, of dishonesty, etc. In fact, it's not only possible it's garenteed. We are not perfect.

God is incapable of making mistakes or lying. And it is the height of human arrogance to think our understanding of science trump's the Biblical account. And even worse, were actually calling God a liar when we do so. 

So in all actuality we absolutely should look at science using Biblical glasses. 

And yes, the Bible does say a literal, 7 consecutive 24 hour day creation. Multiple times. It is black and white in both the English and Hebrew. There is absolutely no room for any other understanding.

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, when St. Augustine pointed out... 

As I pointed out, both before and after Augustine the church considered the creation week to be a normal seven-day week.  You keep going back to Augustine because He said things you like, not because He was right.

[FJK]

1 minute ago, RV_Wizard said:

You keep going back to Augustine because He said things you like, not because He was right.

And Augustine was not a prophet as such, so he could not add anything to the word of God once it was completed, nor could he change it from what was already said.

Just a way of looking at it.

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours 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.

The Bible is not a science book, but neither is science a history book.  Science is the study of the physical world.  It can neither validate nor invalidate the supernatural.  The creation of the universe was a supernatural event by a supernatural God who told us how He did it.  The likelihood of science being able to explain a supernatural event is exactly zero.  The likelihood of God lying about how He created the universe is exactly zero.  There are no processes in science that would be any different whatever if Genesis were true.  Considering how important the events of Genesis are to the rest of the Bible, it would be catastrophic to Christianity if Genesis was not true.  In the end, it all depends on whether your faith is in the word of God or in the claims of science teachers.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

As I pointed out, both before and after Augustine the church considered the creation week to be a normal seven-day week.

Well, let's take another look at your claim...

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram 5.5.12, in idem, 282.

So you have that wrong, among other things.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Science is the study of the physical world.  It can neither validate nor invalidate the supernatural.

Now that's correct.   It can however (as Augustine wrote) invalidate faulty eisegisis:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

ibid.

Here, Augustine cites 1 Timothy:

1 Timothy 1:7  Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm.

 

 

[Scott Free]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

The creation of the universe was a supernatural event

Yes, I agree. These things are beyond our comprehension. We can only stare in awe at the majesty of it all. The orchestra of life is beautiful to behold. Even when it is seen through a dim glass. Imagine what it will be like after our resurrection. I crave that everyday.

[Scott Free]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The likelihood of God lying about how He created the universe is exactly zero

 

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The likelihood of God lying about how He created the universe is exactly zero. 

 

Because I disagree with you does not mean I disagree with God or the Holy Scriptures. I just believe it is silly to think we see through the glass clearly. We must recolonize the limitations of the knowledge God is willing to share with us in this age.

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2024 by Scott Free

[Scott Free]

7 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

If your evidence is contrary to the Bible, either your evidence is wrong, or your understanding of the evidence is wrong.

To say we can see clearly and without fault is not in line with Biblical teaching. God has not yet revealed the full picture and the science of today will be foolishness to later generations. 

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, Scott Free said:

To say we can see clearly and without fault is not in line with Biblical teaching. God has not yet revealed the full picture and the science of today will be foolishness to later generations. 

Yes the "science" of today is already foolish.

And your right some aspects of the Bible has not yet been fully revealed, that part being His second return.

When it comes to creation, that part is very, very clear. It is already foolish to disagree with it. 

All one has to do is actually look at the text. Let's go back to Genesis and some keywords. 

And the evening and the morning were the first day. 

Let's start with the word day. In English, it can refer to both a literal day or a figurative day depending on context.

Now the word day is a direct translation from the Hebrew word "yom" 

Now the Hebrew word yom, like the English counterpart, again can be used figuratively and literally, depending on context. 

Now, in ancient Hebrew writing, both biblical and unbiblical texts every time the word yom is used when proceeded by a number, it means a literal, 24 hour day. There are no exceptions.

Jump to the next verse, and the evening and morning were the second day (and so forth) and again, in Hebrew writing this always means literal, consecutive, 24 hour days. There are no documented exceptions.

Now if that's not enough to get through our thick skulls, there's the phrase proceeding it, "the evening and the morning" 

See when we think of a day, we think our day starts in the morning and ends at night.

The ancient Hebrew calendar, the morning referred to the daylight hours, evening the night time, and they defined a day backwards as us, the day started at sundown (that is actually why they were in such a hurry to bury Jesus before dark after His crucifixion but that's a different topic)

And that phrase, "the evening and morning" was used a lot by ancient Hebrew writers, ALWAYS meaning literal 24 hour days. That phrase has NEVER been used figuratively in Hebrew writing.

So in 3 verses, God told us 3 times literal, consecutive 24 hour days.

And if that's still not enough to convince you, jump ahead to exodus 20:11 where it says in six days God created earth.

Now the Hebrew word for days is yomin, and like the English word it can be used figuratively and literally. Like if I were to say in the yomin (days) of Noah, we know I was talking about the entire period of time Noah was alive.

But, every time the word yomin is used when proceeded by a number, it always means literal, consecutive days.

The context is literal. It was meant to be literal. God told us over and over and over it is literal. The only way we can read it any other way is if we choose to try and force our understanding into it. And it does not work, all we do is make fools of ourselves and try to destroy our credibility when we do so. It really is black and white, and written in such a way that, to borrow a phrase,

"It's so easy a caveman could understand it"