A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Scott Free]

2 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

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

I agree with the creation stories theologically and that they are inspired by God for our edification. I question our ability to understand the context surrounding them, the purpose they served in 2200 BC to counteract the Babel myth's, 600 years before the Bible texts and why they used common knowledge of the time in their formulation.

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2024 by Scott Free

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, Scott Free said:

I agree with the creation stories theologically and that they are inspired by God for our edification. I question our ability to understand the context surrounding them, the purpose they served in 2200 BC to counteract the Babel myth's, 600 years before the Bible texts and why they used common knowledge of the time in their formulation.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

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

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.

Profoundly true.

There are no theories of origin which can be objectively tested and falsified.  All "scientific" theories of origins are based on a static universe in which conditions were always the same as they are now, and are based on a natural creation.  Such assumptions are taken on faith, which makes natural theories of origination every bit as much of a religion as supernatural creation.  Knowing how DNA functions cannot account for the origination of DNA.  Seeing new breeds of dogs being developed can't prove the origination of the first canine.  As I said before, NOTHING in observable science would be any different in a created young earth.  Nothing!

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

Or you could read it, because before and after Augustine the church regarded the first chapter of Genesis as a historical narrative describing seven glorious days.  I showed you the evidence and provided the links.  You came back with more claims from Augustine, which only demonstrates that pay no attention to what other people post.

So what did Augustine and the "non-literal" disenters believe?

Now, the early church fathers who believed in instantaneous creation and took Genesis 1 figuratively, still were young earth creationists, since they didn’t state the earth was more than 6000 years old. But the point being they didn’t have to hold to the idea the earth was 6000 years old because of a plain or literal reading of Genesis.   source hostile to YEC

How old did the early church believe the earth to be?   The Venerable Bede suggested 3952 BC, while Sir Isaac Newton also had a go, suggesting 4000 BC.  Archbishop Usshur put the date at 4004 BC.  How many of these leaders, including your hero Augustine, believed in an ancient earth?

NONE OF THEM!

Your claim that belief in a young is a new translation has been irrefutably proven false.  Any further such claims will be treated as a lie.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Or you could read it, because before and after Augustine the church regarded the first chapter of Genesis as a historical narrative describing seven glorious days. 

Nope.   Never has been a doctrine of the Church.   Never.   You were really misled about that.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Now, the early church fathers who believed in instantaneous creation and took Genesis 1 figuratively, still were young earth creationists, since they didn’t state the earth was more than 6000 years old.

YE creationism has a lot more problems than just believing in a young Earth.    Augustine thought the world was a few thousand years old, because that's all the evidence he could see.  

But he was willing to accept that he might be wrong and said if new information was found contradicting human understanding of Genesis, then one should be willing to admit it.

As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the early 1900s by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" and spread to evangelicals by George McCreedy Price.

The difference is, Christians, as they became aware of the Earth's great age, accepted the fact.   We've already established that the Bible never actually says how old the Earth is.    By the 1800s, almost all creationists were OE creationists; they realized that God and His creation had to be consistent.    St. Paul confirms that explicitly.

Romans 1:20  For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Just let it be God's way, and you'll have no need to redo scripture.

Edited February 3, 2024 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

Ortlund also discusses Augustine’s posture towards science (a term that could have used a bit of unpacking) in Chapter Two, and this is, again, very helpful and instructive to us today. He is concerned about arrogant, unlearned Christians who eschew the findings of natural philosophers and reject any science that does not conform to their own personal interpretation of Scripture. Augustine is quite willing to revise his own interpretations in the light of logic and science. He is also unimpressed with Christians who quail before the arguments of unbelievers and are either timid about what they believe or reject the catholic faith in light of these challenges. These groups do not do justice to sacred Scripture and they make Christianity a laughingstock amongst unbelievers. Augustine writes from experience, for it was the Manichaean interpretation of Genesis that was part of why he adhered to that sect. I feel that in the ’90s, many, like myself, fell into the category of the arrogant. However, I also feel that many of us today, as I was in the early 2000s before reading Augustine, fall into the second category. And some who feel ashamed of their young-earth creationism but who believe it is an essential component of true, evangelical Christianity, begin a process of rejecting the Christian faith when young-earth creationism is challenged by the ongoing findings of the natural sciences. Augustine can help both groups grow humble about themselves and strong in faith in God through his own approach to the Bible.

https://adfontesjournal.com/book-review/retrieving-augustines-doctrine-of-creation-a-review/

[Scott Free]

 

7 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

That is a safe route to take. Some like to explore opportunities for more profound understanding of scripture. In the end there is no difference, the quality of faith and hope are the same. 

Edited February 3, 2024 by Scott Free

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   Never has been a doctrine of the Church. Never.

Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century. This seems like a fatal blow to old-earth creationism and a strong vindication of Mook’s position but closer examination shows otherwise....  source

Your claim has been proven to be a lie.

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the early 1900s by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" and spread to evangelicals by George McCreedy Price.

Once again, you are repeating a proven lie.  I showed you proof from multiple sources that belief in a young earth was dominant until the 16th century.

“In 1550 few questioned the ‘biblical’ age of the earth.” Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler were two who agreed with the famous Bishop Ussher that the date of creation was only around 4000 BC. However, at the time the scientific research was very limited on the investigation of the age of the earth. They held to these dates because the research of the time supported it.  source

I'm sure you will continue to misrepresent church history because the Bible is a stumbling block to the religion you are pushing.  However, it isn't true, was never true, and all the claims to the contrary are straight up false.

[The Barbarian]

21 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Or you could read it, because before and after Augustine the church regarded the first chapter of Genesis as a historical narrative describing seven glorious days. 

Nope.   Never has been a doctrine of the Church.   Never.   You were really misled about that.

(Someone told him otherwise)

Tough.   Show me a historical doctrine published by Popes or Bishops in council, declaring the Earth to be only a few thousand years old.   It was never a doctrine of the Church.

Your guy is just  trying to tell us that because no one said the Earth was ancient, his supposition wins.   Nice try.    He might just be lying, but I think he's deluded himself.

As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the early 1900s by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" and spread to evangelicals by George McCreedy Price.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Once again, you are repeating a proven lie. 

Nope.    In fact, as even your deluded guy admits, by the 17th Century Christians knew the world was very old.    YE creationism is a modern invention, from the Seventh-Day Adventists.

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, particularly with the modern creation science movement starting in the 1960s.

...

Numbers says that Seventh-day Adventism is grounded on the Sabbath doctrine of a literal Creation week. To Price, the Sabbath doctrine is what saved Adventists from evolutionism.^[12] He adopted Ellen G. White's position on creationism as his own and he sought to persuade the world that a recent creation was required by the Bible and science.^[13]

^...

Price's ideas were borrowed again in the early 1960s by Henry M. Morris and John Whitcomb in their book The Genesis Flood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price

As you might know Henry Morris and John Whitcomb brought the new doctrine invented by Ellen G. White into evangelical churches.

I'm sure you will continue to deny these facts  because they and the Bible is a stumbling block to the religion you are pushing.

I noticed you carelessly went from presenting what men have told you, to assuming that it's the word of the Bible.    Bad practice.   Try to do better.

 

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

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.  You can't, because it doesn't exist.  Show me ANY historical document from any respected clergyman arguing that the Bible is false; that the Fourth Commandment is invalid, or that evolution is an acceptable doctrine.  You can't, because it doesn't exist.  Nobody in the early church QUESTIONED the age of the earth so therefore you won't find published essays on it.  Further, literacy was uncommon until around the fifth century, so the learned would only be writing to each other; not to the masses.

Your argument, then, is foolish.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your guy is just  trying to tell us that because no one said the Earth was ancient, his supposition wins.

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.  If that isn't plain to you, you need to sue your reading teacher for malpractice.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the early 1900s by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" and spread to evangelicals by George McCreedy Price.

As YOU have learned, your statement is a lie.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.    In fact, as even your deluded guy admits, by the 17th Century Christians knew the world was very old.

They KNEW nothing of the kind.  They BELIEVED.  Your statement admits that this is a change to previously existing presumptions that the earth was created circa 4,000 BC.  This proves your claims that "belief in a young earth is a new theology" is a complete fabrication. 

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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,

Big deal.  I still don't know who he is.  His views on creation aren't important to me.  What is important is what the Bible says about it.  If I want a higher authority, there is always the Holy Spirit.  He answers knee mail.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you might know Henry Morris and John Whitcomb brought the new doctrine invented by Ellen G. White into evangelical churches.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that anyone quoting from the Bible is presenting new doctrine.  Was it Morris or Moses who presented the 10 Commandments?  As for Ellen White, the Bible doesn't recognize female prophets.  Further, Jesus was the last prophet.  All who came after Him presenting new doctrine are false.  The disciples and Paul taught the doctrine of Christ.

You constantly misrepresent the Bible as written.  There is no reason whatever for the Bible to clearly detail a six day creation if the Lord didn't intend for us to know He created the universe in six days.  Had the Lord used evolution He wouldn't have told us He created man separately and breathed into him the breath of life.  You're trying to convince us that God lied and your professor, revealed the truth.  We're not buying it.  Everything you've posted we've already read from atheists and agnostics.

Edited February 4, 2024 by RV_Wizard