A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Scott Free]

3 minutes ago, Starise said:

I hope you don't misinterpret a forward advance of bibical creation concepts as me being in any way disprespectful to anyone else. Unless I am misunderstanding, which is highly possible, you believe a firm stance on the creation story is being less than humble?

Yes, the sword cuts both ways. Ultimately it is a minor subject and the interpretation we choose has no bearing on the salvation of our souls. I loathe moving into my narcissistic peacock display mode. I made a point, going to quit responding now. God bless you beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, see you on the other side.

[enoob57]

On 9/12/2023 at 3:14 PM, Mozart's Starling said:

I mean for me twisting the genesis account to fit what modern scientists say, btw today now having a very clear bias, is unwise. Bible says it happened in days it happened in days. The scientists have to be mistaken, whether it is a genuine mistake or willfull clouding of the truth is anyone's guess.

God has communicated to us this warning:

2 Thessalonians 2:10 (KJV)

[10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

[12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Free said:

The assumption is that the words are clear—with plain and obvious meanings which do not require any type of sophisticated analysis or creativity. You must interpret the words and situations in the Bible, just as the rest of us do. No one is in a position to claim that they have the only correct view of biblical teachings.

The individual responsibilities thus:
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
[16] But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

If what you propose that no one can gain proper understanding ... how then can God promise this:
2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Free said:

The assumption is that the words are clear—with plain and obvious meanings which do not require any type of sophisticated analysis or creativity. You must interpret the words and situations in the Bible, just as the rest of us do. No one is in a position to claim that they have the only correct view of biblical teachings.

This is simply not supported by the leading of Scripture... a proper hermeneutic will establish one's self solely upon the Word of God and made ready to give an account of themselves to said Living Word Jesus... For Jesus has said this to us:
Matthew 12:36 (KJV)
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
[37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

God has delivered to man His Word and given His Holy Spirit to aid in arriving at eternal truth... What does it mean that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth (John 16:13)? | GotQuestions.org

[Buzzard3]

31 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

They say that because there is a large body of diverse evidence pointing to that conclusion.

Firstly, the vast majority of evolution scientists are atheists and are heavily biased towards evolution, which they use to reinforce and promote their atheist position.   

Secondly, the theory of evolution is overrated by its devotees.  They claim the evidence for it is "overwhelming", while ignoring the evidence against it.  ToE can't explain how the hollow fangs of a venomous snake evolved, how the double-circlation heart of a mammal evolved from the single-circulation of a fish, the Cambrian explosion and many other observations.

 

Thirdly, "a large body of diverse evidence" doesn't amount to a fact ... although it can certainly amount to a belief, which is then passed off as a "fact".

[Starise]

On 9/14/2023 at 12:44 PM, Scott Free said:

Yes, the sword cuts both ways. Ultimately it is a minor subject and the interpretation we choose has no bearing on the salvation of our souls. I loathe moving into my narcissistic peacock display mode. I made a point, going to quit responding now. God bless you beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, see you on the other side.

Well, I'll let God judge the intent of my heart, which is only to put forth truth. 

[RV_Wizard]

On 9/13/2023 at 8:28 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Hey @Scott Free,

The actual text describing the third day of creation is as follows:
 

¹¹ Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 

Isn't it curious that you conveniently left out the words that destroy your argument?  "The evening and the morning were the first day."  "The evening and the morning were the second day..."

This seems to be a common tactic of people who want to misquote the Bible to justify their unbiblical beliefs.  The simple fact is that the first chapter of Genesis cannot be construed to cover anything other than six days without deliberate misrepresentation.

Had God used billions of years to create all living things it would still have been a miracle.  However, God doesn't lie.  Unless you deny the 10 Commandments; the basis of all law, you see that God Himself wrote "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them..."

Your position is untenable.  Your deliberate misquoting of the Scripture is shameful.  You are dealing with a Christian audience, all of which have easy access to the passages you are taking out of context.  We don't get to pick and choose what we believe.  Either all of the Scriptures are the word of God or none of it is. 

I presume you don't believe in the great flood either, because it throws a monkey wrench into the gears of evolution.  I've heard the hilarious argument that it was a local flood; reaching over the mountains.... in a flat region with easy run off to the sea.  Sorry.  Believing in the word of God includes believing in those things our minds can't entirely comprehend.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:59 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Isn't it curious that you conveniently left out the words that destroy your argument?  "The evening and the morning were the first day."  "The evening and the morning were the second day..."

This seems to be a common tactic of people who want to misquote the Bible to justify their unbiblical beliefs.  The simple fact is that the first chapter of Genesis cannot be construed to cover anything other than six days without deliberate misrepresentation.

Had God used billions of years to create all living things it would still have been a miracle.  However, God doesn't lie.  Unless you deny the 10 Commandments; the basis of all law, you see that God Himself wrote "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them..."

Your position is untenable.  Your deliberate misquoting of the Scripture is shameful.  You are dealing with a Christian audience, all of which have easy access to the passages you are taking out of context.  We don't get to pick and choose what we believe.  Either all of the Scriptures are the word of God or none of it is. 

I presume you don't believe in the great flood either, because it throws a monkey wrench into the gears of evolution.  I've heard the hilarious argument that it was a local flood; reaching over the mountains.... in a flat region with easy run off to the sea.  Sorry.  Believing in the word of God includes believing in those things our minds can't entirely comprehend.

Hey Bro - not sure why you are quoting me on this - I'm not the OP but someone who responded to the OP disagreeing with their interpretation...

[RV_Wizard]

23 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Hey Bro - not sure why you are quoting me on this - I'm not the OP but someone who responded to the OP disagreeing with their interpretation...

I apologize if I took your post out of context or referenced you with the portion to which I commented.  There are some here who use that portion of Scripture to promote the idea that God used long ages for the earth to produce life instead of finishing the passage which clearly states that it all happened in one day.  This, of course, is deliberate false teaching.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

On 9/30/2023 at 11:41 AM, RV_Wizard said:

I apologize if I took your post out of context or referenced you with the portion to which I commented

No worries brother!

On 9/30/2023 at 11:41 AM, RV_Wizard said:

There are some here who use that portion of Scripture to promote the idea that God used long ages for the earth to produce life instead of finishing the passage which clearly states that it all happened in one day. 

There is no evidence in scripture that the earth or universe are very old. "Morning" and "Evening" are specific terms referring to periods of time related to the earth making 1 full rotation and the visibility of the Sun during that rotation. Currently this takes 24 hours (although it's likely in the past this was slightly longer).

On 9/30/2023 at 11:41 AM, RV_Wizard said:

This, of course, is deliberate false teaching.

I'm not sure this is deliberately false. I said above that there was no scriptural evidence that the earth is very old, and that is true. But there is plenty of physical evidence that it is very old, and the universe also.

I prefer to think that these brothers and sisters are trying their best to preserve the integrity of their faith in scripture while also acknowledging and accepting the overwhelming evidence that the earth and universe are very old (~4.4 and ~13.7 Bn yrs respectively).

So I don't think they are trying to be false - quite the opposite - they are trying to be true in two different areas at once.

[RV_Wizard]

19 minutes ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

I'm not sure this is deliberately false. I said above that there was no scriptural evidence that the earth is very old, and that is true. But there is plenty of physical evidence that it is very old, and the universe also.

I prefer to think that these brothers and sisters are trying their best to preserve the integrity of their faith in scripture while also acknowledging and accepting the overwhelming evidence that the earth and universe are very old

I would like to believe that.  However, in the last 20 years I've seen dozens, maybe hundreds of "Christians" in forums like this attacking the Scriptures in the name of "enlightenment."  I don't know their motivations, only their actions.  I don't know their relationship with Christ, but I DO know the best way to destroy something is from within.  We wouldn't give them credence if they posted as atheists, but as Christians posting "facts" which go against the Scriptures, deliberate distortions and false teaching is considered a different opinion.  Many times these same people have posted on other forums attacking Christians without bothering to change their screen name.

We all believe what we are told convincingly until we discover otherwise.  I believed in an old earth because that's what I was taught.  Once I actually read the Bible I realized that an old earth is absolutely in contrast with what is written.  The ultimate authority is not natural law but God's word.  Science and natural law do not provide for the existence of miracles.  Miracles are how God proves to us that He is greater than the physical laws of the world He created.

Again, I don't accuse anyone posting here as being one of those deliberately distorting the Bible to discredit Christians, but when you're dancing to the beat of the wrong music it's harder for us to believe that you're part of our party.

[FJK]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, I don't accuse anyone posting here as being one of those deliberately distorting the Bible to discredit Christians, but when you're dancing to the beat of the wrong music it's harder for us to believe that you're part of our party.

The problem as I see it is that many people, Christian or not, want to conform the Bible to the world instead of conforming the world to the Bible.

It comes down to do I believe what the Bible says or do I believe what the world tells me the Bible should say instead?

It is answered by faith, is my faith in the Bible, the Word of God, or is it in the World which is under God and doesn't even exist without him.