Scientific Findings That Contradict Biblical Teachings

[Trusting Jesus]

Genesis 2:16-17, And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. This is God Himself talking to Adam. In Chapter 3:3 Eve is having a chat with Satan. She says that they can eat of any tree But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Eve changed what God said just a little bit, but that was enough for Satan to talk her into believing his lies. Before you know it she has eaten the fruit, Adam has eaten the fruit, sin has entered, death has come.

Today the same thing is happening (as it has throughout the ages). God clearly says one thing and humans just chip away at His truth.

<>< ><>

Nathele

[Copper Scroll]

If you don't accept the Genesis account as fact, where do you begin to believe it?

I believe what it has to say about my life, my relationship with God and others, and the human condition in general. When I say "what it has to say", I'm not talking literally. I mean that believe in the implications of the text: the idea that we are made perfect but of our own will we succumb to sin and need God's grace and mercy in order to be saved from the negative consequences of our sin.

[Copper Scroll]

When you say "pick and choose" you make it sound arbitrary, but it needn't be. If a person finds geological or biological evidence that might seem to challenge certain aspects of the account in Genesis as factual, it would be reasonable for that person to reject those aspects as factual. This is not simple "picking and choosing". It's called critical thinking.

it's critical thinking without all the facts in hand, and with the wrong foundation

We are straying from the topic. My point is that what you would call "picking and choosing" is reasonable considering the contexts in which the various books of the Bible were written and our own knowledge about the natural world gained through observation and reason.

Your description of the distinction between humans and other animals makes "God's likeness" sound quite figurative and non-literal.

what's "figurative" about cognitive/rational thought and the ability to understand God and His creation? I get the impression you think everything in the Bible is figurative, likely because you were taught to think that way

I'm not saying that there is anything figurative about cognition or reason. I'm saying that to interpret the text "God's likeness" to mean characteristics like cognition and reason would mean that the text has been taken figuratively. The text doesn't say cognition or reason or abstract thought or any of those other things you mentioned. That's just the way you interpret it--and it's a non-literal interpretation... one that I happen to agree with, for the most part, but non-literal all the same.

[Copper Scroll]

I believe what it has to say about my life, my relationship with God and others, and the human condition in general.

do you believe what the Bible declares about the future, in terms of Israel, the Tribulation, the resurrection, etc?

I personally think that it's mostly allegorical and symbolic.

[nebula]

But I don't see how that is different from regarding biblical accounts as non-literal. When you say "expressed differently than if the intent was merely to convey facts" don't you mean non-factual?

No - it's not about changing the facts; it is about how you present the facts, what is focused on, what is not included.

Think of it this way, when you tell someone about an incident, do you include all the details present, or just the details pertinent to the explanation of the incident?

[nebula]

If we read Genesis 1 looking for the spiritual application of it, we will learn a lot more from the account than trying to look for the history of planet Earth with it.

disagree completely

the spiritual truths of Christianity are rooted in/based upon PHYSICAL reality: that Jesus Christ became a man, in the flesh, died on a cross as the atonement for many, was resurrected, and will return PHYSICALLY to judge the earth...not allegorically

But did you know Genesis 1 contains the story of man's separation from God and prophecies God's redemption?

You should read it looking for that sometime.

[Copper Scroll]

We are straying from the topic. My point is that what you would call "picking and choosing" is reasonable considering the contexts in which the various books of the Bible were written and our own knowledge about the natural world gained through observation and reason.

there's that chorus again...human observation trumps what God declares about origins..I'm sorry, but that's crazy

what exactly do you observe that "disproves" the Bible? name something...fossil record? dating of rocks? speed of light?

I don't know why "disproves" appears in quotes there, because I don't recall using that word. I don't think all the books in the Bible were intended to be factual documents, so "disproves" isn't the right word.

But, yes, fossils, dating, light rays, etc. all suggest that the world is very old. As I understand them, many Christian responses to this scientific evidence boils down to one of the first three options in this poll. Often it's "God created the world with these indicators of age in tact", which is another way of saying "God created the world in such a way to suggest that it is older than it really is."

lol...what a shocker

do you claim to be a Chrsitian, to have a relationship with Christ? if so, why do you believe Christ died for your sin? why do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? "observation and reason"?

I would hope to be a Christian, a true follower of Christ's teachings--to have a relationship with God--to be redeemed. But I don't attend church or participate in anything ceremonial or ritual regularly... and I don't take the Bible literally, so I'm not very religious. I do believe in God (an unobservable consciousness that is the source of all existence) and that God is love in essence--that God is merciful and forgiving and sacrificed in order for us to know life and love and to know Him.

[Copper Scroll]

I don't know why "disproves" appears in quotes there, because I don't recall using that word. I don't think all the books in the Bible were intended to be factual documents

you don't think God's Word was intended to be factual?

God's Word existed in the beginning with God... and was God. If the Word is eternal and unchanging, I would think that it is beyond individual facts--that it is an eternal and unchanging principle. And I don't think that "God's Word" and "the Bible" are synonymous.

But, yes, fossils, dating, light rays, etc. all suggest that the world is very old.

fossils are only formed by rapid encapsulation in an anoxic environment...the global Flood of Noah's Day explains that quite nicely..."millions of years" explains nothing

radiometric dating is based on a series of unverifiable assumptions, and has been shown to be highly erratic and basically worthless http://www.icr.org/article/42/

light does funny things when exposed to various forces, it has been slowed to a crawl in the lab, for example, and science is uncovering new information all the time that indicates the simplistic notion that x distance = x years may not be reliable...who is to say exactly what occurred when God created the cosmos and "stretched out the heavens like a curtain"?

As I understand them, many Christian responses to this scientific evidence boils down to one of the first three options in this poll. Often it's "God created the world with these indicators of age in tact", which is another way of saying "God created the world in such a way to suggest that it is older than it really is."

I believe God created living things fully mature, but isn't playing a game of deception...we simply don't have all th facts...as I said in the first post on this thread, long age naturalists begin with a preconceived model (shaped by Darwin's philosophies, which have nothing to do with cosmology btw) and force fit the evidence to that model...that isn't science, it's religion in disguise

I'm not a scientist, so I can't really comment further on any of this. But I do know that the vast majority of the scientific community (the same community whose work has led to cures and remedies for many diseases and lots of great technological innovations) accepts the evidence of a very old world as valid.

I don't think there is anything "religious" about the scientific method, unless you consider the process itself a ritual or perhaps they have made some sort of god out observation. The scientific community is filled with very critical-minded people who are trying to prove each other wrong. If the vast majority of this community agrees about something, it does make me stand up and take notice.

I would hope to be a Christian, a true follower of Christ's teachings--to have a relationship with God--to be redeemed. But I don't attend church or participate in anything ceremonial or ritual regularly

being a follower of Chrirst has nothing to do with ceremony or ritual, we're not Roman Catholic here

and I don't take the Bible literally, so I'm not very religious

perhaps it's time you reconsidered...why not read through the gospel of John?

I do believe in God (an unobservable consciousness that is the source of all existence) and that God is love in essence--that God is merciful and forgiving and sacrificed in order for us to know life and love and to know Him.

that's not the gospel

Okay, you don't have to agree with me. But I have read the Bible.

[Copper Scroll]

I'm not a scientist, so I can't really comment further on any of this. But I do know that the vast majority of the scientific community (the same community whose work has led to cures and remedies for many diseases and lots of great technological innovations) accepts the evidence of a very old world as valid.

of course! most of them are naturalists/atheists/agnostics who dismiss the Bible, I don't think you understand the human factor of science, paticularly with regard to the topic of origins, which is not even true science, it's 99% speculation, with precious few facts in hand...scientists are still human, they aren't gods, they don't have a time machine, they aren't magicians

the bottom line is you put your faith in men, and you aren't alone, but we put our faith in God...why did you start this thread again?

I don't think there is anything "religious" about the scientific method

with regard to origins there is, read my first post on this thread

unless you consider the process itself a ritual or perhaps they have made some sort of god out observation.

you're not getting it

The scientific community is filled with very critical-minded people who are trying to prove each other wrong. If the vast majority of this community agrees about something, it does make me stand up and take notice.

ultimate questions can not, and will not ever be answered by the human practice of science, you're putting your faith in a black hole

Hold on a minute. I haven't really taken sides here. I just stated that the vast majority of the scientific community has taken a stance on certain issues that run contrary to the beliefs of many Christians. Now, the scientific community I think in general is a highly respected group of people, even among Christians, so I think it is a perfectly worthwhile question to ask how Christians react to scientific findings that contradict their beliefs.

I understand that science isn't perfect and that there is a flawed "human" factor in all of it, but there is also a flawed human factor in religion about which you just might be in denial. One thing that can be said about science though, is that it is taken up by people who are trying to prove each other wrong--while in religion, all we have is people trying to prove each other right. Which bias is one that is more likely to lead to the truth?

[Copper Scroll]

Hold on a minute. I haven't really taken sides here. I just stated that the vast majority of the scientific community has taken a stance on certain issues that run contrary to the beliefs of many Christians. Now, the scientific community I think in general is a highly respected group of people, even among Christians, so I think it is a perfectly worthwhile question to ask how Christians react to scientific findings that contradict their beliefs.

I Corinthians 1

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

nothing really needs to be added to that: the wise of this world become the fools in the beautiful paradox of God...all worldly wisdom/boasting is nullified and excluded...the world passes away!

That's all good, but you and I both have relied on the wisdom of men. Have you ever taken any medications? Driven an automobile? Would we even be communicating if it were not for the work of these scientists? We rely upon knowledge about the natural world gained through science. It seems ironic to label it all foolishness... via electronic communication that would not be possible without such foolishness.

I would advocate taking a closer look at the text. What exactly is it that confounds the wisdom of men? Is it the idea of an old earth? Is it the idea of evolution? No, it's the idea of Christ crucified as an act of sacrifice and salvation.