Getting to know you

YCC -- young cosmos creation!

 

Like most Christians, I accept both creation and evolution.

Evolution is just the tool God uses, as St. Augustine noted.

Some of the Bible is literal, other parts aren't. Usually, as in Genesis, you can see where a literal interpretation is logically unsupportable.

Remember, in science, all truth is provisional. So we should take the evidence as it is, knowning that new evidence could modify what we have today.

Put your belief in God. Science requires only inferences from evidence.

 

Christian and evolution. God's creative tool is evolution. I see no reason to limit God by some perverse interpretation of the bible.

EF

 

Hi! Good to see you posting here Gina. I tend to mostly lurk, since I find that any points I might make are already made by others by the time I read the threads.

I believe in evolution, and I feel that the neo-Darwinian-related theories are pretty much on the right track, though we still have a lot to learn.

I am a Christian (& Southern Baptist!) and I work in the field of software engineering for artificial intelligence. I have formal training in science, including biogeography. I am completely convinced by the scientific evidence for evolution, yet that does not threaten my beliefs.

My faith is based on the living Christ alone, so the concepts of errancy/inerrancy/literalism are not theologically relevant to me.

I think most scientists are honest, hard-working, and intelligent. Of course scientific theories are incomplete and provisional -- some may even be totally wrong -- but I think scientists are doing a pretty good job so far.

My advice would be to look fairly and objectively at all the evidence and arguments you have time for on both sides of the issue. Dig deep and don't simply trust authority on either side. Learn the science and pray about the faith. That way, whatever conclusions you come to will be yours. You'll understand your beliefs and why you hold them.

-Neil

 

perverse???? Taking the Bible at its word and NOT interpreting it to mean something else is perverse???

That gives a whole new definition to THAT word!

 

It is blatant enough that our evolutionist friends here never use "exegesis" to make their point.

The exegetical method is the most objective - method of Bible study and is accepted by ALL major Christian groups. But WITHIN those groups, those who abandon God's Word for the myths of evolutionism - have no recourse when viewing scripgture but to "eisgete" their bias, preferences and compromises INTO the text and then pretend that no OTHER form of Bible study exists. They pretend that eisegesis is ALL that we have.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian which by definition means young-earth literal-seven-day creation, With Genesis 1-7 accepted as a reliable, trustworthy, factual "account" (as Genesis 2:4).

But what is fascinating is the degree to which our evolutionist friends are willing to corrupt the gospel itself in order to cling to the myths of evolutionism.

And as Steve Sawyer has pointed out in "the details" - the extent to which they corrupt science itself - in order to cling to the myths of evolutionism.

Bob

 

Bob Ryan wrote:

Of course not. We do not infer evolution from the scriptures. We don't infer arithmetic or geometry from the scriptures either.

It is, however, an hermeneutical principle that Biblical exegesis should seek to avoid contraditing science or philosophy. The Bible simply is not a scientific or philosophical book.

 

The science the Bible presents is correct. That must be stated. That does not make it a science text, but it does give validation to the rest of it, for we can check the science, just as we can check the history and prophesies. The Bible validates itself that way.

As far as philosophy goes, that is man's attempt to figure out things without God. Of course the Bible doesn't deal with it per se, but there is plenty in there for philosophers to consider!

 

p.s.

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men
of old; seek what they sought.

--Basho

 

This is what the Lord says:
"Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls."

But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'
Jeremiah 6:16

 

Helen wrote:

Yes, all of the science presented in the Bible is correct. But the Bible presents no science

 

Bob Ryan wrote:

That is an amazing confession - thanks!

If you follow some of the posts so far - several "efforts" have been made to "change the text" so that it "fits into evolutionisms" myths.

And as you note - that is not "exegesis".

In fact - it is "eisegesis".

This is almost true. We observe that the "World exists" and so reading the Bible as IF the World did not exist - would not be a good rule of interpretation.

HOWEVER - when the Bible DEALS with Math - to EXPLAIN its origin - its function - its purpose and its history we CAN believe it. Of course the Bible never explicitly sets out to DO such a thing.

Obviously.

Can the SAME be said for the ORIGIN of LIFE, of the PLANET, of the ANIMALS of MAN?

No.

Obviously.

The attempt to "pretend" that the Bible no more addresses the ORIGIN of life than it addresses the foundation of quantum physics - is simply naive.

It may be viewed as simply another example of a hopeful (hope and faith filled) statement by another one evolutionism' devotees trying again to bolster the myths and doctrines of evolutionism or at least a compromise between evolutionism and God's Word.

The plight of our evolutionist friends has been shown as they faithfully pile hope against hope that one day the salient unique and central points of evolutionism will one day be supported by fact.

Sadly, having exchanged the integrity of God's Word for the fables and foibles of evolutionism's mythologies - they still have nothing to show for it but compromised science AND compromised religion.

I say this not to discourage them in their tireless efforts - but o encourage them to select are more rewarding, productive model.

"For in Six days the Lord CREATED the Heavens and the Earth the Sea and ALL that is in them and rested the Seventh day".

In Christ,

Bob

[ July 04, 2003, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Young earth creationists most certainly do not take the bible at its word. The bible is not a science book, so the very fact that creationists use it as one means they are not taking the bible at its word. I do, indeed, find that perverse.

EF

 

Here "again" we have the revisionist "attempt" to pretend that the Bible no more speaks to the history and ORIGIN of life on earth - of "The heavens the earth the sea and ALL that is in them" - than it does to speak to the history and origin of quantum physics.

But "obviously" the explicit statement of scripture is that it DOES directly address the subject of origins AND that this subject is BASIC and central to the Gospel ITSELF.

(As the thread - "Evolutionism Corrupts the Gospel" showed in triplicate).

So here is the question that is left - how can the evolutionist ever hope to make a "compelling case" that Calculus, quantum physics and ORIGINS are all "ignored" in scripture - alike?

I mean - surely there is at least one objective evolutionist out there that can address the point.

Bob

 

Maybe we should have a forum for dueling quotes!

My intent in posting the quote was to indicate something to Gina that I'm sure you agree with -- science differs from scholasticism in that science requires dilligent search and consideration of the evidence. Scholasticism relies on the superficial study of authoritative pronouncements.

In this respect, the author of Ecclesiastes is an example of scientific research in the Bible.

-Neil

 

Neil, the author of Ecclesiastes shows the futility of trying to work outside the Word of God. It is the one book in the Bible which shows the hopelessness of doing things man's way.

Interesting you should use that book as an example of scientific study!

On the other hand, even a young child can do science in looking, discovering, trying. It may be the same science that every other young child has done since Adam and Eve, but it is, nevertheless, science -- the discovery of what is and how it works and how it fits in with the rest of life. That is science.

And the best guide for all of that is the Author of Life -- and the parameters He gives for where to find the truth out are in the Bible.

 

Thank you, Helen, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

Science is the art of knowing what we know and why we know it.

-Neil

 

Yes, all of the science presented in the Bible is correct. But the Bible presents no science </font>[/QUOTE]I now doubt whether or not you know much Bible at all, Mark!

In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen. 1:1 is a scientific statement about beginnings.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gather into one place, and let the dry ground appear."
Genesis 1:9 is a scientific statement long predating man's discovery that there was only one super-continent at the beginning, for if the waters were gathered into ONE place, the land must have been appearing in the OTHER place.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years...
Genesis 1:14 is a scientific statement regarding the dating and time-keeping references we are to use (and do).

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are and to dust you will return.
Genesis 3:19 is a scientific statement regarding both the creation of man's body (from the ground, not from an animal) and its eventual return to those same elements via decomposition.

He suspends the earth over nothing.
He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Job 26

Have you ever journied to the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Job 38 mentions springs of the sea long before man 'discovered' them.

Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
Job 38 refers to the effect of the jet streams long before they were known by man.

Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the tme they give birth?
They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.

Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?

The heavens operate according to laws.
The Pleiades and Orion are behaving differently from each other -- one is bound gravitationally and the other rapidly disrupting.
The biology of wild animals was unknown to man.

But this is all science.

Read the Bible, Mark.

You will find a lot of good psychology in it, too. A lot of knowledge about human nature.

Some people even consider that science!

 

Young earth creationists most certainly do not take the bible at its word. The bible is not a science book, so the very fact that creationists use it as one means they are not taking the bible at its word. I do, indeed, find that perverse.

EF </font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad what God finds perverse and what you are declaring as perverse are so radically different!