Christians Should Mind Their Own Business

[Craigbythesea]

The Bible is not a science book but it is supportable by science.

Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:6 supported by science?

Genesis 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NRSV)

This is a strictly literal translation of Gen. 1:6 that is perfectly harmonious with other parts of Genesis, especially chapters 6-8 in which we read of the flood. Notice especially 7:11,

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (KJV)

7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. (NRSV)

What were the flood gates of the sky if they were not gates (or windows, KJV) in the dome? This was the literal interpretation by Christian fundamentalists until nearly the middle of the last millennium. Indeed, these Christians dearly held to the ancient Jewish interpretation that the earth was flat and covered with a dome that separated the waters above the dome from the seas and oceans of the earth. This was seen as a biblical truth that Satan and his hosts were seeking to destroy by the liberal teaching that the earth was nearly a perfect sphere rather than a disk covered by a dome. After all, if the earth was spherical, it could not be covered with a dome and the biblical account of the flood could not be true. Today’s Christian fundamentalists argue that the NRSV was translated predominately by liberals—and so it was—but their translation of Genesis 1:6 is a very literal translation that is in perfect harmony with the understanding of the story of the flood by Christian fundamentalists until comparatively recent times.

Therefore, I ask myself, “Is the story of the flood in Gen. 6-8 an accurate account of an historic event, or is it something else? Has God chosen to teach us fundamental truths about Himself and His creation, including man, using a series of epic tales, myths, legends, or sagas? In these latter times, is God making clear details regarding Genesis 1-11 that had not been clear in earlier times? Should not Genesis 1-11—and indeed all of Scripture—be approached in an attitude of prayer and a desire to learn from our heavenly Father through the ministry of the Holy Spirit the truths that He desires for us to know and understand?”

We cannot reproduce macroevolution nor can we observe it - thus it is not "science" but a theory.

Macroevolution is a term used by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims for the later stages in evolution which occur though the same mechanisms that bring about the early stages in evolution that Christians and Muslims call microevolution —the differences are merely quantitative rather than qualitative. Macroevolution has been observed and documented in both plants and animals.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

In the scientific community, evolutionary biology is universally referred to as a science. Who is better qualified to tell us whether evolutionary biology is a science—one of well over 3,000,000 million scientists living today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a field of science, or a ….

 

[annsni]

Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:6 supported by science?

Genesis 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NRSV)

This is a strictly literal translation of Gen. 1:6 that is perfectly harmonious with other parts of Genesis, especially chapters 6-8 in which we read of the flood. Notice especially 7:11,

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (KJV)

7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. (NRSV)

What were the flood gates of the sky if they were not gates (or windows, KJV) in the dome? This was the literal interpretation by Christian fundamentalists until nearly the middle of the last millennium. Indeed, these Christians dearly held to the ancient Jewish interpretation that the earth was flat and covered with a dome that separated the waters above the dome from the seas and oceans of the earth. This was seen as a biblical truth that Satan and his hosts were seeking to destroy by the liberal teaching that the earth was nearly a perfect sphere rather than a disk covered by a dome. After all, if the earth was spherical, it could not be covered with a dome and the biblical account of the flood could not be true. Today’s Christian fundamentalists argue that the NRSV was translated predominately by liberals—and so it was—but their translation of Genesis 1:6 is a very literal translation that is in perfect harmony with the understanding of the story of the flood by Christian fundamentalists until comparatively recent times.

Therefore, I ask myself, “Is the story of the flood in Gen. 6-8 an accurate account of an historic event, or is it something else? Has God chosen to teach us fundamental truths about Himself and His creation, including man, using a series of epic tales, myths, legends, or sagas? In these latter times, is God making clear details regarding Genesis 1-11 that had not been clear in earlier times? Should not Genesis 1-11—and indeed all of Scripture—be approached in an attitude of prayer and a desire to learn from our heavenly Father through the ministry of the Holy Spirit the truths that He desires for us to know and understand?”


Macroevolution is a term used by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims for the later stages in evolution which occur though the same mechanisms that bring about the early stages in evolution that Christians and Muslims call microevolution —the differences are merely quantitative rather than qualitative. Macroevolution has been observed and documented in both plants and animals.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

In the scientific community, evolutionary biology is universally referred to as a science. Who is better qualified to tell us whether evolutionary biology is a science—one of well over 3,000,000 million scientists living today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a field of science, or a ….

Or a God who created it all? I go with God.

But I see that you have trouble with interpreting Scripture. I see that you forget the historical context, the literary context and the human context. "Window" does not mean a 6 over 6. Here is an article that tells us that the eyes are the window to the soul - and yet we don't see a double hung or a casement in any of our eyeballs, do we? So we must understand the literary meaning of the words that we are speaking of - and I see that you struggle with that.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Or a God who created it all? I go with God.

But I see that you have trouble with interpreting Scripture. I see that you forget the historical context, the literary context and the human context. "Window" does not mean a 6 over 6. Here is an article that tells us that the eyes are the window to the soul- and yet we don't see a double hung or a casement in any of our eyeballs, do we? So we must understand the literary meaning of the words that we are speaking of - and I see that you struggle with that.

I have not forgotten the historical or the literary context of the flood story in Genesis, and I understand very well the use of the Hebrew word אֲרֻבָּה in the context of the flood story, and it most certainly is not used to express the concept of ‘human eyes’. Moreover, if we are going to pull out of thin air a ridiculously absurd meaning for the Hebrew word אֲרֻבָּה, should we not do the same for the Hebrew words תֵּבָה and מַבּוּל and deny that Genesis 6-8 has anything at all to do with an “ark” and a “flood”, but perhaps is really about a monkey eating bananas?

 

[annsni]

I have not forgotten the historical or the literary context of the flood story in Genesis, and I understand very well the use of the Hebrew word אֲרֻבָּה in the context of the flood story, and it most certainly is not used to express the concept of ‘human eyes’. Moreover, if we are going to pull out of thin air a ridiculously absurd meaning for the Hebrew word אֲרֻבָּה, should we not do the same for the Hebrew words תֵּבָה and מַבּוּל and deny that Genesis 6-8 has anything at all to do with an “ark” and a “flood”, but perhaps is really about a monkey eating bananas?

In what context would a flood that killed all of mankind and animal kind save those on the ark really mean a monkey eating a banana?

 

[just-want-peace]

Methinks that it is obvious, by their OWN words of course, that some people have been educated far beyond their intellectual capacity to properly process said education.Thumbsdown

 

[Kevin]

Which other parts of the Bible have you also thrown out. You have followed the religion of evolution and it would seem determined that that Gods Word is incorrect. If one part is wrong, how can you stand up and preach anything from the Bible.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Which other parts of the Bible have you also thrown out. You have followed the religion of evolution and it would seem determined that that Gods Word is incorrect. If one part is wrong, how can you stand up and preach anything from the Bible.

No one in this thread is throwing out or in any way disregarding any part or parts of the Bible. Evolution is not a religion. The Bible is NEVER wrong, but some individuals have interpreted the Bible incorrectly.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Evolution is not a religion.

It seems the dictionary disagrees with you. According to Merriam-Webster, in the full definition of religion, the fourth entry states, "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith". That sounds like evolution to me.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Craigbythesea]

It seems the dictionary disagrees with you. According to Merriam-Webster, in the full definition of religion, the fourth entry states, "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith". That sounds like evolution to me.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with ardour or faith. Indeed, the same dictionary states,

4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also: the process described by this theory

 

[Sapper Woody]

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with ardour or faith. Indeed, the same dictionary states,

4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also: the process described by this theory

Ardor: Extreme Vigor or energy; zeal; loyalty
Faith: Something that is believed especially with a strong conviction

We could stand here throwing definitions around all day. But, to get back to your OP, the statement is ludicrous. It is the pleasure and the duty of Christians to discover more of God. How better to do so than through science? Through the observation of nature? Through the discovery of His creation?

Religion is religion, and science is science. However, they are not mutually exclusive. A very obvious example is Theology. Theo = god; ology = the study of. Broadly, it is the science of religion. It, like science, refers to things already known (a person's theology), and to things undiscovered (the field of theology).

Studying theology is the best way to find out what God wants, commands, and demands. Studying physical sciences (including the study of all matter) is the best way to find out what God did. They are not exclusive, but rather, are complementary. They are two sides of one coin.

Religion and science both attempt to discover more of the world around us. Religion attempts to discover more of the ethereal realm, whereas science attempts to discover more of the corporeal.

So, your idea that "Christians should mind their own business" I actually agree with. Our business is discovering the most we can about our God; through religion and through science.

 

[Revmitchell]

Evolution is a religion. It takes far more faith to believe in it than it does God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Evolution is a religion. It takes far more faith to believe in it than it does God.

How much faith is needed to believe hundreds of billions of incontrovertible facts about evolutionary biology and the supporting sciences in the fields of geology, paleontology, palynology, mycology, archaeology, chemistry, physics, genetics, ecology, physiology, microbiology, zoology, botany, and scores of other supporting sciences? The honest answer—none, absolutely none!

How much faith is needed to believe in the early Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis that has crept into most of our so-called fundamentalist churches and has given rise to anti-evolution nonsense? The honest answer—none, absolutely none! Nothing is needed but a lack of education in the biblical languages, the culture of the biblical peoples, ancient Oriental literature and the cultures that it is a product of—and a ridiculous amount of unwarranted presumption!

Therefore, evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a proven process, and denying reality will not make it go away—but it might make the Christian faith appear to be the faith of intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia, and thus make the Christian faith go away—as it has been, largely due to Christian “fundamentalism” making the Bible appear to be disgracefully unbelievable.

 

[annsni]

No one in this thread is throwing out or in any way disregarding any part or parts of the Bible. The Bible is NEVER wrong, but some individuals have interpreted the Bible incorrectly.

How do you interpret Genesis 1?

 

[Alcott]

If the Bible must be tempered and watered down in order not to 'appear to be disgracefully unbelievable,'
you have to jerk out a lot more than the creation story. In particular, the resurrection must be removed. Perhaps you're content to let the resurrection mean nothing more living on in memory, for what's scientifically impossible ["disgracefully unbelievable"] is not reality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes or No, Craigbythesea?

 

[tyndale1946]

How much faith is needed to believe hundreds of billions of incontrovertible facts about evolutionary biology and the supporting sciences in the fields of geology, paleontology, palynology, mycology, archaeology, chemistry, physics, genetics, ecology, physiology, microbiology, zoology, botany, and scores of other supporting sciences? The honest answer—none, absolutely none!

How much faith is needed to believe in the early Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis that has crept into most of our so-called fundamentalist churches and has given rise to anti-evolution nonsense? The honest answer—none, absolutely none! Nothing is needed but a lack of education in the biblical languages, the culture of the biblical peoples, ancient Oriental literature and the cultures that it is a product of—and a ridiculous amount of unwarranted presumption!

Therefore, evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a proven process, and denying reality will not make it go away—but it might make the Christian faith appear to be the faith of intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia, and thus make the Christian faith go away—as it has been, largely due to Christian “fundamentalism” making the Bible appear to be disgracefully unbelievable.

Let God be true and everyman a lier!... The problem with your evolutionary theory is flawed because what you are saying is that the death of these so called ages had to have happened before death was passed upon Adam... There is no getting around it while also denying a six day creation... You are claiming scientist right and God wrong or saying well God really said it but scientist have proven he didn't really mean that?... Didn't we hear that as soon as Adam was created?... Yeah hath God said?... My Faith tells me he meant exactly what he said and just because I don't understand it or you don't doesn't make the word of The Lord God Almighty maker of heaven and earth untrue!... Which bears this question were you created or did you appear by evolution?... Next time you question creation take a good look in a mirror!... For you other brethren here are some interesting facts you may find useful... If you want to check out the following here is the link it came from... Brother Glen

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

1. The age of the earth, as determined by man’s fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions, so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old.23
2. This unproven age is being used to force an interpretation on the language of the Bible. Thus, man’s fallible theories are allowed to interpret the Bible. This ultimately undermines the use of language to communicate.
3. Evolutionary scientists claim the fossil layers over the earth’s surface date back hundreds of millions of years. As soon as one allows millions of years for the fossil layers, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering before Adam’s sin.

 

[annsni]

If the Bible must be tempered and watered down in order not to 'appear to be disgracefully unbelievable,'
you have to jerk out a lot more than the creation story. In particular, the resurrection must be removed. Perhaps you're content to let the resurrection mean nothing more living on in memory, for what's scientifically impossible ["disgracefully unbelievable"] is not reality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes or No, Craigbythesea?

Very true. Being raised from the dead three days after you were murdered is kind of a stretch science-wise, isn't it? For those who feel science is the rule, how does Christ's resurrection fit?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Very true. Being raised from the dead three days after you were murdered is kind of a stretch science-wise, isn't it?

No, of course not! Why would anyone come to such an absurd conclusion?

For those who feel science is the rule, how does Christ's resurrection fit?

What healthy person would “feel” that science is “the rule”?

 

[Alcott]

Stop being a coward and answer thee questions put here in response to your stated position regarding science and the Bible...

Is resurrection of a dead body scientifically possible or impossible?
Is it disgracefully unbelievable that a man be resurrected and bodily rise to heaven?

 

[Revmitchell]

How much faith is needed to believe hundreds of billions of incontrovertible facts about evolutionary biology and the supporting sciences in the fields of geology, paleontology, palynology, mycology, archaeology, chemistry, physics, genetics, ecology, physiology, microbiology, zoology, botany, and scores of other supporting sciences? The honest answer—none, absolutely none!

How much faith is needed to believe in the early Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis that has crept into most of our so-called fundamentalist churches and has given rise to anti-evolution nonsense? The honest answer—none, absolutely none! Nothing is needed but a lack of education in the biblical languages, the culture of the biblical peoples, ancient Oriental literature and the cultures that it is a product of—and a ridiculous amount of unwarranted presumption!

Therefore, evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a proven process, and denying reality will not make it go away—but it might make the Christian faith appear to be the faith of intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia, and thus make the Christian faith go away—as it has been, largely due to Christian “fundamentalism” making the Bible appear to be disgracefully unbelievable.

Yea I know and man has cause global warming, Big foot is real, and oh, be sure and do not get water on the gremlins.

This rant is so full of myths I do not know where to begin. First the understanding of Genesis as a narrative did not creep in from the Catholic church. However, evolution has crept into the church from the humanistic philosophy of naturalism. It is anti-God and the title of this thread is one more proof of that.

Evolution is nothing but Atheism and that is a religion. In fact there is a professor at Kansas State who says that :

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

1. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.

In fact he was not the only evolutionist that is anti-God:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a prioriadherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

1. Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

So yea not only is it a religion but it is anti-God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

First the understanding of Genesis as a narrative did not creep in from the Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church used to teach that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate historical account of actual events—the very same belief that our fundamentalist churches have adopted as being “biblical truth.”

However, evolution has crept into the church from the humanistic philosophy of naturalism. It is anti-God and the title of this thread is one more proof of that.

The subject of evolution was brought into our fundamentalist Baptist churches by men who believed the Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11, saw that the theory of evolution contradicted their Roman Catholic interpretation, and began teaching against evolution.

Evolution is nothing but Atheism and that is a religion.

This statement is a good illustration of what happens when Christians know almost nothing about science and even less about the Bible. Evolution is an observable and predictable process brought about through natural selection in which the characteristics of plants and animals change as they adapt to changes in their environment. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God; or more broadly, the disbelief in the existence of deity.

In fact there is a professor at KansasState who says that :


In fact he was not the only evolutionist that is anti-God:


So yea not only is it a religion but it is anti-God.

What one man in Kansas believes is irrelevant to the truth—and the truth is that tens of millions of evangelical Christians believe in the theory of evolution, and their belief in the theory of evolution does not in any way weaken or lessen their faith in Christ and His redemptive work on the cross; and it does not in any way weaken or lessen their faith in His resurrection from dead.