Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Philip,
Sorry if I offended you - I don't see any "personal insults" in ANY of my posts.
As far as my beliefs...
I believe God created the earth. Science suggests that this took billions of years but we'll never really know. I believe that some evolution of plants and animals did occur. I believe that formation of man was special, with God revealing Himself to a man we know as Adam.
I think that Genesis 1-11 was largely designed to say that YHWH was the creator and was above any other god the Hebrews might have heard of, interacting with Canaanite myth in various places to show YHWH's superiority and uniqueness. I think that Genesis contains some mythic hyperbole, like the advanced ages.
As for the "supernatural" - any act of God is supernatural. Does describing how it occurred somehow make it less supernatural? When Jesus healed what happened? Did the germs leave? Did they die? Did the body kill them all suddenly? Did God kill the germs? Did he use divine energy or the body's immune system? It doesn't matter. And to me it matters little whether the earth was created in 6 days or 4.3 billion years.
To me the Bible IS God's revelation to us. I think that to know the details of it we must put in alot of study.
In approaching the Bible I think that through study we can discern a great deal. The Gospels are literal, factual witness documents. Genesis contains theological epic. Revelation contains alot of apocalyptic imagery that should not be taken literally.
I see the literal hermeneutic as that which limits God. It assumes that the Bible was written only for us in the present day.
When the Bible says that scripture is "God-breathed" and not open to "private interpretation" it means that there IS ONE meaning - and it doesn't say that it is the literal one.
I too am sorry if I misunderstood you. I often have to read these threads in a rush and I have mistaken an intended statement, particularly by taking it out of context. I appologize to you for accusing you of something that you obviously did not intend nor actully did.
Although I do disagree with you on many issues I don't think they are insurmountable. Your theory was very similar to the theory that I had just before I finally took the YEC theory.
If I understand your beliefs correctly, I can accept it much easier than I can accept the fact that humans evolved from one celled life.
I cn also agree with you on your question of HOW God heals or makes "good wine".
Personally, I believe in a literal six day because of my studies of the Old Testament have led me to believe that it is very literal and discussing a six day creation period. If you disagree due to gaps or the use of the word "Yom" as "ages"; I cannot for certain say that you are wrong. I will admit that right up front. And, no i do not have all of the answers as to why much evidence points towards an old universe, but it is my opinion tht lot of new evidence and explanations of older evidence has begun to point towards young Earth. I will not, cram this down your throat; however, because I did believe that way.
Now, as far as evolution to the point that man becomes an evolved being, I will fight that argument tooth and nail. The main reason is partially the fact that I cannot reinterpret Genesis to become a "complete" myth that means nothing more than God had a hand or control in the creation process. There is simply too much specific information there for it to be allegorical.
Another problem that I have with evolution is that scientists who cannot accept any supernatural creative activity (100% naturalistic) is a theory that was developed because it was the only real explanation of where life came from if God does not exist.
By accepting evolution as the the full "life" creation makes for real problems not only based on my personal studies of the entire bible, but also of science (believe it or not).
Since you have been fair and open with me I will be the same with you. Most of the scientists that I know have and many still are working on very high-tech military projects that require very solid understandings of space physics (linking them together with many astrophysicists with NASA, etc.). It is hard for many people to understand, but launching a missile in the middle of the ocean and targeting it to hit a ten foot location entirely by internal control requires an awfully good scientist who understands astrophysics, minute and almost imperceptable perterbations in the orbit of the Earth and other planets (Yes, they do effect the travel of a missile. Especially the Sun and moon.) So, therefore, many of these scientists are extremely capable. Biologists are used for projects of which many are black, but you can probably figure out some of them. DNA and genetic scientists have often shared knowledge learned years back with scientists in the medical field to bring them up to speed to help cure cancer and other things that help out humanity.
Many of these scientists have provided Nasa with technology for technology used in the Hubble (obviously from spy technology). ..many working with radiometric data, many studying the universes background radiation long before it became a major target of secular scientists (I worked with this project). All I am saying is that although most of these people are not published and cannot be, many are on the leading edge in their technology and because they may not carry the title of "evolutionary biologist" does not mean that they are incapable of studying and understanding the data of those who do publish and certainly they are capable of understanding what many of us do not understand. I too have to take the words of many scientists, but many of these who are Christians have seen fit to take me under their wing and help me understand the difficult parts and based on this and my studies of the Old Testament, you know my conclusions.
Many of these scientists are accepted Christ and many of those are YEC believers (most of the Christains I know are, and none are macro-evolution believers) and they did NOT obtain their information based on a guess. They studied it like I did and talked to cohorts in the specific fields they had questions in. Some even teach Sunday School.
Okay, there is part of my story and the reason for my beliefs. I hope you can better appreciate my position, whether or not you can accept it.
But, I cannot accept the argument of others on this thread who claim that a physicist is not capable of studying the results of a biologist and making their own conclusions.
I know of at least one former NASA geologist who is now a Christian and is young earth. His main reasoning for young earth? The old YEC argument about the amount of dust on the moon. Many scientists today claim that is bogus, but he claims it is not and really expected a very deep layer of powder. When it was not found he was stunned.
It is also these same scientists that keep telling me that in 100 years we will view all of the evidence that we see today in an entirely different light and will look back at today's brilliant men and realize just how much they misinterpreted their data. Just as in the days of Capernaum.
In answer to another person's question on does the dat point to old earth. Some seems to and more and more seems to point to young earth. Some of that data, not even I can be told about, but someday we will find that we view everything through our own filters of preconceived ideas.
Just some thoughts. I think between the two sides of the debate, that we may be the closest to undertanding each other, this is the reason I am being so open with you and I hope you can appreciate that and if nothing else we cn agree that we can disagree, but both of us know that God created the universe.
