Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

[Mercury]

Oops, that link in my last post should have been a link to [this post].

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
No one here can compare to the mass of verbiage produced by your tag team.

Here's how you can compete: respond to an argument with something other than an assertion. The problem with giving an oft-repeated assertion is that it's likely to either be ignored or responded to with something that you've already heard before. But, if you follow a discussion through, respond to points with counter-points, actually look at the evidence and make sure your claims jibe with it, then we can move into less stale territory.

I think everyone would enjoy that more.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

The burden of proof is on the novel thesis. In order to prove your case here you must prove that the Scriptures support your ideas. You have completely failed in that mission. When ever you are pressed on that you go back to throwing more "science" our way.

edit: I should have said "science" and "scholarship."

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Uh . . . AntennaFarmer - the "repetition" to which you object came from replying to your unsolicited "repetition". If you don't like "repetition" why do you indulge in it?

And Bro. Paul: Thanks for making me feel so welcome here.

A.F.

 

[Mercury]

AF, my thesis isn't that novel and I've presented it many times. I summarized some of those mentions in [this post] earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat it. You won't find many appeals to either science or scholarship in those posts. Skimming those threads again, I see that the first one led to a KJV-only debate, the second was completely ignored, the third led to the person saying that he now understood my position even though he didn't agree with it, the fourth led to an opportunity to reveal just how inadequate a certain person's harmonization of Genesis 1-2 was, the fifth led to what we had earlier in this thread (people agreeing to a principle but refusing to apply it in certain cases), the sixth led to one substantial response which I responded to, and in the last the responses mainly focused on picking apart an analogy instead of dealing with the substance of the post.

This is pretty much how it goes. I've been actively posting here for over a year and the reason I'm still making many of the same points is that they haven't been addressed yet. Sometimes a point is addressed and I learn something new. HankD taught me something about the ambiguity of Isaiah 25:6 that I didn't know, and I was able to flesh some ideas out a bit further due to an insightful discussion with Marcia and David Ekstrom, but those kind of discussions are rare. On the science side of things it's even more clear-cut. Many people have presented some of the whale evidence for a long time, and yet the responses are still basic misunderstandings such as asserting that it's all based on physical similarities.

But anyway, instead of discussing how we debate, why not pick up a thread of the discussion and move it into new ground? Maybe you could outline your criteria for detecting symbolism and why the tree of life doesn't qualify. Or, you could show which other section of Scripture has a form and structure (not content) most similar to Genesis 1:1-2:3, assuming you disagree with my claim that the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation are closest. I realize that this would take more work on your part than just repeating things like "You have completely failed" or "Only by wresting the Scriptures", but it would be time studying Scripture, and I find that's always time well spent.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Mercury:
AF, my thesis isn't that novel and I've presented it many times.

True, your thesis isn't that novel. However, the historic Christian interpretation of Genesis is literal. Your thesis newer than that. So it is, therefore, novel.

Now Merc., can you honestly say that many of the recent posts (yes, including mine) here have in any way attempted to address the original question posed by the starter of this thread? Each time someone starts a thread that (in any way) touches on science and the Bible it degenerates into the same old rambling set of arguments.

How is it that we are arguing evolution and electromagnetics (and etc.) when, in fact, we have all already stated our opinion on the original question and, to a first order approximation, agreed?

Why do I say we have agreed? First, everyone has said that they think the Bible is absolutely reliable. I have spotted no alternate opinions there. Secondly, everyone has agreed that science is not infallible. Who disagrees about that?

Yes, beyond that there are differing opinions. Some would probably argue that the question is poorly posed. But we have at least some common ground. By all means state your reservations. But please don't beat it into the ground.

So you have invited me to start new threads addressing certain questions. That is a good idea. I may do that as I have some definite opinions relating to certain of those questions. But I invite you and your friends (the TEs in particular) to do the same for your favorite topics. It seems to me that there are quite a number of topics being tossed around in this one thread.

Now, lest you object so, I understand that some auxiliary topics need to be discussed as we go along. However, we don't need to rehash them in every thread. And neither can you take the entire board as a running discussion. No one can follow that kind of discussion except the select few who have been participating for a long time (maybe not even them).

As it is now a novice to this board is intimidated by the mass of postings by certain ones who turn each possible thread into a brawl on YE vs OE (or maybe KJVO vs modern versions). Am I saying don't discuss it? No, I am not saying that at all. Am I asking the moderators to step in and limit discussion? No, I don't want that either. What I am asking for a little voluntary restraint. That is because, as things are now, someone with a new opinion is most likely to remain silent. Maybe that is why the air is so stale here.

As to debating technique: I personally think that my "Only by wresting the Scriptures." was a perfectly good response to your "actually it can." Not every statement in a debate is reasoned. Sometimes we are just redrawing the lines. You know that.

A.F.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
True, your thesis isn't that novel. However, the historic Christian interpretation of Genesis is literal. Your thesis newer than that. So it is, therefore, novel.

Actually, historically the interpretation is more varied than that. There were long periods of church history where allegorical readings ruled the day. A look at Hebrew midrashim shows amazing diversity in how creation was interpreted.

Even outside of those periods, and even before modern science provided any impetus, there were other readings of Genesis based on some of the logical issues within the text. Just as JWI is convinced that those bowls of Revelation I keep mentioning aren't literal because bowls can't contain wrath, many theologians thought that Genesis 1's days couldn't be literal because a literal day doesn't make any sense before the sun (the idea of a fixed light source other than the sun illuminating a rotating earth is by contrast rather novel interpretation). And, others were convinced that Genesis 1-2 should not be read literalistically because doing so causes them to conflict. Many young-earth interpretations are also novel. The idea that the stretching out of the heavens speaks of the big bang, as Helen has stated, is quite novel, although it's accepted by many OECs and TEs as well (though not as a completed past event). So is the idea that the firmament is just another name for our atmosphere. So is the idea that the flood explains why the earth looks old to scientists. Novel theses abound on all sides in this debate.

As for the rest of your post, I now better understand what you meant, and I do agree that we have common ground that is generally overlooked. I'll try to keep that in mind as I post. I probably won't start my own topics on this issue, though, since I know some people are uncomfortable with it being discussed in the public areas. I started two topics on the Science board, one on [animal death] and the other that I mentioned about [Genesis 1], and that's been about it. The animal death one in particular managed to stay pretty focused. Feel free to bump either one if you're interested in those topics.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JWI:
The problem with all of you science buffs is that you cannot think outside the box.

Sounds like a rather broadbrush comment. I've never been known to lack the ability to think outside the box.

God by definition is supernatural. Therefore He cannot be explained or measured by science.

Not a single person on this board, let alone in this thread, will disagree with you that God is supernatural. Now, you fail to comprehend that science never attempts to explain or measure God.

I believe there is a Tree of Life and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because God's Word says so.

You's be wrong. There was a tree of life and knowlege of godd and evil. But we don't know what kind of tree, what the tree looked like (or if it even resembled what we think of as a tree), or if what we think of as a tree was analogous to something else.

I do not understand it all. I do not stay awake nights worrying about it either. I believe it by faith.

No one has a problem with that. In fact, everyone here likewise believes teh Word by faith. The problem crops up when you insist that someone else's interpretation must resemble yours.

This is not a blind faith. The Bible has many proofs in history and archaeology. Many prophecies have come true.

And many prophecies have not. Why? Not because they weren't legitimate prophecies, but because they were not properly understood or interpreted by the reader. Hal Lindsey is a good example of that. Just because he's been wrong more often than a politician is crooked, doesn't mean that the bible he's referencing was wrong, does it?

But if you believe it can all be explained naturally, you have missed the boat completely.

That's where you cross the line. You equate scripture being true with your interpretation of scripture being infallible.

If God was natural, then He would not be supernatural.

And no one has said otherwise, even though you make the accusation.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JWI:
You say you believe the Bible. I have asked many times for verses that point to evolution. No one has mentioned even one verse.

Since Genesis doesn't tell us how he created, it's a moot point. It only says why he created, and in what order he spoke his creation into existence.

I only have a problem with an evolutionist when they insist that God did not create. Not once have ai heard anyone here say this. But, there has been the occaisional YECist that says it is impossible for God to have used evolution as his cration tool. And all this time I thought nothing was impossible with God.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Uh . . . AntennaFarmer - the "repetition" to which you object came from replying to your unsolicited "repetition". If you don't like "repetition" why do you indulge in it?

And Bro. Paul: Thanks for making me feel so welcome here.

A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]Is this or is this not the second reply to my same post? It is. That is example one of YOUR repitition.

Here are some other samples where you essentially repeat your opposition to the findings of science with no further information to add except your REPEATED opposition:

"That comment is specious. There is no contradiction between electromagnetics and anything the Bible says. The same cannot be said for evolution. "

"And you, my friend, have repeatedly been mistaken. Evolution is directly contradicted by a clear reading of Genesis."

"And why, Bro. Petrel, do you and your friends feel that you have to repeat yourselves so. We have heard you. We have understood your doctrine. We have rejected it."

My only thought on this is, if you think mere repitition of an opposing idea is inconsiderate or unwanted, well . . . . there are some things you need to be aware of about yourself.

It is the human dellema. We all do it. We blame others for what we do ourselves. Hopefully, we catch on and work to stop ourselves from indulgin in such contradictory behavior.

Please don't think I don't welcome your posts. I just don't welcome the action of blaming others for what you yourself are doing.

 

[JWI]

Alright, a night's sleep, perhaps I'll go a little more.

Petrel

Comparing Revelation with Genesis is apples and oranges. Revelation was a vision.

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne

Here it is stated that John will be SHOWN (shew)things that must be HEREAFTER.

This was a vision of the future.

This can be likened to the dreams or visions of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel Chapter 2.

Dan 2:27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise [men], the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;

Dan 2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

Dan 2:29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came [into thy mind] upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.

These two accounts are very similar. And both accounts are quite clear that symbols are being used.

Dan 2:36 This [is] the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

Dan 2:37 Thou, O king, [art] a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Dan 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou [art] this head of gold.

Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all [things]: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

Dan 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Daniel explained the meaning of the "image" seen by Nebuchadnezzar. The gold, silver, brass, and clay were symbols.

Likewise, we see the same in Revelation.

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Rev 17:9 And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

So we see a similarity again between these two accounts. Again symbols are used. Many people believe the seven mountains is speaking of Rome which is famous for being built on seven hills or mountains.

But symbols were used in both accounts.

Now, you do not see any such language in Genesis Chapters 1 or 2. This does not fit the pattern. It is not similar to these accounts in Revelation or Daniel.

So, it is a poor comparison.

Also, Genesis 1 and 2 do not fit evolution. Fully developed creatures are described.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

As I have said before, the very first creature mentioned is "great whales". Being mentioned first does not guarantee that the whale was the very first creature on day five. But they certainly were fully formed "great" as we know them today.

Also, in complete opposition to evolution, the fowls were created on day five. The land animals were not created until day six. No evolutionist would say that birds (fowls) came before land animals.

So, evolution does not agree with the Bible.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
Petrel

Comparing Revelation with Genesis is apples and oranges. Revelation was a vision.

I think you're thinking of someone else. I don't think I made this comparison. Either that or I made it in passing and forgot about it!

Also, Genesis 1 and 2 do not fit evolution. Fully developed creatures are described.

. . .

So, evolution does not agree with the Bible.

Assuming a literal interpretation, which we don't.

 

[JWI]

Petrel

Perhaps you were not the one who compared Revelation with Genesis. It is easy to get lost on a long thread.

I get it. You do not accept Genesis as literal. I have noticed many here do not. Many do not believe Noah's flood was worldwide. Also, the account of the serpent speaking to Eve, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are not believed to be literal.

Just how do you decide what is to be taken literal and what is not?

What about the miracles of Christ? When he walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the blind and lame, are these to be taken literally?

What parts of the Bible do you take literally?

 

[Petrel]

I don't think Genesis 1-2 is literal. I think that the Flood is literal to an extent, but I'm not sure how far. I think it was local, and this can be literally consistent if the literal definition of "world" as "the known world" is taken, rather than "world" being "the globe" (which actually was not conceptualized at that time).

The Gospels are literal--why wouldn't they be?

You seem to have this idea that I think that supernatural interference is impossible or have some bias against miracles. I don't. If you've seen other threads I've posted in on this board, you'll know I think that demon possession is a real phenomenon and currently possible, although rare in industrialized nations. I definitely think that miracles have occurred, although I would be skeptical of accounts of major miracles at this time (except for the typical unusual answers to prayer) because I think God means for the Bible to be the chief means of revelation now.

My nonliteral interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is not due to an inherent disbelief in the power of God, dislike of miracles, or bias against the supernatural. It's because I think that God does not lie. From all of the studying I have done an ancient universe and the evolution of life are most consistent with the evidence. Either God really made the earth recently and then engineered all of the evidence to make this look false, or the account in Genesis 1-2 is nonliteral and its goal is to give spiritual truth, not mechanistic details about creation.

I went all the way through college thinking that I would be learning eventually (if not this year, next year!) how evolution was false and the earth was young, and having the evidence explained sensibly. This didn't happen. Occasional bits of evidence were challenged--and I've actually run across explanations overthrowing those challenges since then--but no one ever was able to propose a coherent model accounting for all of the evidence. This remains true now in the reading I've done and in the discussions I've had here and elsewhere. There are three possibilities:

1. I maintain my present belief: Genesis 1-2 are meant to be nonliteral and the apparent old age of the universe and genetic relation of all living creatures is true evidence of an old creation and evolution directed by God.

2. Someone comes up with a model that explains the bulk of the evidence--resolving apparent age of the universe with a young earth and resolving the genetic and fossil data with a young earth. If the explanation is sufficient I will be convinced that Genesis 1-2 is meant to be literal.

3. You guys with all of your insistence on a literal interpretation in spite of the evidence finally break down my defenses and I'm forced to either conclude God is a liar and not worth worshipping or God does not exist.

Fortunately the odds of #3 are even more slim than the odds of #2. However, I'm afraid for a lot of people that is not the case, and people who are initially interested in God and salvation decide it's all poppycock when they are expected to believe the earth is still wet behind the ears.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Uh . . . AntennaFarmer - the "repetition" to which you object came from replying to your unsolicited "repetition". If you don't like "repetition" why do you indulge in it?

Brother Paul:

This is my third reply to your same post (in case you are still counting).

In my "repetition" post I was responding to Brother Petrel's implied complaint at having to repeat himself. Perhaps my defective punctuation added to the confusion. But my tone was inflammatory.

I have no problem with one expanding on ideas, stating an unsupported opinion or even quoting oneself. However, wholesale repetition of this same line of conversation in thread after thread has proven to be unprofitable. I think it has caused us to become dogmatic on some things where we would be better to admit ignorance.

I invite you to consider that both Creationism (in its current forms) and Theistic evolutionism were both formed as a reactions to the teachings of atheistic Darwinists. Here we have two competing reactionary systems. Reaction seems to breed dogma. And once we become dogmatic we are unable to make progress. I think that is where we are on both sides today.

But hidden under the dogma and arguments are certain assumptions that, while largely unstated, control the entire discussion. Both sides tend to see the other as hard headed and unwilling listen. This is a symptom rather than the problem. We must find a way to get past all this in order to see why we disagree.


When I made that my "repetition" comment I knew it would draw a hasty response from someone on your side. I was wrong to do that. It was a cheap jab. So to you Brother Paul and Brother Petrel (and others as well), I apologize.


A.F.

 

[CountrygirllovesJesus05]

Hello I only believe in the Bible not science because science sometimes are false. I'll comment more later need to go at a doctors appointment LOL.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by CountrygirllovesJesus05:
Hello I only believe in the Bible not science because science sometimes are false. I'll comment more later need to go at a doctors appointment LOL.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Which is more reliable—a very naïve interpretation of Genesis or an extensive knowledge of evolutionary biology?

 

[blackbird]

Which is more reliable---a very extensive knowledgable interpretation of Genesis or a very extensive knowledge of evolutionary biology----the two just don't "jive" together---so one of um is gonna have to be washed out of the milk parlor with the rest of the manure---which will it be???

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CountrygirllovesJesus05:
Hello I only believe in the Bible not science because science sometimes are false. I'll comment more later need to go at a doctors appointment LOL.

</font>[/QUOTE]Here is a symmetrical anti-quote:

Hello I believe in Nature not Theology because theology is sometims false.

God's revelations, directly, are always true.
The interpreters have issues, alas.

I believe in God and His revelations and I keep hoping to learn more about them all.

The revelation through nature has an advantage over the revelation through the Bible in that we can verify our findings through the scientific method. Theology is left, unfortunately, with fewer options for deciding things. Hence the continued discussions over whether or not to ordain women, consider free will to be possible, have the King James version only, and so forth and so forth.

We just don't have any experiments to perform to decide between these issues.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by CountrygirllovesJesus05:
Hello I only believe in the Bible not science because science sometimes are false. I'll comment more later need to go at a doctors appointment LOL.

Going to see a doctor, ay? Don't you think that's a little short-sighted considering the inherent unreliability of science?