[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[TMal3]

Ah, yes, the personal ad hominem attack when losing.

Since that is all you have left at your disposal, you’re going on ignore.

Adieu

You really believe your own lies? Go back to the previous pages as I keep telling you to do and address the numerous specific points I've made that you skipped over and failed to rebut or invalidate (or don't do it, your choice), but at least have the decency not to lie about it and misrepresent. (What am I saying? You've made it clear that's all you know how to do is misrepresent and slander people. You pour on page after page of ad hominen personal attacks, and then when confronted and called on it you pretend that you're the victim who's being personally attacked. And you talk about my Christian witness. You're a real piece of work.)

 

[Niblo]

Among other things, I think it shows the importance of how we need to understand the Bible in context. Sometimes I think we (believers in general) forget that the Bible was not delivered straight from heaven, but through the writers of the various biblical books as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that this took place in different contexts in human history, so it must be understood in those contexts.

Sometimes you hear the argument that we don't need to know such things and that all we need is the Bible. The problem is people don't realize they're just trading one context for another---their own modern socio-cultural context. A lot of people don't seem to realize that no one can read the Bible in such a pure, idealistic way, because we all bring our own personal cultural baggage to the table and that affects how we read and interpret the Bible (*and Bible translations are already *interpretations* to begin with. Translators have to decide what they think a given passage means in order to know how best to translate it).

We read the Bible through our own modern lens of understanding. And this is so natural and normal to us that we're often unaware that we're even doing so and don't realize how that this can erroneously skew our understanding of the Bible; starting with very first verse: Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," we naturally picture an earth globe in space, because we grew up seeing such photographs, so we're conditioned to think in those terms. By contrast, the ancient Israelites wouldn't of course picture the earth in space since such photos obvioulsy weren’t available to them, so that’s not the mental picture that would naturally come to mind the way it does for us. Plus, the Hebrew word eretz translated "earth" in our Bibles simply means "land."

Again, showing the importance of reading the Bible in its proper historical context. (It can't be read in no context at all, so might as well try to read it in the correct, original context instead of our modern one).

What do you think?

Hi.

Sorry for the delay. Arrived home at 3.30am yesterday.

I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest; and am reminded of the following:

‘In the modern era, Genesis has been an important battleground as communities have worked to live out ancient faiths in a modern world. For example, much discussion of Genesis, at least among Christians in the West, has focused on whether the stories of Genesis are historically true.

‘Astronomers, biologists, and other scientists have offered accounts of the origins of the cosmos and humanity different from those in Gen 1–2. Some believers, however, insist on the importance of affirming the historical accuracy of every part of Genesis as literal truth, and have come to see such belief as a defining characteristic of what it means to be truly faithful.

‘This definition is relatively new: the historicity of Genesis was not a significant concern prior to the rise of modern science and the historical method; in fact, in premodern times, the stories of Genesis were often read metaphorically or allegorically. Moreover, many would argue that an ancient document such as Genesis should not be treated as scientific treatise or a modern‐style historical source. Instead, its rich store of narratives offers non-scientific, narrative, and poetic perspectives on values and the meaning of the cosmos that pertain to other dimensions of human life.’ (‘The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version’).

Now that the thread has deteriorated into a slanging match (very much a ‘battleground’), there is nothing more I wish to add.

Blessings.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hi.

Sorry for the delay. Arrived home at 3.30am yesterday.

I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest; and am reminded of the following:

‘In the modern era, Genesis has been an important battleground as communities have worked to live out ancient faiths in a modern world. For example, much discussion of Genesis, at least among Christians in the West, has focused on whether the stories of Genesis are historically true.

‘Astronomers, biologists, and other scientists have offered accounts of the origins of the cosmos and humanity different from those in Gen 1–2. Some believers, however, insist on the importance of affirming the historical accuracy of every part of Genesis as literal truth, and have come to see such belief as a defining characteristic of what it means to be truly faithful.

‘This definition is relatively new: the historicity of Genesis was not a significant concern prior to the rise of modern science and the historical method; in fact, in premodern times, the stories of Genesis were often read metaphorically or allegorically. Moreover, many would argue that an ancient document such as Genesis should not be treated as scientific treatise or a modern‐style historical source. Instead, its rich store of narratives offers non-scientific, narrative, and poetic perspectives on values and the meaning of the cosmos that pertain to other dimensions of human life.’ (‘The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version’).

Now that the thread has deteriorated into a slanging match (very much a ‘battleground’), there is nothing more I wish to add.

Blessings.

The problem with opening the door to Genesis being merely allegorical is 1) there’s no intellectually satisfying answer as to our origins and 2) maybe Jesus and salvation is merely allegorically too.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Niblo

All the astronomers and secular folk who offer explanations of the origin of the cosmos and life have not been able to offer any intellectual presentation that holds water once you (scientifically) compare their explanation to reality. Nothing exploded for no reason and became everything. This is not intellectually sound and yet it is believed. Life came from no-life although we have never seen anything close to life springing from non-life. There is a lot more so while you can say that explanations ARE offered, none of them bear close examination or testing. They all fail on one point or another. Why? Because the world and the life on it are just too complex.

 

[GodsGrace]

Stop yelling your position. I read part of an unbiased version of one of the many Egyptian creation accounts and I will not cut and paste it as it is gross and childish. Anyone can read the non-edited version (although some delicately refer to his "seed" although without a female (and there was none) we know where that came from and how it got there.) Your author has picked out the little bits that fit. Obviously you did not study theology and I know those who did. The creation accounts around were gross and the gods petty and selfish and full of juvenile emotions. You have selected the author you like and no one information will be allowed into your consideration.

YOU'RE BREAKING TOS RULES.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE TOPIC AND NOT THE OTHER MEMBER'S QUALITIES OR KNOWLEDGE.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
PLEASE USE TALK WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY.
THANKS.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I am withdrawing for a bit so if anyone wonders where I am, taking a sabbatical...a voluntary withdrawal sensing something else is otherwise in the works.

 

[Niblo]

The problem with opening the door to Genesis being merely allegorical is 1) there’s no intellectually satisfying answer as to our origins and 2) maybe Jesus and salvation is merely allegorically too.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Beloved’s existence can be known with certainty: ‘In the light of human reason by those things which have been made.’ (Denzinger 1806; cf. 1785 and 1391).

The Pontifical Bible Commission (established by Pope Leo XIII) taught that the first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events. (Denzinger 2122).

Facts that touch the foundations of Christianity are to be taken in the literal historical sense. Such facts include the creation of all things – by the Beloved – in the beginning of time; and the special creation of humankind. (Denzinger 2123).

However, it is not necessary to understand every word – or every sentence – in the literal sense, with the reservation that one submits one’s judgement to the decision of Church, and the dictates of the Faith. (Denzinger 2124).

Dr. Ludwig Ott writes:

‘As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific.’ (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’; also, Denzinger 2127).

 

[Barbarian]

The Pontifical Bible Commission (established by Pope Leo XIII) taught that the first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events. (Denzinger 2122).

Facts that touch the foundations of Christianity are to be taken in the literal historical sense. Such facts include the creation of all things – by the Beloved – in the beginning of time; and the special creation of humankind. (Denzinger 2123).

However, it is not necessary to understand every word – or every sentence – in the literal sense, with the reservation that one submits one’s judgement to the decision of Church, and the dictates of the Faith. (Denzinger 2124).

Precisely. God does not care if we approve of the way He created all things. That's not what determines our salvation. People who focus on exactly how creation worked, are missing the entire point of Genesis.

 

[TMal3]

Hi.

Sorry for the delay. Arrived home at 3.30am yesterday.

I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest; and am reminded of the following:

‘In the modern era, Genesis has been an important battleground as communities have worked to live out ancient faiths in a modern world. For example, much discussion of Genesis, at least among Christians in the West, has focused on whether the stories of Genesis are historically true.

‘Astronomers, biologists, and other scientists have offered accounts of the origins of the cosmos and humanity different from those in Gen 1–2. Some believers, however, insist on the importance of affirming the historical accuracy of every part of Genesis as literal truth, and have come to see such belief as a defining characteristic of what it means to be truly faithful.

‘This definition is relatively new: the historicity of Genesis was not a significant concern prior to the rise of modern science and the historical method; in fact, in premodern times, the stories of Genesis were often read metaphorically or allegorically. Moreover, many would argue that an ancient document such as Genesis should not be treated as scientific treatise or a modern‐style historical source. Instead, its rich store of narratives offers non-scientific, narrative, and poetic perspectives on values and the meaning of the cosmos that pertain to other dimensions of human life.’ (‘The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version’).

Now that the thread has deteriorated into a slanging match (very much a ‘battleground’), there is nothing more I wish to add.

Blessings.

Beautifully put, Nibo

 

[Niblo]

Beautifully put, Nibo

Thank you, brother. You're very kind. Credit belongs to my sources.

Blessngs.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi.

Sorry for the delay. Arrived home at 3.30am yesterday.

I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest; and am reminded of the following:

‘In the modern era, Genesis has been an important battleground as communities have worked to live out ancient faiths in a modern world. For example, much discussion of Genesis, at least among Christians in the West, has focused on whether the stories of Genesis are historically true.

‘Astronomers, biologists, and other scientists have offered accounts of the origins of the cosmos and humanity different from those in Gen 1–2. Some believers, however, insist on the importance of affirming the historical accuracy of every part of Genesis as literal truth, and have come to see such belief as a defining characteristic of what it means to be truly faithful.

‘This definition is relatively new: the historicity of Genesis was not a significant concern prior to the rise of modern science and the historical method; in fact, in premodern times, the stories of Genesis were often read metaphorically or allegorically. Moreover, many would argue that an ancient document such as Genesis should not be treated as scientific treatise or a modern‐style historical source. Instead, its rich store of narratives offers non-scientific, narrative, and poetic perspectives on values and the meaning of the cosmos that pertain to other dimensions of human life.’ (‘The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version’).

Now that the thread has deteriorated into a slanging match (very much a ‘battleground’), there is nothing more I wish to add.

Blessings.

It is no longer a battleground.
Please continue.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Catholic Church teaches that the Beloved’s existence can be known with certainty: ‘In the light of human reason by those things which have been made.’ (Denzinger 1806; cf. 1785 and 1391).

The Pontifical Bible Commission (established by Pope Leo XIII) taught that the first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events. (Denzinger 2122).

Facts that touch the foundations of Christianity are to be taken in the literal historical sense. Such facts include the creation of all things – by the Beloved – in the beginning of time; and the special creation of humankind. (Denzinger 2123).

However, it is not necessary to understand every word – or every sentence – in the literal sense, with the reservation that one submits one’s judgement to the decision of Church, and the dictates of the Faith. (Denzinger 2124).

Dr. Ludwig Ott writes:

‘As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific.’ (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’; also, Denzinger 2127).

The CC teaches that biblical historical accounts begin with the story of Abraham.

However they do refer to Genesis 1... as if it were true because many aspects of it are true.
I've often asked posters when do they believe snakes stopped speaking.

Also, I wish we could understand that the bible is inspired by God, not written by Him.

I like your explanation above.

This is also for TMal3

 

[Niblo]

It is no longer a battleground.
Please continue.

Yes, Ma'am!

 

[Niblo]

The CC teaches that biblical historical accounts begin with the story of Abraham.

However they do refer to Genesis 1... as if it were true because many aspects of it are true.
I've often asked posters when do they believe snakes stopped speaking.

Also, I wish we could understand that the bible is inspired by God, not written by Him.

I like your explanation above.

This is also for TMal3

Agreed, and thank you.

Have a great day, and very best regards.

Blessings.

 

[TMal3]

I thought it might be helpful to give a little more background about myself as it relates to the topic at hand.

I've discussed and pondered the matter of Genesis 1 for close to 50 years. I was raised a young earth creationist (YEC), have always had a love of the Bible with a secondary love of science, and recognized at an early age the two did not always seem to be in agreement. Thus, began a lifelong quest to reconcile the two. A quest that led me to degrees in biology and paleontology with plans to follow that with Bible degrees. But alas, life has its turns, and God had other plans, so I was never able to finish the Bible degree.

I, of course, assumed my YEC views, which I staunchly defended, would be vindicated. That, after all, seemed to me the only possible correct interpretation of Genesis 1. An interpretation that I didn't realize at the time was marred by the modern age thinking of which I, and everyone else is a product.

YEC is an interesting paradox. On the one hand, it denies modern science as the product of 'evil,' 'sinful' man-made 'secular humanism' and atheism, which seeks to undermine the Bible. Yet, on the other hand YEC is so desperate to find validation for the Bible via the same modern scientific methods that it derides. YECs pride themselves, as I once did, on being 'faithful' to the true, literal meaning of Scripture without compromise to worldly philosophies. But now in hindsight, I see what most YECs can't yet see for themselves: their inconsistency. Some parts of Genesis they interpret literally, but some parts they don't. More often than not, YEC twists science (into non-science) to 'fit' the Bible, but sometimes they twist the Bible to 'fit' science.

In my case, I got my biology degree at a secular university. I was hypervigilant and on guard the whole time ever watchful for the evil evolutionary conspiracies that I knew from my YEC training awaited me and that would seek to erode my faith. But I found it was all a fiction. It was all imagined. There were no conspiracies in academic science seeking to conceal 'the real truth' about evolution-creation from the rest of the world. I found spiritually lost people, sure enough, but no conspiracies. If anything, I discovered annoyance. Like buzzing 'YEC' fly in your face annoyance at how YECs routinely, incessantly cherry pick, proof text, distort, misrepresent, malign, rip out of context the hard work of research scientists. I discovered this to be true. I realized in hindsight I had been guilty of such things myself. In my zeal for truth, I had fallen into error: the error of disingenuously misrepresenting scientists' work (without realizing it at the time), which does *not* make for a good Christ-like example.

A-ha! Some might say. Your faith in YEC was still eroded by the 'evil' secular system just as predicted. But it wasn't, actually. My YEC beliefs were stronger than ever upon earning my degree. Ironically, it was not the secular system at all, but my next degree in paleontology that I did at a Christian university, while studying under some of the world's top, leading YEC scientists. But these YECs were quite different; a different breed altogether. They were nice. They were honest, respectable, loving, and shined the light of Christ. They still had all the same YEC beliefs, but they did genuine scientific research that they published and interacted with other professional scientists in hopes of bringing them to a saving knowledge of Christ less because of science, and more because of their Christlike example; instead of the more vocal activist-like YEC that does little to no scientific research and just takes potshots from the sidelines.

These respectable YECs were *honest* (you think that would go without saying, but it doesn't). They were honest about where the evidence does and doesn't support YEC. I learned from these Young Earth Creationists that most of the scientific evidence does *not* in fact support a young earth, and learned that there is actually little to no evidence for a global flood at any time in Earth's history. So, how then can you believe in YEC? The answer I was given was *faith*. We don't have the scientific evidence now, but we have faith that one day if we keep researching that the scientific evidence *will* eventually vindicate YEC.

Can you say throw for a loop? Never in my wildest imagination could I ever conceive of such a turn of events. But the most important lesson I learned was *honesty* as a scientist and as a Christian. Always try to be as honest as I can. There are some things in Christianity for which we have evidence; strong, powerful evidence. But there are some things for which we don't, and where the evidence even seems to go against us. And it's okay to acknowledge that. I find non-Christians are actually more open to the gospel, when you acknowledge that from the start that you don’t have all the answers.

*And of course, then after all that, when I looked at the Bible side of things, I discovered my entire apologetic had after all those years been all wrong from the start. Modern science doesn't go against Genesis 1, but neither does it support it. Turns out it has next to nothing to do with it! The two are largely apples and oranges that speak to different questions. I have learned how vitally important it is separate modern science from Scripture, at least initially. First, seek to understand what Scripture says, independently of science, and what does science say independently of Scripture. Failure to do this results in much anachronism, and reading back modern scientific ideas into Genesis 1 where they don't belong, and do 'violence' to the text. And it ends up missing the point as Barbarian and Niblo (and now it seems wondering) have noted.

*I've already noted the compelling evidence that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. But it doesn't stop there. There are many levels to Genesis 1, and its genre is unique: a combination of poetry and prose. "Exalted prose," as some call it. In addition to being an anti pagan polemic, Genesis 1 also seems to present creation as a cosmic temple of sorts in which God resides, and is ever present. Then in Genesis 2-3, Adam and Eve are described in terms of having a priestly function. The lampstand, branched Jewish menorah in the tabernacle and temple were actually symbolic of the tree of life in the garden.

*Throughout the Bible there exists this common thread that always seems to go back to God's Presence. God's Presence in creation from the beginning. God's Presence lost. God's Presence restored through the cross. God's Presence forevermore in Revelation where we see the tree of life again in the new heaven.

 

[Niblo]

I thought it might be helpful to give a little more background about myself as it relates to the topic at hand.

I've discussed and pondered the matter of Genesis 1 for close to 50 years. I was raised a young earth creationist (YEC), have always had a love of the Bible with a secondary love of science, and recognized at an early age the two did not always seem to be in agreement. Thus, began a lifelong quest to reconcile the two. A quest that led me to degrees in biology and paleontology with plans to follow that with Bible degrees. But alas, life has its turns, and God had other plans, so I was never able to finish the Bible degree.

I, of course, assumed my YEC views, which I staunchly defended, would be vindicated. That, after all, seemed to me the only possible correct interpretation of Genesis 1. An interpretation that I didn't realize at the time was marred by the modern age thinking of which I, and everyone else is a product.

YEC is an interesting paradox. On the one hand, it denies modern science as the product of 'evil,' 'sinful' man-made 'secular humanism' and atheism, which seeks to undermine the Bible. Yet, on the other hand YEC is so desperate to find validation for the Bible via the same modern scientific methods that it derides. YECs pride themselves, as I once did, on being 'faithful' to the true, literal meaning of Scripture without compromise to worldly philosophies. But now in hindsight, I see what most YECs can't yet see for themselves: their inconsistency. Some parts of Genesis they interpret literally, but some parts they don't. More often than not, YEC twists science (into non-science) to 'fit' the Bible, but sometimes they twist the Bible to 'fit' science.

In my case, I got my biology degree at a secular university. I was hypervigilant and on guard the whole time ever watchful for the evil evolutionary conspiracies that I knew from my YEC training awaited me and that would seek to erode my faith. But I found it was all a fiction. It was all imagined. There were no conspiracies in academic science seeking to conceal 'the real truth' about evolution-creation from the rest of the world. I found spiritually lost people, sure enough, but no conspiracies. If anything, I discovered annoyance. Like buzzing 'YEC' fly in your face annoyance at how YECs routinely, incessantly cherry pick, proof text, distort, misrepresent, malign, rip out of context the hard work of research scientists. I discovered this to be true. I realized in hindsight I had been guilty of such things myself. In my zeal for truth, I had fallen into error: the error of disingenuously misrepresenting scientists' work (without realizing it at the time), which does *not* make for a good Christ-like example.

A-ha! Some might say. Your faith in YEC was still eroded by the 'evil' secular system just as predicted. But it wasn't, actually. My YEC beliefs were stronger than ever upon earning my degree. Ironically, it was not the secular system at all, but my next degree in paleontology that I did at a Christian university, while studying under some of the world's top, leading YEC scientists. But these YECs were quite different; a different breed altogether. They were nice. They were honest, respectable, loving, and shined the light of Christ. They still had all the same YEC beliefs, but they did genuine scientific research that they published and interacted with other professional scientists in hopes of bringing them to a saving knowledge of Christ less because of science, and more because of their Christlike example; instead of the more vocal activist-like YEC that does little to no scientific research and just takes potshots from the sidelines.

These respectable YECs were *honest* (you think that would go without saying, but it doesn't). They were honest about where the evidence does and doesn't support YEC. I learned from these Young Earth Creationists that most of the scientific evidence does *not* in fact support a young earth, and learned that there is actually little to no evidence for a global flood at any time in Earth's history. So, how then can you believe in YEC? The answer I was given was *faith*. We don't have the scientific evidence now, but we have faith that one day if we keep researching that the scientific evidence *will* eventually vindicate YEC.

Can you say throw for a loop? Never in my wildest imagination could I ever conceive of such a turn of events. But the most important lesson I learned was *honesty* as a scientist and as a Christian. Always try to be as honest as I can. There are some things in Christianity for which we have evidence; strong, powerful evidence. But there are some things for which we don't, and where the evidence even seems to go against us. And it's okay to acknowledge that. I find non-Christians are actually more open to the gospel, when you acknowledge that from the start that you don’t have all the answers.

*And of course, then after all that, when I looked at the Bible side of things, I discovered my entire apologetic had after all those years been all wrong from the start. Modern science doesn't go against Genesis 1, but neither does it support it. Turns out it has next to nothing to do with it! The two are largely apples and oranges that speak to different questions. I have learned how vitally important it is separate modern science from Scripture, at least initially. First, seek to understand what Scripture says, independently of science, and what does science say independently of Scripture. Failure to do this results in much anachronism, and reading back modern scientific ideas into Genesis 1 where they don't belong, and do 'violence' to the text. And it ends up missing the point as Barbarian and Niblo (and now it seems wondering) have noted.

*I've already noted the compelling evidence that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. But it doesn't stop there. There are many levels to Genesis 1, and its genre is unique: a combination of poetry and prose. "Exalted prose," as some call it. In addition to being an anti pagan polemic, Genesis 1 also seems to present creation as a cosmic temple of sorts in which God resides, and is ever present. Then in Genesis 2-3, Adam and Eve are described in terms of having a priestly function. The lampstand, branched Jewish menorah in the tabernacle and temple were actually symbolic of the tree of life in the garden.

*Throughout the Bible there exists this common thread that always seems to go back to God's Presence. God's Presence in creation from the beginning. God's Presence lost. God's Presence restored through the cross. God's Presence forevermore in Revelation where we see the tree of life again in the new heaven.

'Genesis 1 also seems to present creation as a cosmic temple of sorts in which God resides.'

Exactly.

 

[GodsGrace]

I thought it might be helpful to give a little more background about myself as it relates to the topic at hand.

I've discussed and pondered the matter of Genesis 1 for close to 50 years. I was raised a young earth creationist (YEC), have always had a love of the Bible with a secondary love of science, and recognized at an early age the two did not always seem to be in agreement. Thus, began a lifelong quest to reconcile the two. A quest that led me to degrees in biology and paleontology with plans to follow that with Bible degrees. But alas, life has its turns, and God had other plans, so I was never able to finish the Bible degree.

I, of course, assumed my YEC views, which I staunchly defended, would be vindicated. That, after all, seemed to me the only possible correct interpretation of Genesis 1. An interpretation that I didn't realize at the time was marred by the modern age thinking of which I, and everyone else is a product.

YEC is an interesting paradox. On the one hand, it denies modern science as the product of 'evil,' 'sinful' man-made 'secular humanism' and atheism, which seeks to undermine the Bible. Yet, on the other hand YEC is so desperate to find validation for the Bible via the same modern scientific methods that it derides. YECs pride themselves, as I once did, on being 'faithful' to the true, literal meaning of Scripture without compromise to worldly philosophies. But now in hindsight, I see what most YECs can't yet see for themselves: their inconsistency. Some parts of Genesis they interpret literally, but some parts they don't. More often than not, YEC twists science (into non-science) to 'fit' the Bible, but sometimes they twist the Bible to 'fit' science.

I was raised Catholic...that church doesn't do too much teaching - really, none at all for adults. It's trying now and YouTube certainly helps this generation.

The OT, which I began to study after attending a Protestant Church didn't make much sense to me.
I was told to take it literally, but I found it difficult to do.

I discovered, and have said on this forum, that everyone must come to terms with the OT...whatever those terms might be. The God of the OT does seem different than the God of the NT, and is it any wonder. So I came to my own understanding, with which I'm very satisfied. But not everyone will.

In my case, I got my biology degree at a secular university. I was hypervigilant and on guard the whole time ever watchful for the evil evolutionary conspiracies that I knew from my YEC training awaited me and that would seek to erode my faith. But I found it was all a fiction. It was all imagined. There were no conspiracies in academic science seeking to conceal 'the real truth' about evolution-creation from the rest of the world. I found spiritually lost people, sure enough, but no conspiracies. If anything, I discovered annoyance. Like buzzing 'YEC' fly in your face annoyance at how YECs routinely, incessantly cherry pick, proof text, distort, misrepresent, malign, rip out of context the hard work of research scientists. I discovered this to be true. I realized in hindsight I had been guilty of such things myself. In my zeal for truth, I had fallen into error: the error of disingenuously misrepresenting scientists' work (without realizing it at the time), which does *not* make for a good Christ-like example.

I don't know what you're going to say next, but, dare I say, sometimes Christians must sound really silly.
Like stating the earth is only 6,000 years old. I mean, how much evidence is necessary??

A-ha! Some might say. Your faith in YEC was still eroded by the 'evil' secular system just as predicted. But it wasn't, actually. My YEC beliefs were stronger than ever upon earning my degree. Ironically, it was not the secular system at all, but my next degree in paleontology that I did at a Christian university, while studying under some of the world's top, leading YEC scientists. But these YECs were quite different; a different breed altogether. They were nice. They were honest, respectable, loving, and shined the light of Christ. They still had all the same YEC beliefs, but they did genuine scientific research that they published and interacted with other professional scientists in hopes of bringing them to a saving knowledge of Christ less because of science, and more because of their Christlike example; instead of the more vocal activist-like YEC that does little to no scientific research and just takes potshots from the sidelines.

These respectable YECs were *honest* (you think that would go without saying, but it doesn't). They were honest about where the evidence does and doesn't support YEC. I learned from these Young Earth Creationists that most of the scientific evidence does *not* in fact support a young earth, and learned that there is actually little to no evidence for a global flood at any time in Earth's history. So, how then can you believe in YEC? The answer I was given was *faith*. We don't have the scientific evidence now, but we have faith that one day if we keep researching that the scientific evidence *will* eventually vindicate YEC.

Whew!

Can you say throw for a loop? Never in my wildest imagination could I ever conceive of such a turn of events. But the most important lesson I learned was *honesty* as a scientist and as a Christian. Always try to be as honest as I can. There are some things in Christianity for which we have evidence; strong, powerful evidence. But there are some things for which we don't, and where the evidence even seems to go against us. And it's okay to acknowledge that. I find non-Christians are actually more open to the gospel, when you acknowledge that from the start that you don’t have all the answers.

We DON'T have all the answers!
If we understood everything about God...
we'd be God. Only God understands everything.
What can an ant know about a human?
It's about the same.

*And of course, then after all that, when I looked at the Bible side of things, I discovered my entire apologetic had after all those years been all wrong from the start. Modern science doesn't go against Genesis 1, but neither does it support it. Turns out it has next to nothing to do with it! The two are largely apples and oranges that speak to different questions. I have learned how vitally important it is separate modern science from Scripture, at least initially. First, seek to understand what Scripture says, independently of science, and what does science say independently of Scripture. Failure to do this results in much anachronism, and reading back modern scientific ideas into Genesis 1 where they don't belong, and do 'violence' to the text. And it ends up missing the point as Barbarian and Niblo (and now it seems wondering) have noted.

OK
But I think when God said LET THERE BE LIGHT!
The Big Bang exploded !!

*I've already noted the compelling evidence that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. But it doesn't stop there. There are many levels to Genesis 1, and its genre is unique: a combination of poetry and prose. "Exalted prose," as some call it. In addition to being an anti pagan polemic, Genesis 1 also seems to present creation as a cosmic temple of sorts in which God resides, and is ever present. Then in Genesis 2-3, Adam and Eve are described in terms of having a priestly function. The lampstand, branched Jewish menorah in the tabernacle and temple were actually symbolic of the tree of life in the garden.

*Throughout the Bible there exists this common thread that always seems to go back to God's Presence. God's Presence in creation from the beginning. God's Presence lost. God's Presence restored through the cross. God's Presence forevermore in Revelation where we see the tree of life again in the new heaven.

Great!

 

[TMal3]

OK
But I think when God said LET THERE BE LIGHT!
The Big Bang exploded !!

Oooh, you might like this. The whole God creating light on Day 1 before creating the sun on Day 4 has long baffled believers. And I've never seen a fully satisfying answer... until Johnston's article. He mentioned something that has made more sense to me than anything I've heard in the past 40 years.

First, it stands to reason that whatever "light" God created on Day 1 is still here today. Some people argue that God created a temporary light source until the sun took over, but that would make it the single exception of something God created that He then destroyed.

The solution seems so obvious now in hindsight, but we are so conditioned to think in our modern way that we would never consider the possibility of this (or at least I never did).

What was the light God created on Day 1? Daylight, obviously. The light of day. But we still don't have the sun. And here's where Johnston points out the modern assumption in our thinking: in ancient times they didn't make the connection between the sun and daylight, but apparently saw these as two separate light sources. After all, there is already daylight before the sun rises, and when the sun sets it is still light out for awhile. Apparently they never put two and two together that the sun was the source of daylight.

Well anyway the Egyptian explanation for daylight was that it was actually the god Atum, and Atum (light) was the first created thing from the primeval watery chaos (#1 below), while the sun god (Ra) wasn't created until step 8.

Genesis of course, shows this is all wrong. The basic order is the same but daylight and the sun are created things, not gods. There is only one true God.

Hermopolis tradition

 

[BeyondET]

Yep, the good old Planarian lab I sometimes do with my biology students. You're right, it truly is amazing. Believe it or not it has even been demonstrated that Planarians could learn to navigate an environmental "maze," and then cut in pieces like you said and regenerate the missing parts but retain or be able to reconstitute the memory of how to navigate the maze. An exciting area of research that could help amputees and those with malformed limbs if we ever figure out regeneration.

Monarch butterflies retain memory as well. They do it over multiple generations in yearly migrations from Canada to Mexico.

 

[BeyondET]

Oooh, you might like this. The whole God creating light on Day 1 before creating the sun on Day 4 has long baffled believers. And I've never seen a fully satisfying answer... until Johnston's article. He mentioned something that has made more sense to me than anything I've heard in the past 40 years.

First, it stands to reason that whatever "light" God created on Day 1 is still here today. Some people argue that God created a temporary light source until the sun took over, but that would make it the single exception of something God created that He then destroyed.

The solution seems so obvious now in hindsight, but we are so conditioned to think in our modern way that we would never consider the possibility of this (or at least I never did).

What was the light God created on Day 1? Daylight, obviously. The light of day. But we still don't have the sun. And here's where Johnston points out the modern assumption in our thinking: in ancient times they didn't make the connection between the sun and daylight, but apparently saw these as two separate light sources. After all, there is already daylight before the sun rises, and when the sun sets it is still light out for awhile. Apparently they never put two and two together that the sun was the source of daylight.

Well anyway the Egyptian explanation for daylight was that it was actually the god Atum, and Atum (light) was the first created thing from the primeval watery chaos (#1 below), while the sun god (Ra) wasn't created until step 8.

Genesis of course, shows this is all wrong. The basic order is the same but daylight and the sun are created things, not gods. There is only one true God.

Hermopolis tradition

I just read the days as such, 1,2,4,3,5,6,7. Definitely not meaning would consider that.