Or that have some convoluted theory that doesn't match the description that God has given us, but explains it all while still allowing that God did it.
A Big Bang needing a Big Banger is not particularly "convoluted" to me...
But I also know that there are books piled high that tell us that there are many gods and there are other gods and there are no gods. But the Scriptures declare of themselves to be the very oracles of the one true and living God and God has proven to us that they are true and that He is the one God who really knows the end from the beginning and all that is going on in this world through prophetic foretelling of events to happen in the future.
But why do you trust the Bible is, indeed, the word of God? Because it says so of itself? I hope not. Taking this view would be starkly circular in its reasoning.
I believe God's word is what it says it is because of extra-biblical reasons to do so, not solely because it claims to be God's word. Thematic unity, fulfilled prophecy, historicity, survivability, effect upon nations and individuals, correspondence to reality, expanatory scope, etc. - these all confirm to me that the Bible is divine revelation. When I make a comparison of the Bible, then, to other religious texts, I can see that none of them "measure up." They all of them fall far short of those things that set apart the Bible as God's word.
I must do the same evaluation against reasonable criteria when I consider the Genesis account. I don't just assume that the account ought to be taken just as its given - especially when solid, empirical data indicates there's more to the story than the account imparts to the reader.
God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine to be, and He has given us His testimony of 'how' we got here.
Yes. But His "testimony" is not by any means an exhaustive description of the mechanics of the event. Science furnishes us with more of this dimension of the story.
He defined each singular day as consisting of one evening and morning. He couldn't have possibly made it any more clear to us, but then we have science.
Well, as I've pointed out, what you think is "clear" turns out to be not so clear. Read Lennox's book.
And because we think of ourselves to be soooo much smarter than God, our scientists have given us many, many alternate explanations for 'how' we got to be living here in what we call the year 2024 on the spinning ball of dirt and rock that we call the earth.
I suppose some scientists may think they are "soooo much smarter than God" - really, I think, mostly, the secular ones deny God exists and so make no comparisons to Him at all.
It's been observed, of course, that "science doesn't say anything; scientists do." And so, I keep this in mind when considering the interpretation of the data that a God-denying scientist offers. Fortunately, there are very high-level scientists who are Christians - Dr. James Tour, Dr. Stephen Meyers, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr, Michael Behe, etc, who can tell us what the data of scientific exploration reveals. And though their explanations can be very involved and technical (read "Signature in the Cell," or "Darwin's Doubt" by Meyers, or listen to one of Dr. Tour's YouTube lectures on abiogenesis), they are able to assure us that the biblical account of Creation is not eroded but
established by science.
It seems, though, that some Christians don't want to bother with the God-confirming data coming from scientific research, not because it isn't supportive of the Christian worldview, but because understanding the data requires that they think in a deeper, more sophisticated way. They want a "simple faith" and bridle at those who complicate it. For myself, I'm glad of the Christian scientists who've been able to offer a natural theology to me that helps ground my worldview, not in blind faith, but in solid, very reasonable, empirical fact.
Listen, God wrote His testimony to you because God knew that the day was coming when men would not put up with sound doctrine.
He gave us the divine revelation of Scripture to guide us, to constrain us, and, most importantly, to reveal Himself and something of His will and purposes to us. (See
Psalms 1; Psalms 119; 2 Timothy 3:16-17.)
But the only thing that I am absolutely sure in the deepest part of my heart and mind is that God's word is the truth of what God has done. No one else was there but the trinity of God and the angelic realm. Beyond that, man can only guess... and so he does.
Not guess,
deduce. This is what science and scientists are always doing (and philosophy and philosophers before them). And it is what we do many times a day, too, with lesser, more mundane things, trusting our deductions quite a lot, in some cases. For an example of what may be deduced from the facts of the beginning of Creation, consider the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This syllogism is logically airtight, the conclusion following necessarily from the premises such that if the conclusion is correct, it is so as certainly as anything else we believe we can know for sure. But this syllogism isn't a guess any more than the expansion of the universe is a guess. From both things, reasonable
deductions (or inferences, if you like) can be made as to the nature of the universe and the character of its beginning that one can hold to with well-justified confidence.
