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

[Barbarian]

I don't know what Bible you're reading.

Every Bible I ever saw says this. Compare here:

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:25 - King James Version

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.

www.biblegateway.com

The good part of this discussion is that it has nothing whatever to do with one's salvation. God doesn't care about what we think of the way life was created.

 

[Barbarian]

There is not a single Old Testament scholar in the world who would agree with what you're saying that Genesis 1 teaches that "God used nature to create living things."

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years
ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later
there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the
condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In
our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have
been favorable to the emergence of life.
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic
life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on
this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living
organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have
descended from this first organism.
Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes
mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and
diversification of life on earth...
From the Report of the International Theological Commission, chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Bendict XVI.

The primary sense of the term natural theology rests on the contrast between natural and revealed knowledge. Natural theology concerns knowledge of the existence and attributes of God arrived at using only the natural faculties of sense and reason. Philosophical arguments for the existence, intelligence, power, and goodness of God based on the order and beauty of the world, or on purely intellectual considerations, are examples of natural theology. Knowledge of God that is based on divine revelation as set down in scripture is the subject of revealed theology.

Natural Theology | Encyclopedia.com

NATURAL THEOLOGY. The primary sense of the term natural theology rests on the contrast between natural and revealed knowledge. Natural theology [1] concerns knowledge of the existence and attributes of God [2] arrived at using only the natural faculties of sense and reason.

www.encyclopedia.com

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know what Bible you're reading. There was no such thing as "naturalism" vs "supernaturalism" in ancient biblical times. *Everything* had a supernatural cause behind it.

Romans 1:20 seems to deny this.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[TMal3]

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years
ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later
there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the
condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In
our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have
been favorable to the emergence of life.
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic
life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on
this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living
organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have
descended from this first organism.
Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes
mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and
diversification of life on earth...
From the Report of the International Theological Commission, chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Bendict XVI.

The primary sense of the term natural theology rests on the contrast between natural and revealed knowledge. Natural theology concerns knowledge of the existence and attributes of God arrived at using only the natural faculties of sense and reason. Philosophical arguments for the existence, intelligence, power, and goodness of God based on the order and beauty of the world, or on purely intellectual considerations, are examples of natural theology. Knowledge of God that is based on divine revelation as set down in scripture is the subject of revealed theology.

Natural Theology | Encyclopedia.com

NATURAL THEOLOGY. The primary sense of the term natural theology rests on the contrast between natural and revealed knowledge. Natural theology [1] concerns knowledge of the existence and attributes of God [2] arrived at using only the natural faculties of sense and reason.

www.encyclopedia.com

Agreed. But this is not what the Bible teaches. We can't twist Scripture to fit science or vice versa even if it leaves us with an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture. Young earth creationists are correct that 24-hour day is the most straightforward understanding of "day" in Genesis 1, but they are wrong to then try to distort the findings of science to support this. Old earth creationists are correct that science shows that the earth and universe are billions of years old, but they are wrong to then try to twist Scripture to make "day" in Genesis mean long periods of time.

 

[TMal3]

Romans 1:20 seems to deny this.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Yes, this is general revelation. We look around at creation and can't escape the conclusion that there is a Creator. But that doesn't contradict or change the truth of what I said, nor does that verse say that God used His creation to create stuff

 

[TMal3]

The good part of this discussion is that it has nothing whatever to do with one's salvation. God doesn't care about what we think of the way life was created.

Amen to that!

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, this is general revelation. We look around at creation and can't escape the conclusion that there is a Creator. But that doesn't contradict or change the truth of what I said, nor does that verse say that God used His creation to create stuff

God uses nature to do most things in this world. You and I are created by God, but our bodies are made via nature, not supernaturally.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Agreed. But this is not what the Bible teaches. We can't twist Scripture to fit science or vice versa even if it leaves us with an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture.

When one understands both, they fit. No twisting needed. But it is more complex than Freshman biology and Sunday School Genesis.

Young earth creationists are correct that 24-hour day is the most straightforward understanding of "day" in Genesis 1, but they are wrong to then try to distort the findings of science to support this.
Old earth creationists are correct that science shows that the earth and universe are billions of years old, but they are wrong to then try to twist Scripture to make "day" in Genesis mean long periods of time.

Why? In Noah's day does not mean Noah lived one 24 hour period. Even in English the word "day" can mean a lot period of time. Again, grade school Sunday schoolers believe God poofed everything into being. The adult understanding of the matter is much more complex.

 

[Barbarian]

Agreed. But this is not what the Bible teaches. We can't twist Scripture to fit science or vice versa even if it leaves us with an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture.

There's no dichotomy. If scripture and science seem contradictory than we have misunderstood one or both of them.

"We know in fact, truth cannot contradict truth." - Pope John Paul II

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (1996) - Vatican Observatory

Article 3 pages Level: university In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, Pope John Paul II noted that evolution is “more than just...

www.vaticanobservatory.org

If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, 'The author of this book is mistaken'; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. Saint Augustine

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.
Saint Augustine

Good advice. I should keep that in mind...

 

[Barbarian]

Why? In Noah's day does not mean Noah lived one 24 hour period.

"Yom" has a lot of different meanings, including "one cycle of daylight and dark", "in my time", "always", "forever" and so on.

 

[Paul Timothy]

When one understands both, they fit. No twisting needed. But it is more complex than Freshman biology and Sunday School Genesis.

Why? In Noah's day does not mean Noah lived one 24 hour period. Even in English the word "day" can mean a lot period of time. Again, grade school Sunday schoolers believe God poofed everything into being. The adult understanding of the matter is much more complex.

The matter is not more complex.
Poof would be my adult view of how creation happened.

 

[TMal3]

Once again, the point (that keeps getting missed) is that it doesn't matter what *we* think Scripture means. It only matters what it meant to the original intended audience. We must understand Scripture in its *original context.*

This is basic Biblical Hermeneutics 101. I like this diagram of the process: (1) First, determine what it meant then to the ancient audience, in order to know (2) what it actually means, so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today.

People don't realize how much they read modern ideas back into Genesis 1 where they don't belong. People read Genesis 1 through the lens of the "evolution-creation" debate and as a result completely misunderstand Genesis 1.

I remember the first biblical commentary I read on Genesis. I was so excited, thinking that finally all my questions about the creation-evolution debate were going to be answered, as well as debates over whether "day" in Genesis means long ages or 24-hours; and what Day 2 tells us about the "water vapor canopy" theory as a source of water for Noah's Flood; and how Day 3 and the appearance of land relates to plate tectonics; and whether or not "Let there be light" has to do with the Big Bang Theory; and other such things.

Needless to say, I came away extremely disappointed, and discovered that Genesis 1 doesn't speak to such questions or concerns. What does Genesis 1 says about all the aforementioned things. Answer: absolutely nothing! Genesis 1 has little to nothing to do with our modern debates on the age of the earth and evolution vs creation. And as a result, most people completely miss the point of Genesis 1 as it was meant to be understood in its *original context.*

As long as people continue trying to read modern scientific debates back into Genesis, they will keep getting it wrong and interpreting Scripture incorrectly. (Just the same as when people incorrectly read Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing a Christmas trees or even Christmas).

 

[Barbarian]

As long as people continue trying to read modern scientific debates back into Genesis, they will keep getting it wrong and interpreting Scripture incorrectly. (Just the same as when people incorrectly read Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing a Christmas trees or even Christmas).

Well, Christmas trees aren't originally Christmas trees. Christians co-opted much older pagan holidays, and this holiday tree goes back a lot farther than Christianity. Doesn't matter to me. It's lost almost all of its pagan connections, but the history exists. Jerimiah wasn't talking about Yule trees, however. Those verses have exactly nothing to do with Christmas trees.

 

[TMal3]

Exactly. And that's precisely my point. People do the same type of thing with Genesis when they erroneously read modern questions, concerns, and debates back into Genesis where they don't belong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Exactly. And that's precisely my point. People do the same type of thing with Genesis when they erroneously read modern questions, concerns, and debates back into Genesis where they don't belong.

The mindset that you are missing occurs in the believers who actually think that God really did talk to Moses face to face as a man talks to his friend, and that what Moses wrote down in a particular way was what God wanted him to write, that is, the truth. My husband studied theology and told me that the genesis account was so vastly superior to other explanations available at the time it was astounding (the world created from the belly of a goddess, etc..).

What in Genesis matches science as we know it today (but was not the case 100 years ago because science was WRONG?) Genesis says that the universe is older than the earth but it had a beginning. The earth is older than life upon it. Animals are older than man. Man is the latest of the creation acts. That matches science and as I said, did not from Aristotle to the discovery that the universe had a beginning (which scientists refused to believe because it sounded like Genesis.)

What else does Genesis beautifully explain that Evolution cannot? Man's moral and intellectual capacity. Man can be unbelievably honorable, brave, generous, kind, loving, etc. Man can also be unbelievably cruel, evil, selfish, hateful, etc. There is no justifiable reason why the moral understanding of man would be there from the evolutionary point of view. Virtues, just about all of them, do not aid survival but thwart it. But that is enough of that.

You see, you are missing the point of view of those who believe Genesis tells the truth. But it must be said that the creation of the world including science is more complex than science itself. So the wording is vague enough to contain the truth but simple enough at first same as telling a child to eat their vegetables is simple but the digestive process of those vegetables is anything but simple. Both support "eating vegetables is good for you."

I believe Genesis is an accurate but vague description of those events. The theory of Evolution is accurate is some places but widely wrong in others as measured, not by Genesis, but by real observable biology, that is, how unbiased science works.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Once again, the point (that keeps getting missed) is that it doesn't matter what *we* think Scripture means. It only matters what it meant to the original intended audience. We must understand Scripture in its *original context.*

This is basic Biblical Hermeneutics 101. I like this diagram of the process: (1) First, determine what it meant then to the ancient audience, in order to know (2) what it actually means, so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today.

People don't realize how much they read modern ideas back into Genesis 1 where they don't belong. People read Genesis 1 through the lens of the "evolution-creation" debate and as a result completely misunderstand Genesis 1.

I remember the first biblical commentary I read on Genesis. I was so excited, thinking that finally all my questions about the creation-evolution debate were going to be answered, as well as debates over whether "day" in Genesis means long ages or 24-hours; and what Day 2 tells us about the "water vapor canopy" theory as a source of water for Noah's Flood; and how Day 3 and the appearance of land relates to plate tectonics; and whether or not "Let there be light" has to do with the Big Bang Theory; and other such things.

Needless to say, I came away extremely disappointed, and discovered that Genesis 1 doesn't speak to such questions or concerns. What does Genesis 1 says about all the aforementioned things. Answer: absolutely nothing! Genesis 1 has little to nothing to do with our modern debates on the age of the earth and evolution vs creation. And as a result, most people completely miss the point of Genesis 1 as it was meant to be understood in its *original context.*

As long as people continue trying to read modern scientific debates back into Genesis, they will keep getting it wrong and interpreting Scripture incorrectly. (Just the same as when people incorrectly read Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing a Christmas trees or even Christmas).

I know this is what theologians learn in reference to studying the scripture. But, frankly speaking, I have grave doubts that arriving at the same understanding the people to whom the piece was written can be deciphered. The language is in some places is unknown and no one alive today understands it as they did. The culture is not at all known, just guessed at. This seems to work, probably, because anyone who could correct them is dead.

The test would be this. Give a theologian a message written to a people on the earth whose culture has no resemblance to his own or any he ever lived in. Teach him the language without any context that normally accompanies language learning. He learns the words and grammar and so on. Then you give him a message written to those people from one of their own that is fairly deep. Then you ask him to tell us what the meaning of that message is to the people who received it, their situation and so on and see if he gets it right according to the people who actually received it.

CS Lewis wrote about the theological concept "Sitz im Leben" which tries to understand the Bible by looking at what the author meant to communicate or what his situation or feelings or motivation was at the time of the writing. He said he had an advantage being an author whose writings underwent this kind of scrutiny from those of his culture and language group. He also knew personally Tolkein and others whose writings underwent similar scrutiny. He said of all the reviewers who attempted this method of evaluation, all of them were wrong. And they had the same culture and language group and time to aid them and still they could not accurately ascertain the reason for writing what was written. He said he could not remember a single hit.

Lastly and most importantly, this method of approaching the Bible very effectively blocks the Holy Spirit from speaking to a man through what is written. That is, the relationship with perhaps not the author but the Inspiratory Source the author had access to, is walled off. God hides understanding from the wise and intelligent (in their own eyes) and reveals them to babes (those dependent upon Him.) This do-it-yourself method of getting understanding is not something God traditionally interferes with. You feel you are sufficient to understand the scriptures on your own strength? Go for it but I am not there, is more His response.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

TMal3

Do not mistake me. I do not disparage studying the history and people and situation. Our pastor once gave a thorough description of the cities who received the letters in Revelation and I remember that enriching information to this day. Other studies that describe the situation as best we know it are helpful. But if understanding all of this made a man better able to follow Jesus, theologian would be the most Christlike of all believers. This is not the case.

 

[TMal3]

Dorothy Mae, you've made a swathe of unfounded assumptions about me. How about instead we focus on what Scripture actually says. Nothing you've said changes the truth that the proper way to interpret Scripture is in it's *original context.* This is a basic principle of biblical interpretation not just followed by theologians, but that pastors learn in seminaries around the world. Stating this doesn't deny the Holy Spirit or divine inspiration of Scripture.

The irony is that this is not a "do it yourself method" of understanding, but just the opposite, an admission that we can't understand it on our own, and that we not only need the Holy Spirit's guidance, but need to make sure we're not trying to read the Bible by our own understanding, through our own eyes, and through our own experiences, and modern cultural lens of understanding. That's how people err in interpretation. Like incorrectly seeing Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing as Christmas trees. Like erroneously reading "water vapor canopies," or plate tectonics into Genesis 1, or erroneously reading modern ideas of naturalism and abiogenesis into Genesis 1 where they don't belong.

Or, are you saying you agree with Barbarian about that when God said "Let there be," and "the earth brought forth" that this is God's Word telling us that God created life via abiogenesis?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy Mae, you've made a swathe of unfounded assumptions about me.

Like what? I mentioned you’re discounting those who believe Genesis speaks truth. It’s true.

How about instead we focus on what Scripture actually says.

I did. Where didn’t I? You’re making unfounded assumptions about me.

Nothing you've said changes the truth that the proper way to interpret Scripture is in it's *original context.*

I guess the whole of what I said eludes you. You cannot possibly know that in many cases.

This is a basic principle of biblical interpretation not just followed by theologians, but that pastors learn in seminaries around the world.

Which explains why so many pastors cannot hear from God. They don’t need to do so.

Stating this doesn't deny the Holy Spirit or divine inspiration of Scripture.

Just means the Holy Spirit needn’t speak. They’ve got it nailed. Of course they piously ask Him to help them but the truth is they’re satisfied on their own.

The irony is that this is not a "do it yourself method" of understanding, but just the opposite, an admission that we can't understand it on our own, and that we not only need the Holy Spirit's guidance, but need to make sure we're not trying to read the Bible by our own understanding, through our own eyes, and through our own experiences, and modern cultural lens of understanding.

That’s exactly what it means. Figure it out on your own by a man made method. You know, no one in scripture ever used that method.

That's how people err in interpretation. Like incorrectly seeing Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing as Christmas trees. Like erroneously reading "water vapor canopies," or plate tectonics into Genesis 1, or erroneously reading modern ideas of naturalism abiogenesis into Genesis 1 where they don't belong.

Those are very rare people or cults like JWs.

Or, are you saying you agree with Barbarian about that when God said "Let there be," and "the earth brought forth" that this is God's Word telling us that God created life via abiogenesis?

I believe God created life as science tells us all life comes from life, no exceptions.

 

[TMal3]

"Like what? I mentioned you’re discounting those who believe Genesis speaks truth. It’s true"--- False, I believe Genesis is true

"I guess the whole of what I said eludes you. You cannot possibly know that in many cases."---You are correct. We don't always know the original context or don't always know it completely. That doesn't change the fact that the proper way to understand Scripture is not in *our own context, our own understanding* but as it was originally meant to be understood.

"Which explains why so many pastors cannot hear from God. They don’t need to do so."---I didn’t know you had the power to know the heart and motivations of "so many pastors." We could say the same of nonpastors who make the Bible a matter of private interpretation

"Just means the Holy Spirit needn’t speak. They’ve got it nailed. Of course they piously ask Him to help them but the truth is they’re satisfied on their own"--- What's pious is this statement and believing that you know and can judge the heart and motivations of people, and pastors, and theologians you don't know.

"That’s exactly what it means. Figure it out on your own by a man made method. You know, no one in scripture ever used that method"---This type of comment never ceases to amaze. So you're the only one interpreting Scripture correctly? Got it.

"Those are very rare people or cults like JWs."---I know plenty of Christians who believe Jeremiah 10 prohibits Christmas trees.

"I believe God created life as science tells us all life comes from life, no exceptions."--- And look at that. You accuse me of using methods outside the Bible, and then appeal to methods outside the Bible.