Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > God

Posted by: Celtic cat 06-Oct-2005, 02:45 PM

I have decided to quote Haldur since he brought this up in a separate topic, and my story didn't fit there.

Quote: Haldur:
"The scientific community would have you believe to look at nature as evidence to "natural selection" and "The Big Bang theory" which are solely based on impirical evidence, or, that which can be seen, heard, felt, etc. The scientific community has for years attempted to discount religious fact for impirical theory so that their systems can be accepted, thus leading to mankind being in control rather than God being in control."

I have developed the opinion that the scientific community and Christians can live together without argument. This is why. Consider the "Big Bang". Most Christians don't like this proposal because it contradicts the idea that God is in control. Now very important...God IS in control. Why is it not possible that God in his infinite wisdom couldn't have created the "big bang". To think about this with an open mind one cannot take the bible literally. So the bible begins..."God Created Heaven and Earth". Who can possibly prove what creating heaven and earth looks like. None of us know, so this creation very well could have in fact been the "big bang". Also , for all those other religious/science contraditions ...keep in mind that God is not bound by time. Just think about it. I could explain how God could have controlled evolution, if anyone is interested, but I will wait for you to ask.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 06-Oct-2005, 03:00 PM

I completely agree with you here Celtic Cat. I think for far too long science and religion have butted heads needlessly. The fact that science explains something doesn't discount religion. A physics teacher explained it this way to me in high school.

Science explains the what and how, religion explains the why.

The creation of heaven and earth. Science explains this with the big bang. Religion explains that God did this to make a home for people. So what if the bible didn't explain the physics and everything of how and what happened when the universe was created? Does that mean science is wrong? Does is make science more right? No.

If you need science to explain your religion, then you don't have much faith. Science doesn't even disprove God. It just explains how and what happens in the world in a scientific language. It no more disproves God than Spanish disproves French.

Posted by: oldraven 06-Oct-2005, 03:09 PM

Over the last few years, I've come to the understanding that many scientific theories of origin are not refuting creationism. Rather they unlock some of the secrets to his method.

The more complicated the universe gets, the more probable it is that the universe was designed; not a fluke.

Einstein said something to the effect of "The more I understand about the universe, the more it proves God exists."

Some other actual quotes by Einstein on God.

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." (this one in particular aligns with my belief)

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." (WOO HOO! Keep 'em comin' Bert)

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

I'm reading many of these for the first time myself. Amazingly, Einstein's views of our world and its world are frighteningly parallel to my own. Please read them. They are truley beautiful.

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Oct-2005, 05:17 PM

Cat,

That which you are referring to: the coexistence of God and science, is an idea most often suggested by devout Christians. However, some in the scientific community, Stephen Hawkings being the power hitter here, also believe that God's existence better answers some of the holes, or vacancies within their own theories. Now when you discuss this with Atheists, or those who staunchly defend science in place of God, you will encounter some serious opposition. There are even websites that teach someone how to rebut a person who makes reference to God using the "big bang", and "evolutionary process" as a method for His creation. I saw another one just earlier today, but unfortunately I didn't save it. Sorry.

The discussion is a wonderful one to have, and one that I think the people here could carry on with mutual respect. I'll do my best over the next few days to dredge up some information I have found over the last year or so. Hopefully it will add something of value.

Posted by: Celtic cat 08-Oct-2005, 12:53 PM

Hey guys thanks for all the responses, and Oldraven thanks for the Einstein quotes I love him. Hopefully Haldur isn't mad at me for using his quote as a basis for argument.

Posted by: anhrefn 08-Oct-2005, 02:38 PM

there's a really great book you might be interested in reading. it's called 'the rebirth of nature: the greening of science and god' by rupert sheldrake, a biologist from the uk.

Posted by: pkalexander 08-Oct-2005, 04:17 PM

I've long been a firm believer that when the scientists and the mystics get to the mountain top they will laugh at how close they have been. It seems that the more we learn scientifically the more it coincides with what is made manifest by the Spirit.

Good topic.

Posted by: SCShamrock 09-Oct-2005, 08:01 AM

Cat,

I did a fair bit of research on this subject earlier this year, but I have also done a system recovery on my machine so some things weren't saved-----I think this information is some of that.

Anyway, I did remember some of the websites that I visited, and here they are:

http://www.godandscience.org/

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/

http://www.crosscurrents.org/darwin.htm

Posted by: j Padraig moore 10-Oct-2005, 09:52 AM

I have to agree with the comments here - why couldn't God have jumpstarted the creation with a big bang? Why couldn't God have directed the development (creation) of different species via evolution?

I hear constantly the arguments between scientists and creationists. This weekend the wife and I got into a pretty heated discussion regarding the concept that death could not have existed before the Fall in the Garden of Eden. The Bible states that there was no death prior to Adam and Eve's sin. Therefore there could be no death, that is of dinosaurs, etc before the Fall.

Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Oct-2005, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (j Padraig moore @ 10-Oct-2005, 10:52 AM)

I have to agree with the comments here - why couldn't God have jumpstarted the creation with a big bang? Why couldn't God have directed the development (creation) of different species via evolution?

There is no good reason that God, in the way in which most religions proclaim him to be "All Powerful", couldn't use the big bang or natural selection, evolution, ect., as his method for creation.

Here is some more interesting material to peruse.

http://www.philosophyclass.com/metaphysics.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Fallacies.htm

Posted by: reddrake79 15-Oct-2005, 09:08 AM

I am a science teacher that believes in an all powerfull God, Could God have used evolution-sure he is all powerfull. Did he? Let God answer that one. In Genesis God said he created the earth in Six Days. Evolution, according to its proponents, needs a much longer period of time. (billions of years) The battle isnt between science and Christian beliefs. The battle is between two beliefs, Bible based and man based.
I have seen this bumber sticker "I believe in the Bing bang- God spoke and bang it happened" The big bang was originally used to disprove the Bibles account of creation and to say that there isnt a God, that is why so many christians reject the idea. I do not believe you can seperate your beliefs from science. Everyone carries there beliefs around with them and interprets what they see with their beliefs. Besides a lot of the evidences for evolution don't exist. Were are all the transitional fossils? radiometric dating is not reliable. All the "apeman" fossils have been reclassified as either fully ape or fully man or a hoax. Christian Scientists are making many advances with their research. two institutions- Insitute For Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis are making great strides in informing people about their findings.
Natural selection, survival of the fitess- does not lead to evolution. Ill leave it at this for now.

Posted by: oldraven 17-Oct-2005, 08:00 AM

QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 15-Oct-2005, 08:08 AM)

In Genesis God said he created the earth in Six Days. Evolution, according to its proponents, needs a much longer period of time. (billions of years) The battle isnt between science and Christian beliefs. The battle is between two beliefs, Bible based and man based.

In this case, I think it's a battle of terminology and assumed definitions.

QUOTE

Natural selection, survival of the fitess- does not lead to evolution. Ill leave it at this for now.

It does account for micro-evolution, which I believe is the only form of evolution that has occured. Forget about transitional fossils, where are the transitional species today? We still have apes, and we've got men, but never have I seen an apeman in my life. There is no denying that humanity has changed over even the last century, due to micro-evolution. But that will never make a connection between man and monkey. Just this age of Man and that.

Posted by: reddrake79 17-Oct-2005, 08:47 PM

Ill agree with the comment about assumed definitions.

let's define evolution-a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations (as defined by miriam webster online)

What evolution has occured in humans?
normally evolution inplies that new genetic information is appearing in species.

The genetic information in man has always been there. No new info has appeared over the years. Currently it is distributed differently than in the past.

This is why I don't like using the term micro-evolution, but "speciation"

I know I am being nitpicky, but I think this term more adequatly describes how we get different species. And I dont want anyone thinking that I am talking about traditional evolution.

Posted by: oldraven 18-Oct-2005, 07:55 AM

Well, I actually don't believe Speciation and Microevolution are one in the same. Speciation actually is a part of Macroevolution. One species becoming another. Micro emplies the adaption of a species to a changing environment. Such as, humans have been getting taller. They aren't turning into giraffes, just getting taller.

Anyway, we're drifting from the topic.

Posted by: oldraven 18-Oct-2005, 08:46 AM

I stumbled upon this and had to post it here.

Posted by: Raven 18-Oct-2005, 10:38 AM

I have maintained for sometime that where science is truly scientific and relying on the empiracle evidence, that there is no dispute with God.

I.E. Molecules to man/macro evolution is not scientific as it not only lacks empiracle evidence but is in direct contradiction to the 2nd law of thermo dynamics.

Not to upset anyone as far as the days of creation goes,,,,but in order to reconcile that to myself I had to look at how a day is defined, which is by the rotation of the earth. So the first day described in Genesis could have been much longer than 24 hours if the Earth was not actually rotating. To back this up, there is strong archeological/historical evidence that a year is longer today than it was in the time of Joshua. Just some food for thought.

I personally believe that the creation took 7 days, just not days as we know them today. I also believe that the universe started from one central point in line with the Big Bang idea. I took an astro physics course in college thinking it was going to be an easy elective (they called it stellar astronomy) it was hard but it got me hooked. I figure even if the calculations of distance to the stars are off by as much as 90% we need to take a hard look at the definition of 7 days and the definition of what was being created in Genesis as it relates to the age of the universe.

Good Thread....more stimulating talk internet

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: Randy 18-Oct-2005, 12:20 PM

I know it may seem right but an ordered system ie. DNA does not go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. Actually it is a favored condition.

Stick with me here:

Basically the 2nd law says atoms, molucules, nature in general prefer or tend to move in the direction of disorder (entropy).

DNA is a very ordered system, right? Absolutely but what is being forgotten is the solution that the DNA is in. There are forces that hold or attract other molecules together. (hydrogen bond, general electrostatic interactions) These forces order the solution around them, this order goes against entropy. SO, if if you have a BALL of DNA the solution will not be able to interact with some of the molecules the form the DNA (the ones in the middle of the ball), where if the DNA where broken up into even the amino acids the make it up the solution will be free to interact with all the DNA molucules actually making more order .

I hope my explanition is understood, if not let me know and I will take the time to explain this in more detail. Pictures actually help alot in understanding this concept.

Posted by: Raven 18-Oct-2005, 12:58 PM

Sure I understand the concept. But it begs the question. How did DNA come about.

The problem that I have with spontaneous generation of life is the same problem I have with spontaneous generation (maggots from garbage)

There is no empiracle evidence to suggest this. It is simply an explanation for something that is not understood and fails to follow scientific method. I think the issue with DNA is the same as the Christian explanation of the distance to the stars problem with time. Some circles say that light is slowing down,not a constant, and at some point moved a lot faster explaining the great distance to stars and the short time period apparently given by the Bible for creation's existence.

My issues in both cases are with the science involved. Neither can be conclusively demonstrated and I would tend to believe that the conclusions are based more on our increasing ability to examine more specifically and not due to a circumstance that exists outside of known proven laws/science.

I think trying to demonstrate that DNA moves towards a more ordered existence is much like saying the universe is perpetual with out begining or end but pendulems back and forth in expansion and contraction.

Entrophy states that left to their own devices everything moves towards disorder rather than order. The human body would appear to be a contradiction to this as it grows and becomes stronger (the unexplained miracle of life force) but eventually every life ends whether plant or animal, demonstrating that in spite of appearances we are moving towards disorder suffering entrophy from the moment of conception.

I am not disinterested in your ideas Randy, I just think that they beg the question. Evolution (in the macro form) is still always talked of as a theory because it lacks the proper scientific evidence to be considered a law. Were it a law I would adjust my theology accordingly

I reject the idea of macro evolution on the basis of lack of any conclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence such as the maggot example and when people used to think that the sun revolved around the Earth.

I am not suggesting that your thought is as simplistic as those examples only putting out my "theory"

that given time it will prove to be in the same catagory of things not being as they appear.

All the Best!!

Mikel

Posted by: Celtic cat 25-Oct-2005, 03:41 PM

Wow, okay guys. I like what Oldraven said. I am completely sure that microevolution has occured. Adaptation has occured in Giraffes too, so it is very possible. I figure most can agree on this. Now I'm adding a new factor to my original post.

Disclaimer: Im not good with terminology so if I used the wrong scientific wording I understand, I just don't know what it is called.

God created the earth....."The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground" Try to follow me. Here goes: scientists have an additional theory that evolution took place from the very first atom. Some kind of molecule ate a mitochondrian, for example, and the mitochondrian did not digest. So it became part of the creature that ate it and from then on things started to evolve continually. The Bible says that man was made from dust not other organisms, but I choose to not take the Bible literally to the extent that God meant what he said but he may have simplified it some.

Think about the people that lived when the Bible was written...Do you honestly think they would have understood if God had told them that they were created from all these infinite microrganisms. Of course not, so God gave it a term that was something they could see. They knew what dust was, but it took time and humanity to give what God used a name.

That is my theory. One more thing God is not bound by time he is the Almighty! Also thank you for all the discussion very nice.

Posted by: Shadows 25-Oct-2005, 04:00 PM

Questions:

God created man in his image, right?
God took a rib from Adam to make Eve, right?
Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, right?

1st question:

If there were a garden and it had a name it had to exist before Adam and Eve, who or where was Eden?

2nd question, this involves the other 2 questions above:

Does this not sound to you like cloning?

An advanced being would explain to its creations in simple terms where they came from...

Did I just open a can of worms?

Posted by: reddrake79 25-Oct-2005, 09:59 PM

first off, no eden today-destroyed in the flood ( if not by some other means before hand)

Then why didn't God tell his people, "you know this dog over here- well I took it and changed it around a little bit and got a fox"

Actually I do believe that ancient people would understand what God told them. Why do we assume that adam and eve (or their decendants) were stupid?

They were created in the image (reflection) of God. I don't believe that just meant physical but mentally. The only thing the bible says that adam and eve did not know is the knowledge of Good and Evil. The Bible said that God walked with Adam in the garden. This probably meant that they had conversations. now I doubt God wanted to have conversations with a mental 2 year old. The whole idea of the people being less advanced in anciet times is an evolutionary idea. The whole development over time idea. Modern engineers cannot duplicate many of the building projects of the Egyptians, Mayans or even Celts (stonehenge) with the tools that archeologists know they had during those time periods. The only people left after the Great flood were Noah and his family. Do you think that they new everything about biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, and all other things in the world. Some of that was naturally erased from human society by the flood. They could very well have been more advanced than we are today. I am not saying this is definatly true, but just a possibility.

by the way, nitpicky point

, cloning would have resulted in another Adam. If god used genetic engineering He would still need the genetic material there to insert into the cells. You need a miraculous god to change the cells around to create a geneticaly new being.

By the way evolution is not a new idea, just made popular in 1850's. It dates back all the way to ancient greece.

Most people agree that a completely straight forward reading of Genesis tells the story of a powerful God at work creating in six literal days. The only reason people try to fit evolution into the bible is because they believe evolution is true, either in part or in whole, even though it is a theory and NO conclusive evidence has been found to support it. Not because the Bible itself indicates any evolutionary process.
so why try to fit the 2 when special creation works as well as any other theory about the beginning of the universe and still fits into the Bible?
Why would an all powerful God use such a sloppy process as evolution to create what he wanted when all He had to do was speak it into existence?

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Oct-2005, 07:50 AM

QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 25-Oct-2005, 10:59 PM)

so why try to fit the 2 when special creation works as well as any other theory about the beginning of the universe and still fits into the Bible?
Why would an all powerful God use such a sloppy process as evolution to create what he wanted when all He had to do was speak it into existence?

And why would God have his messengers write in Genesis that morning and the evening were second day, then the third day, then the fourth day, and so on? Critics of the literal six day creation will haughtily use the biblical reference of God/man time and say that each day was a thousand years, so therefore the creation took 6000 years. Does this mean that God has morning and evening? Was this a planetary day, with one revolution lasting 1000 years? If so, how did the animal and plant life survive on the dark side of the planet without sunlight (heat) for 1000 years at a time? No, an all powerful God that can create doesn't need to operate under the constraints of human imagination. If He merely said "let there be light" and there was light, then that tells me he can do whatever he wants at will.

Posted by: Raven 26-Oct-2005, 08:36 AM

Shamrock

I don't know that the people who say that each day was 1000 years would necessarilly be critics. The Bible says that 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years to God. Indicating that time is meaningless to God (or at least not the same to Him as us)

As far as how could plants and animals survive with a 1000 year Earth rotation? The same way that people could live to be 1000 years old before the flood. Look into the Canopy theory it offers a lot of possible explanation.

I don't think a 6000 year creation covers it for Evolutionists anyway. They need a lot more time. From the Astro physical standpoint (i.e. distance to stars, speed of light etc...) There needs to be a bit more time at least as far as the age of the universe goes, not necesarilly life on Earth.

I am in no way a proponent of Macro Evolution, life from no life, molecules to man theory. I do believe that the age of the universe fits into the Biblical account. It is one of those things that is interesting to talk about but we will probably end up with no conclusive answers to until we are in Eternity.

I am a proponent of good science and I think that where the science is good and conclusive that it always points to God.

Not cloning by an alien being (ala ET)

but a superior being that we call God who is able to create life from no life (dust) who is Omniscient, Omnipotent and all those other Omni words

Whew

Mikel

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Oct-2005, 10:47 AM

Mikel,

You make a good point about the canopy theory. This is something I have never factored in to my thinking as it pertains to the creation, but perhaps I should give it more thought. By the way, a lot of people who do believe in the canopy theory believe that was the way in which God spoke with man, it being somewhat of a transmitter. Personally, I can go either way on that issue because it is so unimportant to me (because I know God doesn't need that device), but I do find the theory itself to be very interesting and quite possibly the way it was. There that whole issue of separating the waters below the firmament from the waters below the firmament that gives me all the reason in the world to accept the canopy concept.

Posted by: Raven 26-Oct-2005, 03:43 PM

I'm with you Shamrock.

I am sure of one thing and that is that the Genisis account is accurate. (based on evidence for the accuracy of the rest of the Bible) Things that seem impossible are very possible if you have a full and accurate understanding.

Just because I don't fully understand how the universe came into being is in no way evidence that it never came to be

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: Celtic cat 26-Oct-2005, 04:35 PM

Reddrake I'm not assuming that Adam and Eve were stupid, but they had no schooling. They would have had to have been born knowing everything, which doesn't seem possible. Not possible because after Adam and Eve people still had to figure things out on their own throughout hundreds of years.

I'm talking about the people that lived when the Bible was written. The Greeks had already formulated many complex ideas, but the people around when the Bible was written didn't receive much education. People throughout history never usually got an education. The commoners would not have understood. Same reason Jesus used so many parables, to speak to the common people.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 26-Oct-2005, 06:32 PM

I have to say that I, personally, am a literalist. I do believe that the Earth was created in a literal 6 days. My problem is this... If I cannot put faith in what the Bible says in Genesis, then how can I believe anything else that it says? If I can't beleive "and the evening and the morning were the first DAY", then how can I believe "that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"?

According to everything I've read, Moses wrote Genesis. While I do not know how God inspired him to do so, whether it was a dream, a vision, a dictation or whatever, I do know that Moses was just a man. So if, in a vision, he saw the creation of the earth, I believe that his mortal senses would have known the difference between a day and 1,000 years, or millions of years. And I really don't think that God would have had to be so vague to begin with. I think that if it had taken Him 1,000 years to make it, why would the Bible not just plainly say "And the evening and the morning were the first millenium."

I believe that these theories which try to resolve Creation and Evolution serve no other purpose than to erode people's beliefs in an awesome and almighty God. The problem, reddrake, is not so much that they believe evolution to be true, but that they believe the Bible to be false. Their basic premise is "Okay, obviously the Bible is untrue, so how do we explain the existence of the universe without it?" If one started with the premise, "Okay, we know that the Bible is true, so how do we make these findings fit in to what it says?", I'll be that many questions would be resolved.

Posted by: Celtic cat 27-Oct-2005, 05:01 PM

QUOTE (WizardofOwls @ 26-Oct-2005, 07:32 PM)

"but that they believe the Bible to be false. Their basic premise is "Okay, obviously the Bible is untrue, so how do we explain the existence of the universe without it?"

Wizard, I do believe the Bible is true, I'm not trying disprove it. I'm trying to make the two fit together so that the two factions can stop fighting. I am content to believe that the Bible is literal, but I was trying to be open minded, see both sides.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 27-Oct-2005, 07:31 PM

Hi Celtic Cat!

I am truly sorry if you thought that by "they" I meant you or anyone else on this thread. I was speaking of the scientific community in general. I apologize if you took it that way. That was not my intention.

I am going to try to find a website that I found once and, if I am successful, I will post a link here. The website does an in-depth study of carbon-dating and attempts to prove that it is a complete fallacy, based on incorrect assumptions and renders false information. I support that belief, though I am not a scientist and could not begin to say whether or not the site provided correct or accurate information.

I am of the opinion that the Bible is correct, and anything that does not support its teachings must be false and inaccurate.

To my mind, it is just that I cannot see any way that the religious and scientific theories could both be correct. Especially if one takes a literal view of the Bible and believes what it says. But, of course, that is just my opinion.

Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Oct-2005, 07:19 AM

Wizz,

I know many people that think the way you do, and to me its fine. What you demonstrate is faith that is not wavered by human wisdom. Then again, I also know many people that believe science is the only answer, thinking it to be far superior in gaining knowledge than any other device. The two points of view are in contrast to one another, and I think that may be where Cat is having her difficulties. Yet again, there is another type of thinker that I am accustomed to, and it is the one that can accept science for what it is....man's attempt to gather knowledge based on what he already knows. When I read or hear of something that doesn't fit into my understanding of bible scripture, a cornucopia of thought processes begin to take place. I won't consider my understanding of the bible to be perfect, and immediately dismiss the scientific finding, yet I won't haughtily accept the science as being infallible. Science and religion have both brought a lot of positives to the human race, and will likely continue to do so indefinitely. But they have also brought us negative things--disastrous things. The two schools of thought can exist independently, or together, I see no problem. But I do think that it is rather uplifting to find either scientist or theologian that demonstrates a blend of the two.

Posted by: Raven 28-Oct-2005, 09:24 AM

Well Said Shamrock!

I am in agreement with you and that is exactly how my thought process works. If I see something that seems to be in conflict between the Scriptures and Science with the science being credible. I have to realize that I must just be missing something.

I think that the majority of conflicts between science and the Bible exist because scientific theory is often given the same weight as scientific law. In my book that is like equating opinion to fact.

All the best to all!

Mikel

Posted by: WizardofOwls 28-Oct-2005, 09:31 AM

Okay, here is that weblink I promised to try to find for you. The information that I described, pertaining to Carbon dating, is in section 14. I would very much appreciate it if some of you who understand science would take a look at it and give me your opinion on it, since I have no idea how trust-worthy it is. I do not want to give out this website addy (and appear to give it my support) if it is complete and utter hogwash!

While the rest of the website is interesting, I cannot say that I believe it all. I do find it to be an interesting theory, though, and enjoy reading on the subject of the Nephilim.

http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/NeanderthalAndNephilim.html

Posted by: reddrake79 30-Oct-2005, 06:25 PM

In regards to C-14 dating, The Institute For Chration Research (ICR) is revealing some findings in a few weeks that put a major hole in the C-14 method. The research is based on how c-14 degrades into c-12. I have only heard some of the preliminary findings because of a teacher convention in Portland a couple of weeks ago. Also, a major factor that evolutionist assume is that the amount of c-14 has not changed over the millenia, nor has any event occured that would change the c-14 levels in the specimens they are uncovering.

I think God could have explained the process of evolution so that Adam and Eve could have understood it. After all public schools teach it to elementary students.

Also the canopy theory and 1000 year long days - A canopy of water vapor would hold in heat, and thereby fry the light side of the earth during the "morning" of the day. Now the dark side might survive the heat, but when it has a turn as the light side it would fry.

I mean think about it, on a hot day in oregon it can break the 90 degree barrier ( without clouds) , now a thousand years of 24 hours of direct heat would fry that side of the world. The heat would spread, somewhat, but not enough to save the "light" side of the earth.

As has been pointed out, the problem is not science. the problem is the two ideologies that support both sides, or rather the conflict between the two. The question of the beginning of the earth CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY SCIENCE. (emphasis, not yelling

) Science is concerned with what can be observed. No one can observe the beggining of the universe. Its already happened. The process has not been observed to happen now, nor has any scientist observed the process happening in recorded history. They have observed the results of creation/evolution but never the actual process. That is why any scientific argument about the beginning is going to be theory and eventualy end up in the realm of metaphysics (yes even evolution) and personal ideologies will begin to interpret the evidence they see.

BTW I believe that science and the Bible already fit together. Why should we fit the two together if there is something wrong with the scienctific theory? How long should a scientists continue to try to prove a theory before he says its wrong? Over a hundred years of research and no intemediate forms found, highly specialized and unrealistic experiments, and (essentialy) the same theory that was originally proposed. Even prominant evolutionists have to say their theory has holes that needs to be solved.

Posted by: SCShamrock 30-Oct-2005, 07:16 PM

Reddrake, I will use what little intelligence I have to explain my idea about carbon dating, cause God knows I'm not educated in it

.

There are major assumptions being made. Man has not been keeping record of the rates in which radioactive isotopes and material degrade long enough to say unequivocally that the rates they state are even remotely accurate. Perhaps all radioactive particles degenerate to a particular level, and then degrade from then at a much slower level, in which case everything scientists have carbon dated would be much older than it really is. And of course, the exact opposite is true as well. I can't help it, but all my life, even as an elementary school student, I have thought science was full of horse pucky for presuming to know anything in terms of millions or billions of years. It's all just speculation. Physics is another area of major assumptions. Everything works in physics within the confines of planet Earth, or even within our own galaxy, but what about light years away? Is it not possible that all we "know" may cease to be knowledge at all if the standards by which things are measure were to suddenly evaporate into nothingness in another solar system? This may seem too fantastic to even consider, but to me it demonstrates my personal view of some disciplines of science, especially those that presume to detail the conditions on other planets using the data we have gathered here, within
our own atmosphere. Yes, light travels faster than anything. This is true, until something else is discovered to travel faster.

Ok, uneducated sermon over, enjoy your week.

Posted by: Raven 31-Oct-2005, 09:30 AM

SC

It's true C-14 dating has a lot of flaws and is anything but as accurate as a Swiss watch. The same with Radio metric dating.

There is good evidence to support this.

Physical laws and their relevance due to Galactic, Solar or even Universal location on the other had is another matter entirely.

Light is much more unique than just being the fastest thing known to man. It is also a constant. You will not measure light one time and find it getting slower or faster (that is unless you are using different methods of measurement or technology increases so that you do not necessarilly have a change, but instead a more accurate measurement, as has happened lately)

Also lightspeed has some other interesting properties as demonstrated by Special Relativity (still a theory but with strong demonstratable repeatable evidence to back it up) increases in velocity result in exponential increases in mass (proven) the theory is that mass accelerated to lightspeed becomes infinite (i.e. big bang) Time slows exponentially with increase of velocity - demonstrated (theory being that at the speed of light time stops)

While I'm not dismissing out of hand what you say about physics SC, it is pure speculation and there is to date no substance to back up your musings (at least no more substance than with say.........the theory of evolution - Molecules to man version comonly called macro

)

In fact the study of the stars is called Astro Physics and has some very good science in it.

What you are talking about coresponds more with the new physics which in my book is merely meta-physics and has not place in the disipline of physical science but would be better placed with religeon or....

Just my 2 pennies.

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 31-Oct-2005, 07:00 PM

raven,

what experimental evidence has proven the theory of special relativity?

Light speed requires so much energy to begin with (nevermind the apparent mass increase) that scientists are unable to even come close enough to experiment with it. Unless there have been some new experiments I am unaware of.
As far as I know einsteins theories are all based on equations, not actual experiments.

Other question concerning relativity. Einstein stated that it was apparent changes in time, mass, and length. Does apparent changes mean actual physical changes?

The only experiment I have heard of that is even considered to be close enough was when they flew two planes at each other going as fast as they could (no not a collision but fly bys) and even then the speed was so low that the apparent time discrepency was less than a second. ( the clock manufacturer for the test said their clocks could have had physical problems to account for the discrepency)
Im not trying to disprove relativity but merely to point out that as of right now I dont think we can either prove or disprove special relativity because we simply cant experiment with the speed of light. (unless you use sub atomic particles wich has a whole host of their own problems, heisenberg uncertanty principle anyone

)

another point,
There are seperate groups working on theories that pertain to the speed of light and that it might not be as fast now as it was a thousand years ago.

I guess the main point here is that science (as we know it today) is not the end all and be all of human knowledge and reason. What we descover in the next 10 years may change a lot of what we "know". To base our beliefs on science could very well result in us changing our beliefs in the next 10 years. My beliefs are in the bible (which has science in it and is right whenever it talks about science). When there is an apperent difference between the two, sure I check out the passages in the Bible that talks about the relavent material to make sure my understanding is right and then check out the "scientific evidence" to see if the scientists are interpreting their observations objectivly and correctly and see if their is another scientificaly possible explanation for the observation. eg. Can science define what is living? Can science conclusivly say when life starts? Can science say when life ends?

Posted by: Raven 01-Nov-2005, 11:55 AM

Hi Red Drake

2 things

First, I did not say that Special Relativity was proven only that certain elements had been demonstrated.

1) Increase of mass with increase of velocity. Has been demonstrated with electron accelerators. The mass issue is why they are unable to accelerate electrons to light speed. They can get very close but can not achieve it and if special relativity is entirely accurate, I think that is a good thing.

2) Slowing of time with increase in velocity, demonstrated by the NASA with the use of atomic clocks. Clock place in an orbiting space ship advances slower than clock left on earth.

I have been aware of both of these experiments since about 1983.

I am aware of the work of the group that is postulating that light speed is slowing over the last thousand years and I would suggest this. That 1000 years ago the methods used to determine the speed of light were not as accurate as to day. The same could be said of 20 years ago.

Einstein used the words apparent because at the time he wrote special relativity (and for his entire life for that matter) that was the best that could be done. Today certain elements can be demonstrated. (he was certainly right about that E = MC squared thing.

I too believe the Bible. I am only saying that when a difficulty occurs it seems common for certain people (particularly those that have a certain theology that they are tied to ? not a comment about anyone on this board BTW) to throw out good evidence and often science because it does not fit into the way they see/imagine events transpiring.

I am well aware that science does not have all of the answers, but where credit is due?..

I believe the Bible to be totally accurate, it just has places that I don?t understand exactly how events could or did transpire. Sometimes good science may appear to contradict it. I personally believe it is just a matter of understanding how the 2 harmonize.

Frequently people will have a good case for what they believe and rather than stop with what they know, they enter into the area of supposition (scientist and theologian alike) and weaken what was initially a strong case as a result. There is power in knowledge, even the knowledge that says ?I don?t know?

All the best

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 01-Nov-2005, 10:56 PM

thanks raven,

I was not aware of those experiments by nasa. I'll have to look for them and read them. Unfortunatly I still don't think the answer to my question Weather or not the changes in mass, length, and time are actual physical changes or just apparent changes because of the speed of light and the frame rate of our vision or equipment, will be satisfactoraly answered yet. eg. (if our vision lengthens an object but we take a picture, will the object in the picture by the original length or will it be elongated) maybe it doesn't really matter too. Maybe thats just the skeptic in me. That particular idea is neither here nor there though

For every one else reading this thread:

Even if our understanding of physics, and current process rates says the earth is billions of years old (which, to my knowledge, none reliably say) does that mean God had to use that much time during creation? I don't think so. Did God create adam and eve so that when they showed up they were newborns? All indications say God created adam and eve to be adults. Could God not have done the same thing with the universe, give it the apperance of age? As I am saying this, I am not throwing out any scientific evidence nor giving in to the theory of evolution. It may seem like a cop out, but could it not also be a perfectly rational explanation if there is an all powerful God.

The most common way to meld the age of the earth and creation is to say that God could have used evolution and time to create. Yes he could have. Could God have done it in 6 days with each "kind" (usually defined as a group of animals that can mate and have fertile offspring) having the complete genetic code for every specie we see today? Yes he could have. Could God have done it all in 1 hour while blowing his nose? (Im not trying to be sacriligous here) Yes he could have. Let God tell us how he did it. If you believe in an all powerfull God then a few assumtions can be made here

1. He can create any way he wants too.
2. He would have been able to communicate the story of creation to Adam and Eve.
After all God would not get toungue tied or use the wrong words
3. He would have only allowed the correct story to get into His Bible, weather or not
the author completly understood. He said in 2 timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God
breathed and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in
righteousness."
Look at the book of revelations, I doubt John completly understood everything he
was seeing.

Im not saying science is wrong, after all according to my beliefs God created science too, but maybe our interpretation of scientific observations (macroevolution) is suspect merely because we are imperfect humans.

obviously my statements are based on my beliefs that there is an all powerfull God. any statements about evolution and creation aregoing to based on a persons beliefs about God. With all the scientific data I've seen and heard about, ther is no 100% proof for either position. Now I do know of people who have personal stories and i have stories that I think only and all powerful God, who is concerned about me, could account for. These are not scientific but circumstantial. There is enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that there is a God.

Why do my posts allways go longer then i first intend them too?

Posted by: Raven 02-Nov-2005, 12:31 PM

I just broke my finger so this will be short.

I understand that God can do anything he wants, He is God after all.

There are certain aspects in God's character that would indicate that just because He can doen't mean the He will. God is certainly capable of anything by definition of His Omnipotence but he won't lie.

My point is that I belive the Bible to be accurate, I just maintain that we do not fully understand the details. There are observable indicators that show the earth to be much older than 6-12,000 years.

Based on calculated distances to stars. ( i know that htere is and error factor which is one reason why I don't buy billions of years) I certainly buy that we have galaxies and stars further than 6000 light years. That is a relativly short distance.

I funny thought. We may see a sign some day that says "Warning objects in the sky may be much closer than they appear."

As far as how do we know that the evidence of increase in electron mass in electron accelerators is not just apparent........how do we know that our whole lives are not illusion.

I don't think it is profitable to argue that point. It is where modern anti God physics is going. Because physics points to a creator.

All the best!

Mikel

Posted by: Raven 02-Nov-2005, 01:41 PM

Good news, the finger is not broken just very swollen. I had to have my wedding ring cut off

Mikel

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Nov-2005, 03:40 PM

Sorry about your ring Mikel. I am glad to hear that your finger will be ok.

Posted by: Raven 03-Nov-2005, 10:32 AM

Thanks SC

I will be sure to get some closeups of that hand in the video we are shooting Saturday so that you can see the beautiful colors.

Here is something you all might find interesting (if you think my thoughts are interesting

)

I truly feel that God prevented me from being hurt worse than I was and am very greatful that this injury has not interfered with my guitar playing ability.

The question might be "Why didn't God keep you from being hurt at all?" My thought is that If I had not been hurt at all I would not have realized God's hand was in this.

Sure, convoluted thought and with no real proof one way or the other. Just an expression of my faith.

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: SCShamrock 03-Nov-2005, 03:37 PM

By all means Mikel, share. If I were to reveal all the instances in my life that I knew God's hand was there to prevent a catastrophe, it would read like something from Stephen King......guy angers the wrong witch, end up cursed and would have died, save for the interference of the Great Good.

Posted by: reddrake79 04-Nov-2005, 09:51 AM

a ring is easier to replace than a finger, still a bummer though.

There is still one question that hasn't been addressed here. What if God created with the appearance of age? Fully adult man and woman, fully adult animals (chicken first then the egg

) Stars well over six thousand light years away, but the light created in transit so it will arrive at the earth much sooner than the distance should allow.
The Bible doesn't indicate that he wated for anything to grow.

So far the only mathmatical evidence for an old earth is starlight. We don't know everything there is to know about light and space yet. If the cosmic speed limit has slowed down over time ( i know its not proven yet) Then light would have crossed the intervening distances much quicker than we think it should and thus change our calculations of time based on light. What if there was a black hole in the way of the light and it moved and now the light reaches us? There mught be other phenomena in space that could affect light and we don't know about them yet.

Obviously I don't feel the need to sandwich in a few thousand years (or more) into the Genesis account. Scienctists have time and time again tried to show that the Bible could not be right and every time scientists have done this, they have been wrong. With only one piece of evidence, that is not supported by any other method of dating, and the very nature of the measured quantity under debate, would it be wise to try to interpret the Bible based on something the scientitst havn't settled yet?

Posted by: SCShamrock 04-Nov-2005, 01:51 PM

Science hasn't even explained the pyramids, so I don't expect they should be able to determine anything more aged than them with any degree of accuracy. And Reddrake, I think you make a valid point with regards to light. So many times, pseudo-scientists try to limit the power of God to the same principle of physics that we humans are constrained with.

Posted by: Raven 04-Nov-2005, 01:58 PM

Exactly my point RD.

Astro physicists are pretty sure they know the distances to stars.

I think there is good evidence for E=MC squared and special realativity.

Many people think they know the length of the days in Genisis based on the length of a day today.

Just FYI I believe that Jesus was in the Tomb 3 literal days (like 72 hours) just like the Bible says and I don't understand why people will such a hard line on 7 24 hour days for creation and will settle for 3 partial days for the time Jesus was in the tomb, especially since the latter is so obviously true and upon closer examination brings the Gospel accounts into perfect harmony.

There is no reason that God could not have created light in transit and a universe with an appearance of age and if that works for you fine.

To me that seems deceptive and deciet is not a part of God's character. In fact it is one thing the Bible says God can not do. Lie.

He may very well set me straight on that one day

and I will gladly accept that.

In the meantime I have to believe that no man living fully understands the Genesis creation account and it was mean't to be that way. Just as no one fully understands all of the prophecies regarding the end times. It will be revealed when it has reached it's fullness.

As far as being able to buy a new ring......my wife is going one better. She said, "No big deal, we can get new rings." (notice the plural)

BTW my finger is doing much better but I have discovered that I am bruised all over my body.

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 04-Nov-2005, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (Raven @ 03-Nov-2005, 11:32 AM)

Here is something you all might find interesting (if you think my thoughts are interesting

)
I truly feel that God prevented me from being hurt worse than I was and am very greatful that this injury has not interfered with my guitar playing ability.
The question might be "Why didn't God keep you from being hurt at all?" My thought is that If I had not been hurt at all I would not have realized God's hand was in this.

Hmmm, I can't resist commenting on that idea...
Sometimes its thru discomfort or discontentment or downright suffering, that we become aware of how God can come in and either teach us patience or compassion or cause us to appreciate the lack of suffering we had til the incident. If there are no bad times to contrast with the good times, I know I don't always appreciate the good times as much as I should. And like you sensed, sometimes when something almost catastrophic happens we realize that God is paying enough attention to avert the worst. Then you see that maybe He's got something for you to do, to say or some action to take to perhaps bless others, like with your guitar playing... He's not ready for you to quit playing, is he!?

Just my two cents worth!

I am glad you will still be able to play guitar too, by the way; guitar is such a source of inspiration for me even tho I don't play!

Posted by: Raven 09-Nov-2005, 10:34 AM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 04-Nov-2005, 02:51 PM)

SC I was talking to my wife about this idea last night and your comment. (I'm pretty sure you are not referring to me as a psuedo scientist

I don't think either word fits

) I am someone who is absorbed in finding and knowing the truth about everything that I can.

Just some food for thought hear. It is true that scientists can not explain a lot and that they try to explain beyond their ability with confidence that they should not have does this somehow make their valid work suspect? Christians do not understand everything that is in the Bible and yet often some will take stands on issues that are not understandable at this point (i.e. the wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic is one that I personally find very laughable) Does this make the Bible less valid.

I don't believe that good science is less valid or Christianity is less valid as a result of either case. We are talking about interpretation of the evidence in both cases. Unfortunately a poor interpretation often does reflect on the interpreter.

I digress....My point with my wife was that I believe in an all powerful God (omnipotent is the word) I find that God does things which to my way of thinking are more difficult than I would imagine on my own. I also find as I have said that God has a character that is totaly completely honest. An overiding theme in the Bible is Truth. Truth good lies bad, God sends His Spirit of Truth, etc....

To create a world with an appearance of age (i.e. light in transit) would seem decietful to me, that is the first reason I would have a problem with that idea. The second thing is that since nothing is to difficult for God, wouldn't it be much harder to create the universe just as it appears and then have it be in perfect harmony with the Genesis account? That is how I believe the case to be. I can't explain how that works, but neither can anyone offer a diffinitive and conclusive/believable explaination of how it works with 24 hour creation days.

I am only saying that you could argue and argue the point but there will likely be no resolution or true understanding until the day we sit together at the wedding feast when all will be made known. If there were not some things that were going to be unknowable at that time there would be no need for a debriefing.

Like I said before everyone wants to focus on 7 24 hour literal creation days (I believe this to be literal, I just believe the measure of at least some of those days was different) yet everyone wants to look at 3 days in the tomb in a non literal sense which creates all kinds of problems unnecessarily and is an easy case to make for a 24 hour literal 3 day period.

There are 2 camps in the Christian scientific community. Reasons to Believe with Hugh Ross an Astro Physicist http://www.reasons.org and Institute for creation research with Henry Morris http://www.icr.org/.

I have read a lot of material from both camps, plus attended lectures and watched videos, and I find much of what both have to say to be very credible.

Both have very good points for what they believe with in their disciplines of expertise. When they get into each others areas of expertise they both get shaky.

I personally believe that the truth is somewhere in between the 2 viewpoints.

Just food for thought.

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: Antwn 11-Nov-2005, 12:33 PM

FYI - in reference to previous posts about radiocarbon dating, here's a site which describes the method.

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

Posted by: Nightchild 14-Nov-2005, 07:53 AM

I've started reading this topic, for I think it's pretty interested. But while reading I get so many ideas that I think I do both, read and comment, at the same time. (Modern technologies make it possible

)

There were some points made about the time and the seven days god created the earth in.
But is there any prove that those 7 days where only close to what seven days mean to us?
Maybe those seven days were just 7 time periods. That might be 7 minuntes as well as 7 * 137549000 years.
Just taking some number, it could also have been 700000000 years. Yet that would involve our thinking in 10^x.
Saying that I don't mean that one day in terms of one turning of the earth needed that long. Just one time period as the 'life' of one society. The existence of a background situation...
Referencing on something people knew when the bible was written. Not what they knew when this happend but when they wrote it down in a way our today versions of the bible come from.

QUOTE

[...]Why do we assume that adam and eve (or their decendants) were stupid? [...]
The only people left after the Great flood were Noah and his family. Do you think that they new everything about biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, and all other things in the world. Some of that was naturally erased from human society by the flood. They could very well have been more advanced than we are today. I am not saying this is definatly true, but just a possibility.[...]
cloning would have resulted in another Adam. If god used genetic engineering He would still need the genetic material there to insert into the cells. You need a miraculous god to change the cells around to create a geneticaly new being.[...]

I really like that point, reddrake made. Just one thing I wonder about:
I totally agree on the part that Noah and his family couldn't have known everything that was known before the flood.
But why can't people before that flood have known some technique to 'clone' something in a way creating something new?
I mean I can't prove it nor can I prove the opposite. Just wondering...

QUOTE

Why would an all powerful God use such a sloppy process as evolution to create what he wanted when all He had to do was speak it into existence?

Why would some people prefer to knit by hand while they can buy wonderful pullovers in shops?
Just for the fun of it.
What if god just wanted to see how nice earth developed and how nice all the living beings changed...?

QUOTE

As far as how could plants and animals survive with a 1000 year Earth rotation? The same way that people could live to be 1000 years old before the flood. Look into the Canopy theory it offers a lot of possible explanation.

Someone once told me that the time measured in meant not years but lunar years Which means about 28 days. (This makes the 100 years sleeping beauty actually slept about... 8 years, I belive, but back to the topic...)
I calculated that a few times when I started reading the bible about a year ago. (I'm not much further than I was one year ago...) With some of those ages it really does fit.
Yet moving further on there are guys that live not as long as the ones before but not as short as we do today. Counting in those lunar years whould make them have children before even turning 8.
I went back to my informant and asked how this could be and was told that those changes develop from changes in society and different ways of thinking and living.
I'm not sure whether what I think about it now is what my informant meant when telling me. As for me I came to believe that there are more than only one change and that those ages that do not fit to lunar years but not to solar years either are wither a way of evolutional process leading from the further to the latter or different stages I don't know of yet.

QUOTE

This is not meant to offend or anything... but... why do you have to believe this literally? What if it wasn't MEANT literally?
There are many people we kinda talk of as immortal which doesn't mean they still live (in fact most of them are long dead...)
Taking this literally I'd say everlasting life would mean not dying. Does it mean that? If no, how can everlasting life be true? (independent from the question whether the 6 day period is true...)
I mean... I'm just wondering... To me that doesn't make much sense, but that mustn't mean there is none, probably I just can't see it.

QUOTE

I think that if it had taken Him 1,000 years to make it, why would the Bible not just plainly say "And the evening and the morning were the first millenium."

Maybe people didn't think as far as milleniums/millenia (?) when they wrote down the words of the bible?

QUOTE

There are seperate groups working on theories that pertain to the speed of light and that it might not be as fast now as it was a thousand years ago.

This was mentioned before, but I only now started wondering... Do they really say light is slowing down? Might it be that light is still as fast as it used to be but needs longer to go from point A to point B than it needed 'years' ago?
Just wondering, because that doesn't seem strange to me, since greater distance means longer time when using the same speed... and the universe is extending, isn't it? At least I heard that in TV years ago... That might be considered false meanwhile though...

QUOTE

Even if our understanding of physics, and current process rates says the earth is billions of years old (which, to my knowledge, none reliably say) does that mean God had to use that much time during creation? I don't think so. Did God create adam and eve so that when they showed up they were newborns? All indications say God created adam and eve to be adults. Could God not have done the same thing with the universe, give it the apperance of age? As I am saying this, I am not throwing out any scientific evidence nor giving in to the theory of evolution. It may seem like a cop out, but could it not also be a perfectly rational explanation if there is an all powerful God.

That's a really interesting point of view... I've really got to think about that...

QUOTE

Im not saying science is wrong, after all according to my beliefs God created science too, but maybe our interpretation of scientific observations (macroevolution) is suspect merely because we are imperfect humans.

Right. But why do people claim to interpret the words in the bible as they were meant? After all, we're just imperfect humans. The WORDS might be the right ones. The MEANINGS might be the right ones. Our INTERPRETATIONS of the biblical words might still be not completely right (I purposly don't say false!)

And once again my break is running short and I've gotto go... But I'll continue. That might be a promise as well as a threat. Depends on how you see it.

Have a nice day and... don't stop wondering.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 14-Nov-2005, 08:16 AM

QUOTE (Nightchild @ 14-Nov-2005, 09:53 AM)

Well, dear, for me it is simply and truly a matter of faith. If I can't believe the Bible for what it says, if I have to pick and choose what I can and can't take literally, if I have to call a Bible expert every time I read a verse in the Bible to make sure it means what it says, then what is the point in claiming to believe it at all? By doing these things then I am trying to validate my belief with fact, I am not taking it by faith. To put it bluntly, if I have to do all of this, then it is evident that - despite what I claim - I don't truly believe.

Several years ago I came to a point in my life where I had to make a decision - either I DO believe the Bible, word for word exactly as written - or I DON'T. And I decided that I do believe. I refuse to water down my faith with all of this scientific mumbo jumbo. I believe that my awesome God IS powerful enough to simply say the words "Let it be" and it is so. Scientists can produce all of the theoretical textbook garbage that they want, but I know what I believe, and nothing they say can or will change that. They can throw all of the most compelling, plausible theories at me that they can come up with but, in the end, it is all nothing more than just that... Theory. I don't need their theory. I have the Bible, and that, word for word exactly as written, is more than enough for me.

Back in the 70s I had a button, that I loved but I've lost somewhere along the way, which summed up my thought on the matter in its entirety:

The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 14-Nov-2005, 09:03 AM

Just to go a little further with what I just wrote, Tim LaHaye, a noted end-times scholar, in his book Are We Living In The End Times? quotes Dr. David L. Cooper as saying, "When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."

These are words that I live by.

Okay, so lets look at the immediate context, Genesis 1:1-5.

Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Genesis 1:1-2 sets the stage for creation. God creates the heavens and the earth. In my opinion (and this is ONLY my opinion - I have no proof to back it up) what was created here was just the earth and the vast vault that we call space. At this point the universe is without sun, moon or stars. Completely empty except for the earth itself which has just emerged from the placenta of its own creation. Why do I believe this? Well, because sun, moon, and stars are not created until day 4, according to Genesis 1:14-19. (And by the way, laugh if you want but here is all the proof that I, personally, need to show me that the earth itself is OLDER than the sun, moon and stars - by a whole 3 days!

)

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light."

In Genesis 1:3 He actually speaks the words "Let there be light" and the result?
"And there was light." Immediate. Not millions of years. He spoke, and it was. Period.

Genesis 1:4-5 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

In Genesis 1:4 He quite obviously divides light and darkness. In Genesis 1:5 He names those time periods Day and Night. And how long did it take? That is also answered in Genesis 1:5: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Notice that it says day, not millennia. He has just defined what a Day and Night are, so what next? Is He now going to turn around and use those same words - day and night - to mean something else entirely? I don't think so.

Also, I don't believe that there can be any doubt what an evening and a morning are. The Jews did not name a "day" as we do - from midnight until midnight the following day. They called a "day" from sunset of one day til sunset the next day. So this order - "the evening and the morning" made perfect sense to them, as it does to me.

Immediate Biblical context supports a literal seven-day creation. So I personally have no reason or need to look elsewhere for proof. If I begin looking elsewhere for proof to back up what the Bible says, then I am no longer living by faith, I am trying to live by fact which is contradictory to what the Bible teaches. So I have no problem at all with believing that the Lord has permitted scientists, who have gone prodding in search of proof that was not needed in the first place, to find exactly what they were hoping to find - "proof" that the earth is much older than the Bible tells us. He is not being deceitful, Raven, He is simply letting them prove themselves to be fools.

1 Corinthians 1:27 says "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."

Romans 1:21-22 says "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Those who are living by faith need no proof that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. Using limited, finite mortal intelligence to try to prove things done by an omnipotent, all-mighty infinite God - THERE is the essence of true foolishness.

Romans 1:17 says "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

I have my Bible and I have my faith. All else is irrelevant.

Posted by: Nightchild 14-Nov-2005, 12:58 PM

Well... I finally read the last posts I couldn't read earlier yet there's nothing I think I must add to my previous post...

So at first let me say: Thanks Wizard, for answering. (After noone answered to my post about prophecies I thought I maybe was to confusing or maybe noone wanted to talk to me. *sniff*

)

QUOTE

If I can't believe the Bible for what it says, if I have to pick and choose what I can and can't take literally, if I have to call a Bible expert every time I read a verse in the Bible to make sure it means what it says, then what is the point in believing at all?

Let's just for once suppose it isn't meant literally, what the bible says but some kind of 'code'. A matter of interpretation. You're right, it seems strange that god might have made people write down the words that don't mean what they say. Yet suppose when all those things happened, suppose when those words were written the people did understand their meaning and over time 'we' just forgot how to read those lines in that way...?

QUOTE

The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

I think your faith is amazingly strong.

That's good for you. And I truely mean that in all the positive ways there are. It's always good to have something to believe in.

Just wanted to mention that, since somehow I feel my opinion might seem to try to keep people from believing which I don't want to.

QUOTE

"When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."

That's true. Still we CAN not know, we just can not, since we didn't live at that time, in which way the words in the bible were meant and maybe by plainly reading them with what we know today (and we all are children of our time!) we misinterpret them in the effort to not interpret them at all...?

QUOTE

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light."

In Genesis 1:3 He actually speaks the words "Let there be light" and the result?
"And there was light." Immediate. Not millions of years. He spoke, and it was. Period.

Sorry, but who said immediately was light? God said "Let there be light." That's well and fine. And there was light. Noone ever said it was immediately or two seconds after he finished his sentence or maybe even hundreds of years. That's something you read from those lines even though it is not written. At least if I don't miss something important here...

QUOTE

Genesis 1:4-5 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

In Genesis 1:4 He quite obviously divides light and darkness. In Genesis 1:5 He names those time periods Day and Night. And how long did it take? That is also answered in Genesis 1:5: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Notice that it says day, not millennia. He has just defined what a Day and Night are, so what next? Is He now going to turn around and use those same words - day and night - to mean something else entirely? I don't think so.

Sure it says day. I never doubted that. I just doubted that what was meant by day truely was a day, but I guess since you believe the words of the bible literally and I don't at all we will never get together about that point, which I don't intend. I just wanted to stimulate thinking. Mutual.
But there's something else that came to my mind... Ever noticed that 'day' is defined by using terms that aren't defined first (or anywhere at all, as far as I remember...). Until then we know the earth and the heaven, we know darkness called night and light called day. What the hell are morning and evening? (For once trying to think mathematically. *g*)
On the other hand that might be a translation error. Yet that would indicate that there are mistakes in the bible (not the original but the one 'we' know, which I think is worse enough). I'd be very sceptical to believe each word literally in that case...
By the way, did you realize, that the evening is mentioned first? Might that be, evening was more important than morning? Might it be night was more important than day...?
There were prechristian religions 'preferring' the darkness to the light for several reasons. And for the same reasons treasuring the dark time of the year and the new moon...
I think I know much too less...

QUOTE

Also, I don't believe that there can be any doubt what an evening and a morning are. The Jews did not name a "day" as we do - from midnight until midnight the following day. They called a "day" from sunset of one day til sunset the next day. So this order - "the evening and the morning" made perfect sense to them, as it does to me.

That's very interesting. The celts did that as well, at least as far as I know... I wonder who else did that and who started to define a day from midnight to midnight and why...

*Nightchild steps into the night to do more thinking...*

Posted by: Nightchild 14-Nov-2005, 01:12 PM

Another thing that just came to my mind...

1. It's said god does not lie. (Let it be he can't or just he plainly doesn't, I don't care...)
2. In terms of law, not telling something counts as a lie. (I'd go with that even outside law terms.)
3. Taking the bible it says god created heaven and earth, he created all kinds of animals (including mankind), he created the sun and the stars. Noone is ever mentioned there was created some other life forms on other planets.
4. Since god doesn't lie (as stated in 1.) and don't telling something true is included in lieing (as stated in 2.) there is no life on other planets (since this would be included in 3. else).

What if we ever encountered life on some other planet? Wouldn't that be a prove that the bible can't be read literally?
Not that I claim to ever have met an alien, I'm just wondering...

Posted by: WizardofOwls 14-Nov-2005, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (Nightchild @ 14-Nov-2005, 02:12 PM)

Leaving out information does NOT make it a lie! If you told me you had a child, but you did NOT tell me all of the intimate details about how the child was conceived, the 9 months of misery you went through carrying it, or the 26 hours of pain and torment you went through in delivery, that does not mean that you did not have that child! Nor would it change the fact that you gave birth to this child if you did not tell me that you had other children in addition to this one! It just means that you thought those other details were irrelevant to the discussion.

God doesn't have to tell me every intimate detail about how He created the world. The simple fact of the matter is that my simple, finite, mortal mind could not understand it all anyway. If I could, then all of this would be unnecessary because then I could tell you step by step how He did it! Besides, He already DID tell us how He did it! He spoke, and it was!

If God chose to create life on other planets but chose not to tell us that He had done so, that would NOT make Him a liar, just as you not telling me the fact that you had given birth to other children would not mean that you did not give birth to a particular child. It would simply mean that He felt that it was not relevant to the topic at hand. Would the existence or non-existence of life on other worlds have any relevance to the salvation of your soul? Would it change the fact that Jesus was born, lived, and died to give us the opportunity to restore ourselves to a right relationship with God? Nope! The fact is that such a detail would be completely irrelevant to the discussion of God and His infinite grace, and so would not require mentioning in a book devoted solely to the purpose of helping us find forgiveness for our sins.

Sorry, dear, your logic is flawed.

Posted by: Celtic cat 14-Nov-2005, 03:40 PM

"Why would some people prefer to knit by hand while they can buy wonderful pullovers in shops?
Just for the fun of it.
What if god just wanted to see how nice earth developed and how nice all the living beings changed...?"

First of all, I agree with this and it sums up my view in an analogy that I could not think of on my own. The point is God did create the earth but why does it matter how he created it.

My purpose to start this topic was to let people see that God is not bound by any means and anyone of us here could be right. I wanted to see what people thought. I came to the conclusion that everyone has great ideas...So...Then I started wanting to convey the idea that arguing about it (not debating it here exactly but in the Supreme court) was pointless. I agree that there is much of a difference between Christians, polythiests, Hindu ect. But a Christian specifically should have no reason to debate another Christian on the particularities of the religion. My belief that the Bible is not always literal is not going to keep me from Heaven, it is a detail. I'm not saying that I should be able to contort every verse,or read the Bible in a way that suits me, but if I think of 7 days as 7 million years then I'm not being unfaithful. Okay sorry for the tangent...Main point is we shouldn't argue about it in court because in a way it doesn't matter who is right.

Posted by: Nightchild 14-Nov-2005, 04:00 PM

QUOTE

Sorry, dear, your logic is flawed.

See, that's what science is. You find an idea, try to prove it and sometimes you are right and sometimes someone finds some mistakes in you premisses. That's how life is.
But as I said, I was just wondering...

Posted by: Raven 15-Nov-2005, 12:08 PM

I agree with you Keltic Kitty

I think night child also made the point I have tried to get across with her comments on let there be light. We often read in things that are not specifically (literally) stated.

It's part of the use of one of the great gifts that God has given us, Imagination.

We use it all the time to fill in the blanks. It's like with a comic strip (no I am not comparing the Bible to a comic strip just the way we often interpret the evidence) What happens between the panels is sometimes where the story really takes place.

It's why 15 people can witness the same event and come up with 15 seemingly different storys. They are all true the details are just different.

Good talk everyone!!!

Mikel

Posted by: WizardofOwls 15-Nov-2005, 06:50 PM

But you see? That's just my point. It's not me who is filling in words. Its you. God said Let there be light. And there was light! There is NO mention of thousands or millions of years. The very next words are And there was light. Being a literalist, I take that quite literally. God spoke and it was! In verses 4-5 God himself defined what a day and night are. Then the next words are "And the evening and the morning were the first DAY." After defining what a day and night are, why would He then turn around and use the same words to mean something different? THAT would be deceitful.

Posted by: Nightchild 16-Nov-2005, 04:21 AM

QUOTE (WizardofOwls @ 16-Nov-2005, 01:50 AM)

Sure it's you who fills in some words. Not all. But some.
As I mentioned before at that point we all know what heaven and earth are and what day and night are. Yet noone told us what morning and evening are. You INTERPRET those words with what you know they are.
Show me the line where morning and evening are defined before using them to define what a day means.
And you can't tell me the term day is used to define evening and morning, since then evening would be sunrise and morning sunset, because evening was mentioned first and day was defined as the light.

And about that time thing... It's said "God said Let there be light. And there was light!" Okay, let's just stick with that.
It doesn't say millions of years later. But it also doesn't say immediately. And my understanding of the english language (which might as well be wrong, for I am german!) tells me, that "And there was light!" doesn't include any time as to how much of it passed before the words of god and the reaction of light being.

I believe I didn't interpret any of those words. Just took them and used them. But well, I could be wrong anyway, sometimes you don't see your own mistakes... But then please SHOW them to me for that I can LEARN from them...

Posted by: Raven 18-Nov-2005, 12:16 PM

I agree with you Night Child (sorry WOL) but I am guilty of the same thing. I think we all are and not just about the Bible. It has nothing to do with being a literalist, it has to do with being human and using the imagination that God gave us.

Some times interpretations of the Bible remind me of a story that I heard as a child, "The Phantom Toll Booth" some of you older types might remember it. It could have been from SRA but I really don't remember. We jump to conclusions with out even realizing it.

I personally am a Pan Literalist when it comes to interpreting the Bible (if I do not understand how something could happen, or exactly how something did happen in light of the evidence that I see, I think that it will all pan out one day when God explains it to us)

You could be right WOL but I am just saying that Night Child has a valid point, and it is worth considering. She is not questioning the Bible just how it all pans out

BTW NC your grasp of English is much better than my grasp of German

Finally I have always been taught to follow the following rules for Biblical interpretation

1. the Bible interprets the Bible
2. look at passages in context and interpret from that
3. where the Bible is silent remain silent

I have found this method to work unfailing for me.

God Bless

Mikel

Posted by: WizardofOwls 18-Nov-2005, 01:09 PM

I have nothing against using the imagination. As a matter of fact, I've been thinking of starting a new thread titled "God and E.T. - What if..." inspired by the conversation I had earlier in this thread with Nightchild about the possibilty of intelligent extraterrestrial life from a Christian perspective. So I am not without imagination. It is simply that when the Bible supplies sufficient detail, I don't let my mind wander, I accept by faith. Even when scientific explanations seem plausible, even when it would be so much easier to accept their theories, I will not. I refuse to water down my faith and allow my mind to wander along those lines, simply because to do so, at least for me anyway, constitutes a refusal to accept in faith what God says happened in His word.

It just boggles my mind that so many people are so willing to take a scientist's explanations over what the Bible says happened! I'm sorry, but we have two choices: accept the Biblical explanation or accept the scientific. For me at least, there is no middle ground. Scientists cannot prove a word of what they say happened in the beginning. All they have is conjecture and hypothesis based on theory. Until they take us back in time to see what happened, they will never convince me that thieir theories are "fact." So from my point of view its a matter of accepting the scientific "fact" and the absolute truth of God's word. Given those choices, there is only one for me.

What also amazes me is that every time there is discrepancy between scientific data and Biblical truth, so many Christians are ready, willing, and able to water down their faith. Rather than saying I KNOW God's word is truth, so there must be errors in the scientific findings, they'd rather back-peddle and say, "Oh we must be interpreting the Bible wrong," or, "Maybe the Bible was mistranslated," or, "Its been so long since the Bible was written, perhaps there are mistakes in copying from one translation to another," or, "The Bible was written by men, and men mistakes," and so on and so forth ad nauseum. Its always the Bible that's in error, never the scientists. I'm sorry, but I beleive in an ALL-POWERFUL God, a God so powerful that He can keep His word true DESPITE the mistakes and flaws of men. Sure men wrote it, but they were INSPIRED by God to do so. If He can't even keep His own word true and pure, then He's not all powerful.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 18-Nov-2005, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (Nightchild @ 16-Nov-2005, 05:21 AM)

No, dear, I filled in no words. I read it literally.

Gensis 1:3 And God said Let there be light, and there was light.

I put nothing in, because I feel it wasn't needed. It is self-explanatory, particularly in the light of the verse that says...

Genesis 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were the first DAY.

Where does God define a day?

Gensis 1:5 And God called the LIGHT DAY and the DARKNESS He called NIGHT.

God just defined a day. And then the verse continues...

....And the evening and the morning were the first DAY.

Yes, I can tell you that evening and morning DO define a day in the Hebrew context since.. well I've already said it once, so I'll just paste in what I said in an earlier post...

Quote: Also, I don't believe that there can be any doubt what an evening and a morning are. The Jews did not name a "day" as we do - from midnight until midnight the following day. They called a "day" from sunset of one day til sunset the next day. So this order - "the evening and the morning" made perfect sense to them, as it does to me. Endquote.

So the Jewish day BEGINS IN DARKNESS and ENDS IN DARKNESS! Exactly mirroring what God did here. The first day began in darkness, then ended with darkness.

Posted by: Nightchild 19-Nov-2005, 12:13 PM

QUOTE

BTW NC your grasp of English is much better than my grasp of German

Thanks a lot, Raven

QUOTE

Well, as for 1. I'd rather say, the bible contains the key on how to interpret it. It interpreting itself would be some kind of mathematical recursion I just can't follow.
As for 2. I'd say that is how every text should be interpreted...
And now for 3 I'd say that's true for everything one doesn't know about. Yet I feel like there are many people out there saying the bible tells things that in truth it just plainly doesn't tell. There's a lot of implicit stuff. Reading between the lines. But reading between the lines is what interpreting means. It means reading something in a text that isn't written black on white. And I feel there's a LOT of those things in the bible!

QUOTE

I'm sorry, but we have two choices: accept the Biblical explanation or accept the scientific.

Sorry, Wizard, but that's just wrong. This implicates that everyone who doesn't believe in the christian/jewish god believes in the scientific theory. And I strongly believe each and every religion has its own explanation on how earth was created.
I know of one involving Eurynome, one involving Shiva and I believe also Kali. There's one telling that earth is some amount of ground on a swimming turtle. And those are only the theories I know of. There are a lot more.
And watching the situation from that point... You ask science to prove their theories. You don't ask anyone to prove the creation theory in the bible. Sure, you may say that isn't necessary because it's a matter of believing. But then why can't we say science means believing in some kinds of axioms. And with those you can prove everything science claims to have proved. From that perspective, science is just another religion. So why not?

QUOTE

What also amazes me is that every time there is discrepancy between scientific data and Biblical truth, so many Christians are ready, willing, and able to water down their faith. Rather than saying I KNOW God's word is truth, so there must be errors in the scientific findings, they'd rather back-peddle and say, "Oh we must be interpreting the Bible wrong," or, "Maybe the Bible was mistranslated," or, "Its been so long since the Bible was written, perhaps there are mistakes in copying from one translation to another," or, "The Bible was written by men, and men mistakes," and so on and so forth ad nauseum. Its always the Bible that's in error, never the scientists. I'm sorry, but I beleive in an ALL-POWERFUL God, a God so powerful that He can keep His word true DESPITE the mistakes and flaws of men. Sure men wrote it, but they were INSPIRED by God to do so. If He can't even keep His own word true and pure, then He's not all powerful.

Well, as for me, I think both sites should be tested on whether they could be wrong. Science often finds mistakes and corrects them. Personally I think that there might also be mistakes in the bible. But hey, I don't tell anyone they should think the same, for this is MY way.
I don't know why cristians might or might not think the bible is always right. But again, that's not my problem, since I AM not christian.
I believe everyones duty is to find their very own spirituality. That's what I do. And that's what you do. At least I think so.
But I do have to admit, your strength of believing is amazing.

As for the 'Let ther be light' part, I still think there is no statement about the time it took light to be. But I guess, we won't find an answer that'll suit both of us. Let's just agree on that.

Okay... and for the day and night part... I think it's a problem of translation here rather than a problem of interpretation. Taking that interpretation, neither the english nor the german version does make sense to me, since day is just the light part of our 24 hours...
I see, I might have interpreted the definition the wrong way around. That means it's not 'day' being defined by 'morning' and 'evening' but the latter being defined by the former.
Still this means that evening is the beginning of day and morning the end of the light time of the 24 hours period. And that's just the wrong way around.
Having evening as the beginning of the day and morning as the middle, ending again with an evening does make perfect sense to me. Yet that would include the dark part of our 24 hours to the day. That matches our understanding of day. It does not match the definition of 'he called the light day and the darkness night'.
Yet again, I'd just stop that here and say it's a matter of translation. I'd agree on the correctness of the words in the original hebrew writing until I can read that version myself and understand it. At least its words, not necessary its meaning.

Posted by: Raven 21-Nov-2005, 10:22 AM

QUOTE (Nightchild @ 19-Nov-2005, 01:13 PM)

Thanks a lot, Raven

QUOTE

Well, as for 1. I'd rather say, the bible contains the key on how to interpret it. It interpreting itself would be some kind of mathematical recursion I just can't follow.

I must have been having some sort of low blood sugar when I wrote this NC

#1 should have been, Do not interpret the obvious from the obscur.

Allen you misunderstand me.....it must be your fertile imagination

#1 I didn't infer that you are without imagination, rather I stated that you do have an imagination and as hard as you try(or all of us for that matter), you/we can not help but read things in, even when trying to take things literally.

#2 For me it is not a matter of science or the Bible. I already accept the Bible as true, in the literal sense except where noted by dreams and visions. (obvious symbolism because there is need of interpretation) It is a matter of the truth as it relates to the Bible (which I have always found to be the case as the Bible is true)

I am only offering alternatives to how the Genesis passages are interpreted as relates to observable evidence in the sky and in our physical enviroment. I don't really think that it is something that will be reconciled as those that are convinced that God mean't 24 hour days will not any other way to look at the passage as that is the way it plays out to them.

Fine if that works for them. My God is big enough to make it work that way, I just also think that he is big enough to make it work in light of the observable evidence as well.

26 years ago I thought that the Bible was full of contradiction and error. So I began to study and read first with a cover to cover reading of the Bible. I was suprised when all the contradiction and error that I found was actually not in the Bible but was really a result of Church/Religeous doctrine, most of which was propogated even when the Truth would have served their purposes as well.

The rest were mostly apparant difficulties with scientific evidence which are playing out to me in 3 ways. I find some of the science to be bad (i.e. macro evolution, molecules to man, life from no life, etc...) I find that when scientific evidence is discovered that it supports rather than contradicts the Bible, finally some of it there is no reconciliation at this point, but I have no doubt that the Bible is correct.

Here is how I would equate the 7 day creation account. Sure God knows that we are intelligent beings but if you take the stance that 7 days can not be anything else but 24 hour periods because you know what God mean't, then you also have to use consistent literal interpretation ......and this is my point for you Allen, you are a reasonable, intelligent, imaginative

being so I'm sure that you will see this point. You must be consistent in your interpretation.

.....When the Bible says the Sun stood still or moved backwards do you really believe that the Sun stood still and/or moved backwards, or do you know that the Earth stood still or moved backward (stopped it's rotation or rotated backward)

Using the dogmatic interpretation of the Genisis account that this had to be 24 hour days of creation is the same type of reasoning. People were killed by the Church at one point for disputing the issue of the Sun revolving arround the Earth because it did not match up with what the Bible says, when in fact it does match up.

I am not dismissing a literal interpretation of the creation account, I am only saying that we do not yet understand exactly how it is true and accurate, not if it is true or inaccurate.

All the Best

Mike

Posted by: reddrake79 25-Nov-2005, 02:45 PM

Weighing in again

The point i was making earlier is consistant with what raven just said, that observable scientific evidnece in no way contradicts the Bible, but rather supports it. Here is the other thing, "the devil is in the details". I have heard the argument from people that because the Genesis 1 account says "day" that the Bible cannot be trusted (I am not saying that anyone here is saying that, just that I have heard it) Sure God is big enough to do it any way he wants, I peronally believe that When God said day he was refering to one rotation of the earth, which was probably around the same amount of time it is now (i dont think a few hours either direction will change my argument here

) Why? because that is the word HE chose to use to describe it. It wasn't what someone just happen to put there when they wrote the story down.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

2 timothy 3:16&17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God chose that word to last over 2000 years for a reason. I don't think that reason was because he thought it was the only way we would understand it, but because it was what he meant. Is this unreasonable in light of "scientific" evidence, I don't believe so. The simple fact of the matter is I trust God more than I trust any man.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 26-Nov-2005, 12:45 PM

QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 25-Nov-2005, 03:45 PM)

I have heard the argument from people that because the Genesis 1 account says "day" that the Bible cannot be trusted (I am not saying that anyone here is saying that, just that I have heard it)

I had someone tell me once that they believe the Bible is unreliable because in one passage it says Jesus was crucified on a cross and in another place it says He was crucified on a tree; this person said that is a contradiction and so therefore the Bible is unreliable! I explained that since the cross was made from a tree, the writer just used that word in describing it in the second passage... but I also thought, this lady wants any excuse to dismiss the Bible so there's nothing I can say to change her mind.

The creation story in the Bible has never been a source of trouble for me, except when I was a kid learning about dinosaurs and I wondered where they fit into the creation story in Genesis. Then once I saw how similiar a bird skeleton is to a teradactyl (spelling?)and saw how much turtles & lizards look like little dinos, and thought 'well the big ones might not be around any more but the little ones sure are!'
Now I know that's not a very scientific statement, just the observations of a child. And in this era when "science" is relied on more than Scripture by a lot of people, it does seem like science and Biblical explanations must be on opposite sides. But the way I see it, science (not speculation, which is another can of worms I'll leave alone) can serve to be the means to illuminate how God did things and as we make new discoveries we are allowed to see the workings of God's creations.