DO WE BELIEVE GOD'S WORD OR SO-CALLED SCIENCE?

[StanJ]

Bible tells us in Genesis 1 that God created the Earth in six days. According to the Bible that would make the Earth around 10,000 years old.
Now science tells us that the world is 4.5 billions years old and the universe is 14 billion years old.

So what we have here is a disagreement between science and the Bible. Which will you choose?
Personally I believe that the Bible as Paul stated, is the inspired/God breathed scripture. It's not meant to be a science book or a Geology book but it is true whenever its States but its states.

So the Dilemma that many Christians face is whether or not they will accept the Bible as fact in how the world was created or they will accept science as fact in how old the world and universe is.

What better place to start to explore this issue then at the beginning in Genesis chapter 1.

http://chalcedon.edu/faith-for-all-of-life/six-day-literal-creation-essential-to-the-faith/the-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1-2/

So after reading the info in the above-noted link, who do you think is right or is speaking the truth?

Does God through His written word speak the truth or does the geophysicist through scientific theory speak the truth?

 

[Angelina]

I believe in God's word. Science should compliment the bible. If it does not then someone has drawn their own conclusion rather than truth....

 

[River Jordan]

In my experiences serving as youth leader at our church, I can't tell you how many times I've seen middle schoolers, teenagers, and young Christians struggle with this issue. Interestingly, it's almost exclusively the ones from conservative, fundamentalist households that have the most problems. They've been raised and taught in exactly the "you have to pick one or the other" environment that Stan lays out in the OP. And most often they've also been fed creationist talking points like "there are no transitional fossils", "evolution is never observed", "mutations can't add information", and the like, but when they start taking biology courses they quickly find out that those talking points are just flat out lies....transitional fossils exist by the thousands, we see populations evolve all the time, mutations adding information is as common as rain, and so on. So now they're faced with a dilemma...a dilemma not of their own making, but one that's been forced on them. Do they accept the reality around them, or do they deny reality and keep their faith? Can't have both!

I can say with absolute certainty that this contrived dilemma has led a lot of young Christians to walk away from the faith. They figure if everyone is telling them they have to choose between reality and Christianity, then they're going with reality. As I've posted here before, this fundamentalist demand that Christians deny and reject science is one of the top reasons why young people are leaving Christianity en masse.

Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.

One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

And as other survey data shows, we are losing the youth in astounding, jaw-dropping numbers.

Throw in the outrageous and persistent dishonesty from creationist organizations (e.g., quote mining, the movie "Expelled") and you see the problem. Kids today are quite savvy when it comes to spotting when someone is trying to put one over on them, and creationist organizations aren't very good at even pretending to be honest.

So that's one major problem with the either/or, black/white framework laid out in the OP. Another problem is that the history of Christianity is chock full of debates over how to interpret the Genesis creation accounts (yes...there are 2 accounts). We should all be familiar with St. Augustine writing about this very issue way back in the 4th and 5th century. Origen of Alexandria, clear back in the 2nd century, noted that a literal reading of Genesis' days didn't make sense given that there wasn't a sun or moon during the first three days. And since Genesis is a Jewish book, it's also worth noting that there are plenty of Hebrew scholars who didn't adhere to the literalist approach.

So I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is....is it worth driving people away from the faith, and making ourselves look ridiculous in the process, over an issue that's older than Christianity and has never been resolved? I tend to think not.

 

[StanJ]

In my experiences serving as youth leader at our church, I can't tell you how many times I've seen middle schoolers, teenagers, and young Christians struggle with this issue.

RJ, you are immediately off topic. Reread the OP and address the issue brought up in the OP.
FYI, we raised 4 Kids with the same understanding that I gave in the OP, and all of them are still following the Lord and have families that they are raising in the same way.
Either one trusts in God's word and what it says or one doesn't. It is that simple.
As Joshua said after taking over for Moses; "choose you this day whom you will serve, as for me and my family we will serve the LORD."

 

[River Jordan]

RJ, you are immediately off topic. Reread the OP and address the issue brought up in the OP.

???????????? The topic of the OP is whether we go with the Bible or science. My post is about that question.

FYI, we raised 4 Kids with the same understanding that I gave in the OP, and all of them are still following the Lord and have families that they are raising in the same way.

I never said that every kid faced with this false dilemma chose to abandon Christianity. But as the data shows, kids are abandoning the faith in staggering numbers and they're citing this issue as one of the reasons.

Either one trusts in God's word and what it says or one doesn't. It is that simple.
As Joshua said after taking over for Moses; "choose you this day whom you will serve, as for me and my family we will serve the LORD."

I trust God's word just as much as you do. The difference is, I don't think my interpretive abilities to be infallible and from that basis conclude that everyone who disagrees with my interpretations must not read, believe, or trust the Bible.

Again, just because someone reads a part of scripture differently than you doesn't mean they reject it.

 

[StanJ]

The topic of the OP is whether we go with the Bible or science. My post is about that question.

No the office about whether we believe the Bible or science in regards to the six days of creation. Did you actually go to the link and read it?

I never said that every kid faced with this false dilemma chose to abandon Christianity. But as the data shows, kids are abandoning the faith in staggering numbers and they're citing this issue as one of the reasons.

I know nothing about the accuracy of the group taking up this data but I can tell you that based on what they said it is not true in my family alone so to say that 25% of kids are abandoning Christianity because of this apparent dilemma, which is not even proven to be a dilemma, is an issue I don't buy.

I trust God's word just as much as you do. The difference is, I don't think my interpretive abilities to be infallible and from that basis conclude that everyone who disagrees with my interpretations must not read, believe, or trust the Bible.

First of all it's painfully obvious that you don't trust God's word as much as I do and I've never claim to be infallible I just no a lot based on having studied these issues for over 45 years. How long have you actually studied the Bible? In fact, how old are you?

Again, just because someone reads a part of scripture differently than you doesn't mean they reject it.

If one reads the Bible and doesn't see the truth in the Bible, as there is only one truth, then it does mean that they reject it because they don't see the truth. Now try dealing with the OP and stop bringing up your apologetics for evolution all the time.

 

[River Jordan]

No the office about whether we believe the Bible or science in regards to the six days of creation. Did you actually go to the link and read it?

Um.......that's what I just said. :blink:

I know nothing about the accuracy of the group taking up this data but I can tell you that based on what they said it is not true in my family alone so to say that 25% of kids are abandoning Christianity because of this apparent dilemma, which is not even proven to be a dilemma, is an issue I don't buy.

Again you exhibit sampling bias. Here, you cite a mere 4 individuals as justification for waving away a much, much larger data set. That's no different than someone, after being shown data that indicates the majority of players in the NBA are black saying "That can't be true because JJ Redick plays in the NBA and he's white".

First of all it's painfully obvious that you don't trust God's word as much as I do

Please explain how without assuming that your interpretive skills are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.

and I've never claim to be infallible I just no a lot based on having studied these issues for over 45 years. How long have you actually studied the Bible? In fact, how old are you?

Nice try.

If one reads the Bible and doesn't see the truth in the Bible, as there is only one truth

And you believe that your interpretation = the "one truth", correct?

then it does mean that they reject it because they don't see the truth.

Exactly as I've been describing.....since StanJ has the "one truth", anyone who disagrees with him is rejecting that truth. How convenient for you. <_<

Now try dealing with the OP and stop bringing up your apologetics for evolution all the time.

Oh come on Stan....seriously? You want to start a thread about choosing between science and your interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts, but you don't want anyone to bring up evolution? You must really be terrified.

 

[StanJ]

Um.......that's what I just said. :blink:

No, you said; "The topic of the OP is whether we go with the Bible or science"
Sadly you don't seem to see that that's not the same thing but then again I guess that's what you don't understand the issue.

Again you exhibit sampling bias. Here, you cite a mere 4 individuals as justification for waving away a much, much larger data set. That's no different than someone, after being shown data that indicates the majority of players in the NBA are black saying "That can't be true because JJ Redick plays in the NBA and he's white".

No, I said just my 4 kids alone show that the percentages in what you posted couldn't possibly be correct. I'm not saying this doesn't happen but it doesn't happen in the way you portrayed it and in the way that the article indicates. More than likely the dissolution teenagers are the ones that exist in a religiously conservative environment but not necessarily a true Christian environment. The Bible assures us that if we clean up our children in the way they should go when they are older they will not depart from it. I did exactly what the Bible taught me to do and my kids have never departed from it. As a matter of fact the older they get the closer they get to God which seems to be a normal human condition.

Please explain how without assuming that your interpretive skills are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.

Sorry but in your case that would be a waste of time. Do you know the saying about chasing after an untamed ornathoids?

Nice try.

Too bad I have to and that you just don't disclose it as a matter of openness and truthfulness. Do you go to church with a bag over your head?

And you believe that your interpretation = the "one truth", correct?

I know. None of you that I'm willing to prove it by proper exegesis which apparently you avoid at all costs.

Exactly as I've been describing.....since StanJ has the "one truth", anyone who disagrees with him is rejecting that truth. How convenient for you.

John 8:32

Oh come on Stan....seriously? You want to start a thread about choosing between science and your interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts, but you don't want anyone to bring up evolution? You must really be terrified.

If you want to do a thread on Evolution go ahead but just as the thread that the Administrator started on Natural Theology that you waylaid right away, you're trying to do the same thing here. So what we see is your agenda at trying to bring Evolution into everything that you can even when it is not applicable. I don't really care how you feel about whether or not you're justified, the point is it's my OP and it's against the rules to do otherwise. I guess it is painfully obvious to us that you really don't want to get into a debate about the Bible being right or wrong because you know you'll be wrong.

 

[River Jordan]

Stan,

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. Your OP begins with...

Bible tells us in Genesis 1 that God created the Earth in six days. According to the Bible that would make the Earth around 10,000 years old.
Now science tells us that the world is 4.5 billions years old and the universe is 14 billion years old.

So what we have here is a disagreement between science and the Bible. Which will you choose?

But then when I say, "The topic of the OP is whether we go with the Bible or science", you say it's not.

When you figure out what your point is, let us know.

 

[StanJ]

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. Your OP begins with...
But then when I say, "The topic of the OP is whether we go with the Bible or science", you say it's not.When you figure out what your point is, let us know.

I am to everyone but you so obviously that means you're the one with a comprehension problem. You've got the administrator telling you that you're off topic and I'm telling you you're off topic and you're ignoring both of us so that pretty much conveys how you refuse to cooperate with basic rules in this forum.
It doesn't matter what you say the topic of the OP is, it matters what I say it is, because I'm the OP.
If you want to be the one making the rules, then go start your own forum.

 

[River Jordan]

I am to everyone but you so obviously that means you're the one with a comprehension problem.

Um......look around Stan. Only one other person has even commented on this thread (Angelina), and she seemed to think the topic was "science or the Bible" also.

You've got the administrator telling you that you're off topic

Where?

and I'm telling you you're off topic and you're ignoring both of us so that pretty much conveys how you refuse to cooperate with basic rules in this forum.
It doesn't matter what you say the topic of the OP is, it matters what I say it is, because I'm the OP.
If you want to be the one making the rules, then go start your own forum.

Then what is the topic of this thread Stan?

 

[StanJ]

Um......look around Stan. Only one other person has even commented on this thread (Angelina), and she seemed to think the topic was "science or the Bible" also.

All that means is that other people haven't read this read or those that do agree with it. We have over 7,000 members here and not everybody post a response to an OP.

Where?
Then what is the topic of this thread Stan?

Feigning obtuseness doesn't really work with me.

 

[River Jordan]

What's the topic of this thread Stan?

 

[StanJ]

What's the topic of this thread Stan?

Why do you continue to feign obtuseness RJ? Stop wasting our time and either respond according to OP or go away.

 

[River Jordan]

You're hilarious Stan.

Stan: You're taking us off topic!

Me: Oh....what's the topic?

Stan: I'm not going to tell you!

Me: Seriously...if I'm going to stay on topic, it would help if I knew what the topic was. So what is the topic?

Stan: Stop wasting my time.


Well done Stan.

 

[StanJ]

You're hilarious Stan.

Stan: You're taking us off topic!

Me: Oh....what's the topic?

Stan: I'm not going to tell you!

Me: Seriously...if I'm going to stay on topic, it would help if I knew what the topic was. So what is the topic?

Stan: Stop wasting my time.

All this clearly demonstrates is that you can't even properly quote someone when the words are right in front of you. You're not fooling anybody RJ, except apparently yourself. I am not sure how you earned any kind of degree with those kind of comprehension skills?

 

[Deborah_]

Stan, on the subject of "science or the Bible", the creation/evolution issue is always the first example that comes to mind. You even began your OP with reference to it. How can it be "off topic"? "Science or the Bible" would be very difficult to discuss without bringing in specific examples.

Personally I would say that if God created the universe (as we all believe He did), and if science correctly describes the universe (as it endeavours to do), then they cannot be incompatible. Therefore we shouldn't have to choose between them. Science may be temporarily in error because it has insufficient evidence to work on (as new things are discovered, theories are modified or even re-formulated); we may be temporarily in error because we are interpreting Scripture wrongly (as the geocentric theologians did in the Middle Ages).

 

[StanJ]

Stan, on the subject of "science or the Bible", the creation/evolution issue is always the first example that comes to mind. You even began your OP with reference to it. How can it be "off topic"? "Science or the Bible" would be very difficult to discuss without bringing in specific examples.

Well that may be but in this thread I was speaking about creation in the sense of the age of the Earth and universe which geophysics Tells us vs the age of the Earth and the universe that the Bible tells us. Last time I looked geophysics and evolution are not the same science. I'm not sure how I could have made this any clearer in the OP?

Personally I would say that if God created the universe (as we all believe He did), and if science correctly describes the universe (as it endeavours to do), then they cannot be incompatible. Therefore we shouldn't have to choose between them. Science may be temporarily in error because it has insufficient evidence to work on (as new things are discovered, theories are modified or even re-formulated); we may be temporarily in error because we are interpreting Scripture wrongly (as the geocentric theologians did in the Middle Ages).

Well they do contradict one another in this regard so in my view the so-called geophysical evidence that the Earth is over 4 billion years old is wrong.

 

[River Jordan]

Stan, on the subject of "science or the Bible", the creation/evolution issue is always the first example that comes to mind. You even began your OP with reference to it. How can it be "off topic"? "Science or the Bible" would be very difficult to discuss without bringing in specific examples.

Personally I would say that if God created the universe (as we all believe He did), and if science correctly describes the universe (as it endeavours to do), then they cannot be incompatible. Therefore we shouldn't have to choose between them. Science may be temporarily in error because it has insufficient evidence to work on (as new things are discovered, theories are modified or even re-formulated); we may be temporarily in error because we are interpreting Scripture wrongly (as the geocentric theologians did in the Middle Ages).

Very well put!

 

[shnarkle]

Bible tells us in Genesis 1 that God created the Earth in six days. According to the Bible that would make the Earth around 10,000 years old.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I was reading something by some rabbi/ astrophysicist who postulated that "evening and morning a first day " doesn't necessarily indicate a 24 hour period. I'm not saying that I necessarily go along with this idea, but it is intriguing.

On the other hand, there is also this interesting tid bit of information that most seem to gloss right over: "the earth was formless and void". The problem with this translation is that there is no verb to be in Hebrew, and this isn't the verb to be. The word means "became". So it should read, "the earth became formless and void". This makes sense as the earth is a sphere and sphere's aren't formless and void. So it would seem to be indicating that the earth was destroyed. So how long would it take for the earth to get back into shape? Quite a while I would think. So the 10,000 year estimate is probably off by quite a bit.
Now science tells us that the world is 4.5 billions years old and the universe is 14 billion years old.

So what we have here is a disagreement between science and the Bible. Which will you choose?

In light of my previous comments, there is no need to choose.

Personally I believe that the Bible as Paul stated, is the inspired/God breathed scripture. It's not meant to be a science book or a Geology book but it is true whenever its States but its states.

It might not be a history book either. I do think that it contains nuggets of truth that will never be found in any textbook on any other subject.

So the Dilemma that many Christians face is whether or not they will accept the Bible as fact in how the world was created or they will accept science as fact in how old the world and universe is.

I think the critical question is which interpretation to go with. Christians can't even agree on this issue. Christians may agree that the bible is the truth, but who's interpretation of truth?

What better place to start to explore this issue then at the beginning in Genesis chapter 1.

http://chalcedon.edu/faith-for-all-of-life/six-day-literal-creation-essential-to-the-faith/the-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1-2/

So after reading the info in the above-noted link, who do you think is right or is speaking the truth?

Does God through His written word speak the truth or does the geophysicist through scientific theory speak the truth?

I'd just like to point out a couple interesting facts. There's a book out called "The Genesis Enigma" by an avowed atheist. He makes this one interesting remark. I'm paraphrasing: How do Iron Age goatherds come up with a chronology of events that mirrors the actual chronology of events for the creation of the universe? Coincidence? Dumb luck? Not likely.

A while back, Evolutionists concluded that there just isn't enough time for life to have evolved here on earth. The logical explanation is that it must have been brought here. They call it something like "the seed hypothesis". Richard Dawkins thought it could be aliens or a meteor. The interesting thing is that if you look at chapter two of Genesis, this is precisely what it says. It says that God created plants, but he didn't create them in the earth. So they weren't created here at all, but were created, and then planted in the earth. Could God be this alien that Richard Dawkins is referring to? Who knows?