Faith and Science - BioLogos
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Of course not. However they interpret Genesis 1, all Christians agree that God is the Creator.
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Apologies - for some reason I assumed you were talking about sedimentary rocks.
We know that dead animals are normally scavenged and eaten. That's the norm. And if they're eaten, they won't fossilise. Therefore, fossilisation is the exception, not the rule.
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Non-historical literature is also to be taken seriously. Jesus' parables, for example, and Revelation. "Historical" is not the only way to understand Genesis 1, and never has been. The early theologians (such as Augustine) weren't kow-towing to atheist scientists, so don't assume that modern Christians are either. It could even be argued that it's the literalists who are following the atheist scientists - because both groups agree that Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally!
Strangely it is the way Jesus understood it.
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Are you referring to His quote of Genesis 1:27 in Mark 10:6? "At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female"
I don't see that this demands a literal understanding - for one thing, the creation of humans comes at the end of the creation story in Genesis, not at the beginning! And the question at issue is how God made them, not the fact that He did.
Jesus is supporting ayoung earth creation view point. Man has always been man, there was no granule evolution from an ape like creature into a human being.
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Nothing in what Jesus says presupposes a young (6000 year-old) earth.
And if God used evolution to make Man, He would still be our Creator.
The straight forward reading of scripture gives a young earth, and while Jesus didn’t expressly say the earth is young, he did talk about genesis being historical fact.
As a.ready said, he ruled out the evolution of man and by default evolution of animals.
He talked about Joanh, and about the flood as being true.
Which if there was a global flood removes the need for millions of years for the formation of the deep layers of sedimentary rocks etc.
In short evolution has to be read into the bible, which is false interpretation and yes is read out of the Bible.
Humans are creatures of education, especially child education. With no exception today's humans are forced (as enforced by laws) into a systematic secular education system (Tree of Knowledge?) to be indoctrinated with scientism instead of true science.
Science as a tool to measure truths retains its accuracy by means of the predictability and falsifiability of science, which subsquently requires a phenomenon to repeat itself for a falsifable model to be built.
It's out of human capability to make an end-to-end evolution process to repeat itself. Humans can never build a falsifiable model about evolution. Evolution doesn't maintain any scientific accuracy due to the lack of falisifiability and predictability. To put it another way, to a phenomenon which is not repeatable, science says "I can't tell what it is". Period.
History is a one-time event where the accuracy of science never applies (no falsifiable model to be built at all). The legitimate methodology for a piece of historical truth to be conveyed among humans is by means of "faith in human testimonies". Human histories are composed of human testimonies, not science nor evidence. As recent as the last US president election, is it Trump or is it Biden actually won the majority votes? We (poor humans) knew clearly that one of the two must be a lie, yet we (poor humans) don't have the ability to distinguish further. We have to allow faith to make that decision for us, as both follow the same legitimate methodology to convey their content (i.e., if you know what that methodology is).
Get back to the point, to a historical event the legit way of conveying a truth is by means of human testimonies. The Bible's way of conveying such a truth is legitimate. Science to its core has nothing to do with a one-time historical event.
Science as a tool to measure truths retains its accuracy by means of the predictability and falsifiability of science, which subsquently requires a phenomenon to repeat itself for a falsifable model to be built.
It's out of human capability to make an end-to-end evolution process to repeat itself. Humans can never build a falsifiable model about evolution. Evolution doesn't maintain any scientific accuracy due to the lack of falisifiability and predictability. To put it another way, to a phenomenon which is not repeatable, science says "I can't tell what it is". Period.
History is a one-time event where the accuracy of science never applies (no falsifiable model to be built at all). The legitimate methodology for a piece of historical truth to be conveyed among humans is by means of "faith in human testimonies". Human histories are composed of human testimonies, not science nor evidence. As recent as the last US president election, is it Trump or is it Biden actually won the majority votes? We (poor humans) knew clearly that one of the two must be a lie, yet we (poor humans) don't have the ability to distinguish further. We have to allow faith to make that decision for us, as both follow the same legitimate methodology to convey their content (i.e., if you know what that methodology is).
Get back to the point, to a historical event the legit way of conveying a truth is by means of human testimonies. The Bible's way of conveying such a truth is legitimate. Science to its core has nothing to do with a one-time historical event.
Wow, this is what happens when people start doubting God and the authority of the Word. He said what He meant and He meant what He said. When we start trying to explain things away and come up with our own interpretations, we get into a lot of trouble. That's why all the disputes. If we just stick to what He said, there's no need to argue and suppose and diminish what God did.
How much do you know about the origins of our Bible?
Where did it come from? When did it arrive?
Who assembled it for us? Who should we thank? - LOL
How did we arrive at our best guess about what the original
manuscripts (autographs) said, since they no longer exist?
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot/
@TLHKAJ
Just to be clear, I'm not discounting the Bible. I love it and use it every day.
But over the years I have learned some things about where our Bible came from that we were not told in church.
/
Similar threads
