Genesis first, or science first?

No. I was being sarcastic. Bad habit.

1 Like

The mustard seed was regarded in that region back at that time as the smallest seed. That does not mean, it is scientifically speaking the smallest seed. We know it isnt. But in the context Jesus said that, he was right.

Actually, I think I believe that animals give birth to the same kind more than the AIG does, as they advocate a cat-like animal giving rise to different cat-like animal within a generation or two, also without any evidence that such is the case. Totally fabricated out thin air just to support an erroneous man-made interpretation, in my opinion.

This is yet another false dichotomy. Both the Bible and the creation are of God’s authorship and God’s revelation. So the whole idea of trying to force a precedence of one over the other makes no sense.

Why not assume that “We see through a glass but darkly” and “It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter but to the glory of honorable people to search it out”? Why not realize that as fallible humans our understanding of God’s revelations in the Bible and God’s revelations in his creation are limited and subject to error?

Whenever the evidence in God’s Bible and the evidence in God’s creation may seem to be in conflict, the fault is not with God’s revelations in both but in our understanding of one, the other, or both.

On some matters the Bible is most clear on a topic and on some matters the creation (i.e., the universe God made) is much more clear. And when we consider that God’s Bible is primarily focused on our relationships with him and with other humans, and that God’s creation tells us much more detail about how God fulfilled his will in making the world function as it does, we can understand why God gave us teachers of theology and teachers of science. To treat either as in conflict with the other is to dishonor God’s revelations in the Bible and in his creation.

I find it fascinating that so many people try to characterize science as “mere human interpretation” while pretending that the Bible doesn’t involve the errant interpretations of fallen humans. So many Young Earth Creationist ministries work hard to convince their followers that science is flawed but that their “Biblical theology” comes direct from God without any possible human error or human interpretation playing a role. It is all about assuming “Our thoughts are God’s thoughts—so when you disagree with us, you are denying God’s Word!”

Otangelo wants us to treat the Bible vs. Science as a war demanding that Christians pick a side—as if God’s Bible is reliable but God’s creation is not. Instead, let’s respond with humility and an admission that when there appears to be a conflict, we may be erring in our understanding of the Bible, the creation, or both.

Why do I accept the evidence for billions of years and evolutionary processes? Unlike Otangelo, I accept what God has revealed in his creation and I refuse to believe that God is a liar and deceiver. I said that last part to put Otangelo on the other side of his favorite tactic. But when we refuse to heed what God has revealed to us in his creation, we assume a false dichotomy where we operate as if God’s Bible is reliable but his creation is not. Both are subject to human understanding of what God has revealed.

1 Like

This, if you ask me, is exactly what it means to take the name of the Lord “in vain”—using it for self-aggrandizing purposes. Your mileage may vary.

1 Like

Here’s my take on “science first or Bible first.” It’s a sneak preview of a blog post that I’ve got scheduled to go live tomorrow morning:

Young earth creationists often tell me that science must fit Scripture, and not the other way around. That’s fair enough, but fitting science to Scripture means first and foremost that it must be honest in the way that it handles weights and measures (e.g. Deuteronomy 25:13; Proverbs 11:1). It must be free from arithmetic error. It must not fudge or cherry-pick the raw data. It must neither exaggerate nor downplay the significance of uncertainties and discordances. It must not take shortcuts. It must verify its integrity by testing against controls where appropriate. It must not misrepresent the extent or nature of the evidence. It must not quote mine. And it must not be resistant to reasonable critique.

These are basic rules of honesty and quality control. To break them in order to “fit Scripture” is neither scriptural nor scientific.

Basically, I go Bible first, but not in the way that YECs expect.

Just remember that accelerated nuclear decay is not in the Bible. Neither is catastrophic plate tectonics, the anisotropic synchrony convention, dinosaurs on the Ark, hyper-rapid post-Flood speciation, a 200 year post-Flood ice age, the idea that Adam “began to die,” a vapour canopy, a decaying speed of light, or the omphalos hypothesis. But on the other hand, “a day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day” is.

There’s a lot more of “man’s fallible wisdom” in YEC than they care to admit.

3 Likes

Actually @Otangelo_Grasso1, Genesis 1 convincingly only deals with the Earth. There is no reference to galaxies, solar systems and planets like Earth circling stars.

2 Likes

@Otangelo_Grasso1

So why do you think that Creation and the Bible, Science and Theology are opposed to each other?

I’m going to go with neither. We should study science to answer scientific questions using the scientific method and we should study God-inspired literature to answer theological questions using appropriate textual interpretation methods.

No, in the context Jesus said that, he was wrong.

Genesis first, or science first? I don’t see why we have to make one first and the other second.

I totally agree! Yes, when we insist that “You must agree with me because God agrees with me!.”, that is exactly the kind of self-aggrandizing misuse of God’s name that should shame us. And it is so often accompanied by the all-or-nothing, slippery-slope fallacy: “If you don’t agree with me that that is what the Bible means, then you might as well throw out the entire Bible!” Incredibly, a lot of people sound that kind of bombast convincing.

The Bible says that we are to let our “yes be yes and our no be no.” To add to it, “Thus saith the Lord” is blasphemous and a misuse of God’s name. It is saying that “My thoughts are God’s thoughts----so how dare you disobey me!”

Yes, Lynn, I think you nailed it.

3 Likes

i don’t make no such argument. But if someone takes a stance that does not find confirmation with science or vice versa, there is a dilemma…

Please give us a real example of where someone has such a stance. Thanks

That is why one needs philosophy to act as an arbiter between the two.

Common ancestry for example

Do you dispute that you and I have a common ancestor not more than 30 generations ago?
And that we both have a common ancestor that lived in somewhere in EurAsia 2000 years ago?
And that we both have a common ancestor that had Neanderthal relatives?
And that we both have a common ancestor that lived in Africa a long time ago?

Genesis first.

Science second.

My interpretation of Genesis third.

Times the Bible has been wrong: 0.

Times my interpretation has been wrong: more than 0.

If you believe God created Adam and Eve as first human beings, separate from plants, fish, birds, bacteria etc. , we are fully in agreement. If you believe we have a common ancestor with fungi, bacteria, archea, and unicellular eukaryotes, than you disagree with me, and Genesis.
What is your stance , and why ?