Excuse me? Does this look “flat” to you?
1 Like
No what i have done is refence a pile of verses that come straight out of the bible commentary that give you the meaning of the passage of scripture in Psalms 104.
Your claim is that Psalm 104 is talking about the earth being built onto a pedastool. That is absolutely not what the Psalm is about. It is NOT saying the earth is the center of the physcial universe, it is not saying that the earth is a stationary object…it is not even talking about these things. That is not what the Psalm is about in any way shape or form.
if you truly understood the theology, you would not make ridiculous claims that are in fact contrary to the meaning of the text!
The problem here is that someone gave you a naysayer wives tail argument, that someone being an evolutionary scientist, you took upon their argument without first examining whether or not their argument is in fact contrary to the very theology of the passages of scripture it came from…that is a foolish position to take.
This is the entire problem with theistic evolution…it first says, “the science is accurate, the bible is wrong”.
Due to the outcry this caused in the religious movement, that statement has now been updated to read “the science is right, its our understanding of the scriptures that is wrong”
Then theistic evolution attempts to weld together dissimilar metals thus creating a construct that sees so many conflicting errors in its theology that thousands of years of study and research see this movement alienated…neither side agree with this movement. Now many would think that taking the middle road is the safe option…however, i think John wrote fairly plainly in Revelation that Laodocia would be spewed out of his mouth because it was neither hot nor cold but luke warm (so there are caveats to the middle of the road view)
God expects us to follow his word…actually i have an interesting quote to insert right here from Dr Kurt Wise
Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution…
being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.
night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover.
With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two.
I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible.
God began to show me that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture.
the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel).
This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s Fall, Christ’s return is global, Heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.
No, that is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that you are not using the literal ‘plain’ reading, exactly like YECs insist for Genesis 1. It seems you are diverting attention from the real question with verbosity.
Now, about the psalmist praising God for animal death. (And regarding the girdled rocks?)
3 Likes
Question: Has any St. Ronald afficionado read his essay, “Aggressors, Victims, and Peacemakers: Historical Actors in the Drama of Science and Religion”, in The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? (The Terry Lectures Series) Paperback – Illustrated, September 1, 2009 or the book that it was included in?
no that is not what is being claimed.
the effort here is an attempt to twist scripture such that its very interpretation conflicts with itself and the reality around us. That is completely false and its based on the white lie concerning this Psalm (go back and read the original post that made the claim).
I find it interesting how those who would twist the truth of the scripture conveniently ignore obvious theological mistakes in order to support false theories…its absurd.
It appears to me that you are now making the claim that everything in the bible is either literal or it isnt…you yourself dont even believe that, so why make the claim? Its a circular nonsense argument bordering on insulting ones intelligence!
Look i have spent a lot of time in building and construction over the years, everyone in the industry knows that if one stuffs up the foundation of the house, the rest of the project becomes very problematic…things only get worse. The very essence of a building relies heavily on the groundwork.
Now here’s the thing, the foundation of the bible and all of its subsequent theology rest on the first few chapters of Genesis. This book explains our reality as we experience it today (ie why we have weeds, why there is death etc). Now the stupid part of theistic evolutionary theology is that it appears to put forward the very strong case that there is no need for salvation from physical death or sin.
Now here is the problem with that proposition…Jesus existed physically, he had physical disciples whom history has absolutely irrefutably proven really existed in the flesh…these are real people who were first hand witnesses to Christ’s life on earth. Jesus then died a very physical death on the cross.
It is theologically impossible i think, to reconcile the issues theistic evolutionist face in claiming that the introduction of sin and therefore death (which the bible categorically claims is the wages of sin) are only spiritual events. The very fact that Jesus physically existed and physically died for sin (the wages of death) is in complete harmony with the text of Genesis Chapter 3! I do not see how anyone who is even half intelligent can ignore that fundamental fact…its irrefutable bible truth. To deny it is to say the bible is wrong…period!!
So one then is left with the choice:
- either the bible is wrong and evolution presents the only answer to our reality…along with the big bang (at least the current theory anyway)
- The bible is right and secular science is fundamentally flawed in its interpretations (cue Dr Kurt Wise)
These verses can be read straight out of the Bible.
No, I said “foundation”, and “immobile”, because Psalm 104:4 says
He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.
The most essential thing about a foundation is that it not move. What part of this plain and simple verse are you trying to reinterpret - “foundation”, or “it can never be moved”?
are you trying to play games or make a valid point here? Most scholars would roll their eyes at the complete stupidity of your argument!
You can’t see the enormous irony in that. Maybe you could if you could understand about girdled rocks, praising God for animal death, extinct radio nuclides, and… there are more than a few other things, too.
How about the age of islands? This is pretty easy to grasp (and should be compelling):
2 Likes
You really cannot see the contradictions in what you say you believe. You insist that the ‘plain and simple reading’ of Genesis 1 means solar days (and it’s just incidental that the first several occur before the creation of the sun 
), but you allow figurative nonliteral readings elsewhere, even when it’s plain and simple that it says “the earth is fixed… and cannot be moved.”
3 Likes
You left out:
3. My interpretation and understanding of what the Bible is saying is wrong, and if the Bible is true and reality is as we observe it, I need to seek a better understanding of God’s word.
10 Likes
The valid point here, to spell it out for you, is that the Bible does in fact reflect the flat earth and domed firmament cosmology of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Scholars would agree. The only reason that you argue otherwise is that the Greeks have established that the earth is spherical for two millennia and half a millennia ago Galileo successfully argued against the then prevailing geocentric theology, and established that the earth revolves around the sun.
So over that past hundreds of years, theology has made its peace with the counterintuitive but scientifically established fact of heliocentrism. You do not feel the ground move, yet it does rotate and revolve. You can thank science for that understanding, or choose to ignore it at the cost of joining the looney flat earthers, many of whom base their belief, with solid textual justification, on the scriptures you yourself referenced.
So, despite your sanctimonious posturing as being faithful to scripture, you are not so different as you would like. There is an element of metaphor and deeper meaning in scripture, for you and for others. What we know of the world around us plays a part in how we approach the Bible. All truth is God’s truth, both revelation and nature.
4 Likes
Would you count this scholar as one of those?
(emphasis mine)
2 Likes
Looks like planet pizza to me.
He’s right there, but I disagree with everything else. But God isn’t a cosmic child abuser or pathologically ‘righteous’ genocidal maniac. He’s decent, responsible, good, kind, apologetic and competent.
The nonsense is that ‘we sinned,’ whatever and whenever that was, ‘brought death to this world as a result of sin,’ so sin is sex? That happened in the Precambrian, nearly two billion years ago in the Orosirian Paleoproterozoic ‘and Jesus (God) died a PHYSICAL DEATH on the cross to save us from the wages of sin’ sex is definitely the cause of death, and death stops sex, so yeah ‘and to physically return at the second coming redeem us to himself.’ and sex is immortal life, it’s paradoxical isn’t it? And a tad Freudian.
Not necessarily.
There are Nobel Prize Laureates who are devoted Christians and believe in Creationistic Evolution and, I think, also believe in the physical death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person in the Holy Trinity.
It is not Science vs Faith.
It is possible to have an Evolutionary process that is guided by God.
1 Like
There’s something you need to realise here Adam. That is a quote mine that has been taken out of context and applied in a guilt-by-association trip by a thoroughly dishonest organisation whose agenda is to promote science denial disguised to make it look like Christian apologetics, and to weaponise the Bible to intimidate Christians into acquiescing to it. It is not representative of the position of BioLogos as an organisation, it is not representative of the position of every BioLogos contributor, it is not representative of the position of every participant on these forums, it is not representative of what the theory of evolution is all about, and it is not even representative of what the passage from which it was taken is about. (The passage concerned, by the way, was simply to make the point that God’s motivation behind the Cross was love rather than wrath. It probably expressed things injudiciously, but to claim that it was a denial of the Cross altogether is, as I understand it, missing the point completely.)
For what it’s worth, you can read the BioLogos statement of faith here. I’ve written up a statement of faith of my own here.
7 Likes
I disagree BioLogos contributor, Joseph Bankardwith.
God is just and in His fairness, He has to prove that it is possible to meet all the requirements of the Torah, all the Laws in the form of Flesh and Blood.
And, that is why He incarnated.
And, He needs to absolve the Sin of mankind on the cross as the fulfillment of His Justice.
I think BioLogos should focus its main cause into Evolution Theory primarily and other aspects of the seemingly disharmony between Science and the Christian Faith.
The issue here is: the Evolutionary process is real.
And, Evolution is not necessarily in conflict with the Scripture, even literally.
There are other ways to interpret the Scripture that allows room for Evolutionary process to take place.
And, this is the very point neglected and overlooked by YECists and also many Scientists/Skeptics.
1 Like
It seems what they were saying was that it was not Gods plan , as in his goal for humanity to be evil and require Christ. Christ came because the law was not good enough. Also, that’s one contribution by one person, who I have never even heard of. There are dozens of belief systems. The unity is that we accept science and believe in God and Christ. The doctrinal differences are just as big as between yecist.
2 Likes