I believe the bible when it says that looking at the universe that God created says something about God (paraphrased, but I stand by this interpretation of the intent of the passages). The major point of the disagreement between different readers of the bible is in how the bible should be interpreted.
For anyone who accepts that God created the universe in which we live, it seems to me to be quite reasonable to expect that the bible should be interpreted in a manner that is not in direct conflict with what direct observations of Godâs universe show to be true.
An important aspect of interpretations is that there are always several levels of interpretation necessary in order to come to any conclusion about what the English translation of the bible that I read means for me today. First is the interpretation that the original writing of the particular verses being interpreted was actually inspired by God (I do accept the standard main-line protestant Christian identification of the bible). Next is the interpretation of what that original writing meant to the original audience; this is often quite different from what modern Americans think those words mean. And then the translation into English; this always involves interpretation. And, finally, is it Godâs intent that todayâs people interpret what was written in exactly the same way as the original audience interpreted those writings?
T_aquaticusâ quote from Cardinal Bellarmine shows that the interpretation of scripture passages at different times by Christian theologians has been very different. And the bottom line of my claim here is that the major differences that I argue with YECs is interpretation of scripture, and it is absoutely true (by demonstration) that these different interpretations show that the words as written are not simple to understand; that especially, it is not simple to determine what God is trying to tell people today to do, or not to do.
This is a really difficult position, but an important one. One argument I hear frequently in my church is that God would make things simpleâand the first apparent meaning is the most likely to be right. I can see the hope that God would always make it easyâbut it just doesnât work in reality. If one realizes that the majority of the world doesnât even have the Bible, let alone the right interpretation; but God presumably loves those who donât, just as much as He loves usâit becomes apparent (I think) that we canât expect the Bible to necessarily be immediately apparent to those of us with Western cultural expectations. However, itâs not an easy thing.
Just last week, my pastor (who I like) quoted Henry Morris as saying he was convinced that there was no scientific objection to the Flood. His quote of Morris then went on to accuse all those who donât believe in it, to deny it only because they donât want to believe in Godâs justice.
Itâs rather difficult to respond. Iâm unfortunately feeling a bit bruised by the apparent judgmentalism of Morris, but realize itâs almost a conspiracy mindsetâif someone doesnât believe the way we do, it must be because of ill intent.
Itâs out of fear, tooâfear of the unknown. It doesnât come in a neat, tidy package, like we remember thinking we were taught in Sunday School.
I canât approach Morrisâ work (and those who quote him) with indignation, but understanding and listening.
Thanks for your thoughts.
that statement is not relvant to the issueâŚyou are completely ignoring the philosophy of an atheist when making such a statement. You are trying to make the point that an atheist has no philosophical positionâŚdont you find it rather interesting that a large number of atheists also claim they are agnostic?
All good points Jerry. I have quoted your entire post because its important that you know that ive read all of it (we must admit we do not read everything everyone writes).
Of most interest and the focus of my resonse is your last section
And, finally, is it Godâs intent that todayâs people interpret what was written in exactly the same way as the original audience interpreted those writings?
T_aquaticusâ quote from Cardinal Bellarmine shows that the interpretation of scripture passages at different times by Christian theologians has been very different. And the bottom line of my claim here is that the major differences that I argue with YECs is interpretation of scripture, and it is absoutely true (by demonstration) that these different interpretations show that the words as written are not simple to understand; that especially, it is not simple to determine what God is trying to tell people today to do, or not to do.
Firstly, and this may sound like sour grapes but i promise it is notâŚI do not agree with Catholic theology.
(Edited by moderator)
Secondly, (perhaps i should have put this first) Cardinal Bellamine was a JesuitâŚim not sure if you are familiar with early Jesuits, however that order we not nice peopleâŚrefer back to the last sentence of above paragraph!).
> Thomas Hobbes saw Bellarmine in Rome at a service on All Saints Day (1 November) 1614 and, exempting him alone from a general castigation of cardinals, described him as âa little lean old manâ who lived âmore retiredâ
I dont think I need to also add this man practically forced Gallilleo to abandon his ideas concerning the âmovement of planetsâ
Third, I agree that it is difficult to determine where the spriritual nature of biblical writings differs from that of reality.
Bellamy wroteâŚ
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.
When we read stories in the Old Testament it appears that the writers are narrating events where individuals truly believed that the sun orbited the earth. A good one is found in Joshua 10 âThe Day the Sun Stood Stillâ
12On the day that the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
âO sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.âb
13So the sun stood still
and the moon stopped
until the nation took vengeance
upon its enemies.c
Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?d
âSo the sun stopped
in the middle of the sky
and delayed going down
about a full day.âe
14There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man, because the LORD fought for Israel.
Now science says that the above is impossible. I would be interested in quotes from modern scientists who agree scientifically with the reading of that text of scripture. So you state it must be an allagory right?
Well, how then do you explain the following biblical references to that day in Joshua 10?
Isaiah 28:21 âFor the Lord will rise up as that day as at Mount Perazimâ
Isiah 38:8 âI will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.ââ So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.â
âIt is easy for the shadow to lengthen ten steps,â answered Hezekiah, âbut not for it to go back ten steps.â 2 Kings 20:11So Isaiah the prophet called out to the LORD, and He brought the shadow back the ten steps it had descended on the stairway of Ahaz.
Clearly, all of these references link back to a narrative that describes a real-life event. You cannot honestly read them any other way (citing English translational issues actually only makes these kinds of arguments far worse âŚi know this because my father holds a degree in theology and can read the original manuscript languages and we have had many discussions about the âoriginal language vs modern Englishâ claim).
Modern scientists may not like the scientific impossibility in such âstoriesâ (as Biologos calls them), however, can modern science agree with the incarnation of God as a human baby, his resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into the clouds? No it cannot and therein lieth the entire problem with the claim made that we must explain the bible using science. Science cannot explain what is physically impossibleâŚit cannot explain the birth, resurrection, and ascension of God, so it denies they are anything but mythical stories and yet here we are with Christians who are not well versed in scripture naively being told to follow science first and do this by agreeing with very very poor theology!
The point is, the narrative of the âDay the Sun Stood Stillâ was a universal scale miracle. If God can create the entire universe from nothing ie simply âspeak itâ into existence, why would you question the authenticity of the YEC parts of the narrative because it isnt possible scientifically?
Does that help makes sense of why committed YECs are not easy to sway in their seemingly ârock solidâ views when it comes to the Bible vs Science debate?
That is very true Randy, even i am guilty of that kind of stuff. However, one thing that i note that is extremely interesting in your statement is the links that a lot of denominations make between that denominationâs views and the âwages of sinâ for anyone who disagrees with the denominational line.
I think that as time goes by, modern Christian churches are trying to rephrase the âwages of sin is deathâ response so it doesnât appear so barbaric. I mean letâs face it, when one reads Joshua Ch 10 (The Day the Sun Stood Still), one cannot but think, my goodness what a barbaric day of bloodshed at the hands of a man supported by God in this endeavor!
The problem however is thisâŚ
There are certain fundamental beliefs within the pages of scripture that are based on overall biblical themes. If one refuses to agree with those themes, then how can one call themselves a follower/believer of that text? The Bible very specifically went into detail about luke warm ChristiansâŚthey are neither hot nor cold and the Lord will spew them out of His mouth. Some seem to ignore this text, however, i think it is a universal statement and not one that simply applies to only one aspect of Christianity. Its a little hard to leave out the gloom and doomâŚand i find it rather interesting that the same âluke warmâ approach to the genesis account just so happens to also do the same with the flood account. So what happens to the statement found in the Bible âjust as it was in the days of Noahâ (Luke 17:26)
âJust as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them allâ
So I did not read that entire thing. But wanted to point outâŚ. I think itâs just fringe movements of Protestantism that views the Catholic Church as related to the beast lol.
nope its notâŚthe entire modern christian movement was founded upon the rejection of the control of the Catholic Church. It appears that you are not familiar with the history of the modern christian churches. Thats ok, some of us studied this at university level, others have not.
We can all thank Martin Luther for what he did when he nailed his 95 thesis to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenburg and started the rejection of the catholic model in the Christian reformation, the Christian church would not be what it is today without men such as this.
âŚdo not deny the reality of gravity, for instance. The multiple distortions imposed upon reality by so-called âFlood geologyâ are comparable to that, as is the denial of the reality of the antiquity of the universe.
Im not sure what your point is here? Who denies the antiquity of the universe? All Christians believe God is eternalâŚso how do you come to the conclusion YEC deny the antiquity of the universe if God is eternal?
Is the universe âas oldâ as God is? Young Earth Creationism postulates a young earth and young universe.
And sometimes people from universities learned very little from their small town college and becomes convinced of things like stolen elections, Disney trying to turn kids gay and bizarre end time beliefs and associating things to satanic panic systems.
What are the top scholars you are reading that is linking the Catholic Church to the beast?
By Christian churches are you referring to your specific denomination?
One key reason why some Christians are taken in by young earth claims, and why attempts to address them can seem ineffective, is that they lack an understanding of how measurement works, the role that it plays in determining such things as the age of the earth, the rules and principles by which it operates, and the constraints that it places on which interpretations of the evidence are legitimate and which ones are not.
It is easy for scientifically educated people to take these things for granted and to assume that young earthists already know these things, since they are so fundamental to how science works, and every professional scientist knows them cold. But Iâve found that time and time again, when addressing young earth claims, it isnât the complex technical minutiae that I have to address, but serious deficiencies in understanding the fundamental basics of measurement itself. Some young earth arguments even demonstrate a lack of awareness of the basic fact that measurement has any rules at all.
We see that for example in statements such as this one:
Since measurement has rules, young earthists cannot legitimately claim that âYEC are using measurements tooâ unless they can demonstrate that their measurements stick to the rules; it is because they fail to do so that they are described as errant. Nor can they legitimately dismiss the rules as âsecular science interpretations.â The rules are universal, they have nothing whatsoever to do with secularism, and it is at best wilful ignorance and at worst dishonesty to dismiss such a fact as ârubbish.â Geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, complex numbers, set theory and the like work in exactly the same way whether you are a Christian or an atheist. Error bars, linear regression, extrapolation and interpolation use exactly the same equations whether you acknowledge that miracles are a legitimate explanation for the data or not. The rules place exactly the same constraints on your interpretations of the measurements whether you are Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking or Stephen Meyer, Donald Trump or Joe Biden, the Dalai Lama or the Pope.
It needs to be stressed in particular that this is a requirement that the Bible itself demands. I usually quote Deuteronomy 25:13-16 here, but other Bible verses making the same demand include Leviticus 19:35-36; Ezekiel 45:10; Proverbs 11:1; Proverbs 16:11; Proverbs 20:10; Proverbs 20:23; Hosea 12:6-7; Amos 8:4-8; Micah 6:10-13. Repeatedly in the Bible, we are told that dishonest weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord. It also needs to be stressed that these verses apply to every context in which measurement is usedâno exceptions, no excuses. They cannot be fobbed off as being taken out of context or as irrelevant for any other reason, because to do so is to effectively demand the right to tell lies.
For this reason, any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1-11, any challenge to the scientific consensus that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor must obey these rules in how it accounts for the evidence that we see in Godâs creation. To twist or break the rules in order to claim scientific support for a doctrine that is clearly contradicted by the evidence is not making Scripture superior to âsecular scienceâ; it is lying.
There is irony there, because a frequent YEC refrain is, if you donât believe in a 144 hour creation, âYouâre making God a liar!â
(I always wonder what God did with the rest of the day. For instance when he created light, it took him 24 hours?)
As a modern scientist, and a Christian, I am completely willing to believe that God allowed His prophets and apostles to write about events as they believed the events to happen. I also believe that God can, and does, actively âinterfereâ in the universe He created, though He has chosen not to do so in any manner that can be interpreted as a completely objective proof that He exists.
What this means to me is that God can, and I believe, actually did, make time flow in that one area of the earth in a different manner from the normal flow of time in this universe. Note that modern science has shown, inarguably, that the flow of time in this universe depends on the state of motion, and the gravitational and/or acceleration effects on the frame of reference of the observer.
Science has no way of observing whether such events happened, so good science does not say whether the events happened or not.
But the way the event is described by a person (yes, Adam, a person!!!) who âknowsâ that the sun travels around the Earth (âafter all, all you have to do is look up into the sky, and you can see that it is movingâ) does not have to be a PROOF that the sun travels around the earth, and whether the sun travels around the earth, or the earth rotates, is not the point of the story at all.
If you believe that God created the entire universe out of nothing, as I believe, can you also accept that the way God created the universe says something about what is really important to God? And if this is the case, can you accept the fact that it must have been by Godâs permission that we have been allowed to develop very complicated ways to examine His universe, to learn things about His universe that cannot be seen or felt only through our five primary senses?
As a scientist (PhD in physics, some years of research in solar and interplanetary physics), I am explicitly aware of the fact that we have much more information about the universe that God created than the people who lived on this earth thousands of years ago (A few of the points that seem interesting to me in this parenthetical remark: How unimaginably large - over 500 million light years to the farthest observed objects; how strangely interwoven time and space are [special and general relativity]; the stupenduously large numbers of tiny atoms that make up the physical objects we actually feel, see, and use at our human scale [and the concept of the Law of Large Numbers that shows us how the behavior of an incredibly large number of linked particles can be described with great precision on the scale of the group as a whole without knowing where any of the individual particles is]).
And there is also one very important mathematical fact, concerning the true nature of infinity. We humans have finite minds, finite capability of understanding. If you believe, as I do, that God is infinite, then the mathematics are indisputable. The sum total of all human knowledge about God is mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the whole.
This is not to say that knowledge about God is not important. On the contrary: Without some knowledge, there is no way that I could do what I believe God wants me to do more than anything else, that is, to love Him with all my heart and soul and mind. Jesus Himself said that this is most important to God when He named the greatest commandment.
However, the mathematical point is still absolutely true: God is much more than any of us can possibly know, at least in this life when we are restricted by our finite intellectual capacity. An absolutely true corollary is that no single human, or even group of humans, has the total knowledge, or the only knowledge, about God. Only God knows for sure what is knowledge that God has revealed, and what is not.
The point about all of our knowledge being equivalent to 0% of the total is intended to point out that our infinite God is so big that there is room for many different partial finite descriptions. Infinity is so much bigger than any finite description that two finite descriptions that appear to be mutually exclusive might possibly both be true; each provides a description that is roughly equa to 0% of the whole. Again, only God knows the whole truth of who God is.
I agree that science does not explain religious miracles. Good science does not try to do so. Good science does try to determine whether there is an alternate explanation for things that happen, but definitely does not claim to explain real miracles. I do believe the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension. But I must take issue with your claim about the bible and science, because your claim is poorly worded and not at all applicable to how I use science to help me understand the bible. I do not have any objection to what God inspired His prophets and apostles to write in the scriptures. I do not have a basis for objecting to anything religious scholars say about what those writings meant to the original audiences. I do have a moral, Christian obligation to object strenuously to any interpretation of what God intended that bible to mean to me, and to other people in this modern world, when the person (or people) interpreting the bible use assumptions about Godâs universe that are completely at odds with what we now know from direct observation. To reiterate: I have never objected to what the bible says; I have often objected to modern peopleâs interpretations of what the bible means to people today.
The primary point in my objection to any claims that the bible says something absolutely true about science is that the bible was not intended as a textbook about science; it was not written as a science text for the original audience, and certainly was not written to be a science textbook that supercedes the actual observation of the universe that God created.
Here I see a need to ask a very serious question, and need to try to ask without judgement. Do you believe in the bible, or do you believe in God? If you only believe in the bible, how is that not believing in a false idol? (Please note: the discussion of infinity demonstrates that the bible, as a finite document, cannot be the whole of our infinite God!) And if you really believe in God, and really want to love Him as well as you can, are you willing to look for Him in His universe, where He can also be found, or will you look only in one specific book?
On a personal note, I can attest that God does come to me through the scriptures, and also does come to me through other means - in discussions about things other than the bible.
Science is done by theists and atheists alike, and they come to the same conclusions even though their beliefs in deities differ. Christian biologists also accept the theory of evolution and an old Earth. This isnât a matter of atheism or agnosticism. Christian biologists accept evolution for the same reason that they accept Heliocentrism or Germ Theory.
Thatâs not it. The evidence demonstrates that the Earth moves about the Sun. Itâs not as if some priest of science announces that we must all believe that Geocentrism is impossible. Instead, there is mountains of evidence that points to Heliocentrism, independent of what any scientist says.
Thereâs a massive difference here. There is no evidence that contradicts those specific miraculous events, so science is silent on those issues. This is very different than separate creation and a young Earth. We have mountains and mountains of data that contradict those two histories, demonstrating that they didnât happen.
Because the evidence contradicts the human YEC interpretations of human written scriptures.
God =/= the universe, that is pantheism. Iâm not sure of your point actually. YEC, generally speaking, absolutely and adamantly deny that the universe is billions of years old. There are a few who think the earth was created in an old universe, but those are rather off the beaten track.
I think you got some good information here from JPM and LM77 and Kendelâamong others. It was well-said by someone that oft-times a bit of argument against YEC may be perceived as a challenge to all of their Christianity â which may be true, from the perspective they hold. And it is also a matter of whether or not they want to discourse on these things, or is it just a âgotchaâ conversation? If it is the latter, you will not get too far.
I know that I am as guilty as anyone for this but is Evolution really the be-all and end-all of God and/or Christianity?
IOW what harm does it do not to believe it?
Richard
No. No more than planetary mechanics or photosysnthesis is.
It depends.
Is your âdisbeliefâ in such things incidental and peripheral to your faith and general living and discipleship? If so, just throw it on the pile of things you happen to be wrong about (and all of us have piles of things weâre wrong or mistaken about - thank God that our status as children isnât contingent on our being right about everything.)
But is your disbelief in something like that more of an active teaching that you bundle in with your faith (and that of others over whom you may have some discipling influence)? I.e. âŚnow others are (in your mind) required to invite this falsehood in as a precondition to their full acceptance as truly being able to fellowship with you in Christ? In which case - being wrong about these things is doing you (and others) considerable harm!