a sort of works righteousness (complete with judgmental attitudes towards those not inclined to join them in their performance) to suppress their cognitive dissonance and “believe the plain truth of the Bible” as an act of will. I don’t think this disqualifies their faith in any way for God, but it certainly affects their credibility with non-believers and their own children that they are trying to raise in the faith.
So, Christy, we agree that God has no problem with those who come to Him in simple (uneducated or modernly uninformed) faith. My concern is, if modern science is a point of contention, it may be a stumbling block to their faith, Also, that contention reinforces non-believers’ disbelief as well as possibly undermining children’s faith as tested by our modern world. That is a significant problem I think we agree about, and I consistently avoid those arguments which usually go nowhere.
Now, since John 1: 1-3 specifically explains Creation, I think the biblical science lesson must begin there. I offered my science-based views on ex nihilocreation at the Initial Singularity and the de novo creations of Genesis, hoping for helpful forum feedback that would be useful in my manuscript.
SO, WHO, ON THE FORUM HAS AN ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF BIBLICAL CREATION? My ground rule is based on the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and since the Creator cannot lie, how can the Bible be true scientifically? I am testing my view here on the forum to see if is validated or discredited.
My scientific/biblical view is; In the beginning, the Creator (John 1: 1-3) delivered the Initial Singularity ex nihilo by His Word to originate the universe and time 13.8 billion years ago. Ten billion years later, the “let there be…” instructions in Genesis are His de novo creations beginning His work here on Earth. First, the universal electromagnetic field was expanded from the Initial Singularity. Then the Genesis creations were spoken as field excitations of Standard Model Elemental Particles to assemble according to His instructions. Scientifically, the Periodic Table of Elements list the building materials and Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the method. I think the three billion coded nucleotides of our DNA is an excellent example of the Creator’s creative language that only He can speak with authority.
I am excited to hear thoughtful Forum comments regarding my view. I am confident that they will be helpful. Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving!
Can I have some clarification here? Is the quote in the box “elijah in autumn” the thing being discussed? That is, Wright’s response to a question by saying it is like asking him whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. In other words, “irrelevant question for me because ai am not American.” I think I was trying to find a website that published a whole lecture but wondered if that was not something I should be looking for.
Yes - or at least that was the subject of the opening post to this thread, even if we’ve had some posts since that have meandered along to other topics as well. But it was about N.T Wright’s response where he identified the old-earth/young-earth issue as being almost entirely a U.S. issue, and implied that the rest of the world had pretty much long ago moved on from that question already. Or something to that effect.
Thanks, Mervin. I was wondering. And I am aware that the YEC issue is largely borne out of some US cultural issues. Happy Thanksgiving!! (speaking of a US cultural issue) :(Tried to insert a turkey emoji here but does not seem to want to work).
Everyone whom I have ever met who has found modern science to be a stumbling block has found it a stumbling block because Christians have told them it had to be a stumbling block, not because their brains just simply couldn’t make sense of a world in which science was right about stuff and God was real.
I don’t know what that means. I have raised my children to love science and also to be Christians. They have not been primed to disbelief. Why? Because children aren’t argued into faith, they learn by example and testimony and through their own experiences with a God who loves children. What is hard for children is when parents tell them that trusting God’s word means they have to distrust science but they really want to trust both.
There simply is no such thing as a scientific explanation of a supernatural event.
You can discuss the theological implications of science, or how science might inform which Bible interpretations to rule out, but that is different. The biblical account is not trying to explain scientific realities, and science is not capable of describing God’s actions.
What you are doing is called biblical concordism and most people here don’t think it’s a proper way of approaching Bible interpretation. They prefer thinking in terms of divine accommodation and culturally contextualized hermeneutics.
You said, “What is hard for children is when parents tell them that trusting God’s word means they have to distrust science, but they really want to trust both.”
"The flip-side of that situation is what I called a stumbling block for young people raised in a faith-based home when they are informed that scientific realities are not consistent with their biblical training. One of my grandsons was strongly informed that his faith-based training was obsolete at the University of North Carolina and that he would need to change to a scientific view to get it right. Unfortunately, the church is not preparing many of our youngsters to answer that challenge, and it has caused many young adults to walk away from their faith. I see that as a problem requiring a scientific explanation to biblical truth and I was looking to the BioLogos Forum to verbalize the answer.
I confess that my youngest grandson, who is a solid Christian, graduated from Asbury last year so that is what originally caught my attention to your post. I did not realize until I reviewed the entire string today that I was deviating from the YEC/Old Earth discussion by raising issues of biblical creation.
During this conversation I received two pieces of feedback from the Forum. First, “The Big Think” response was interesting, but only extrapolated expansion back to the Infinity of the Creator. All science goes there. Secondly, I appreciated Cale Maddy’s thoughtful reconciliation of the past 200,000 years of historical records. He summarized the conclusions I found in my studies, so I can close my participation with agreement and appreciation. Blessings, and have a Blessed Christmas!