The Bible Vs Scientism

Faith & Science Conversation
21

There are plenty of ways, especially considering the Bible gives no dates at all and no one anywhere in the Bible shows even the least bit concern over the age of the Earth. I understand that you do not accept any of them, and that’s fine. But many many people are able to believe the Bible and have Christian faith just fine while accepting an old universe.

Even within the “young earth” idea of the universe, not everything had its “beginning” at the same time. People were created on day 6. So that was considered the beginning of humanity, but it didn’t have to be the beginning of the universe. Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t mention Adam or Eve in this passage.

This is baloney. I am not a member of a “religion of scientism.” I accept plenty of truth claims based on scientific information, and you do too. You just appear to accept slightly fewer claims than I do.

As @jammycakes explained well above, the age of the universe is based on measurement just like so many other scientific processes and technologies that we observe and use every day. I’m not aware of any scientist, Christian or secular, who believes in a 6,000-year-old universe based on actual evidence – only prior theological commitments. Which are fine to have, but should not be confused with science.

2 Likes
22

Vinnie:

“It is not the Bible itself, but the interpretations/conclusions/speculations of flawed men which tell us what those words on the page, ink on cellulose must and should mean.” See what I did there?

I see what you tried to do. Unfortunately, you’ve failed to take into account the vast difference in difficulty between trying to interpret a very clear written account and trying to scientifically understand our entire world.

For example, we can read this on Wiki… “The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday, 18 June 1815, near Waterloo in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, now in Belgium. A French army under the command of Napoleon was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition.”

Vinnie, is it difficult to interpret the meaning of that statement, and determine the date of the Battle of Waterloo? Of course not. It’s not like you’re going to be saying 1930, and Laura will say 1642, and I will interpret it to be 1815, right?

On the other hand, if we didn’t have that historical account, and the three of us had to scour the earth to scientifically find out exactly where and when this battle was fought - we’d have to sift through a ton of data, and we’d likely all interpret it differently and conclude different places and dates.

When God says, “Hey Israelites, you are to work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE I worked six days creating the physical world and rested on the seventh” there’s really not a lot of difficulty in properly interpreting what God clearly said. No more, in fact, than in interpreting what Wiki clearly stated about the Battle of Waterloo.

Vinnie:

Please don’t confuse your flawed interpretation of scripture with what God actually says.

Exodus 20:9-11… Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day…you must not do any work… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

That’s what God said, Vinnie. I understand that to mean the Israelites were to work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE God worked for six days and rested on the seventh.

Can you point out my “flawed interpretation”?

Vinnie:

Even then, a literal reading of Genesis 1 in context (theirs, not ours as the text was written for us but not to us) does not care about the actual age of the universe and earth.

What makes you say that? How could you possibly determine such a thing from the words that are written?

23

Are God’s days the same of ours? What does the Bible say? Are not the days in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 analogous days?

24

Yes. That is indeed what I’m telling you. Flawed human beings can also make a wheel. But tell me, jammy, when exactly was the very first wheel made and utilized like we use them today?

It is not any kind of “cult of scientism” that tells us that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. It is measurement. The age of the earth is determined by measuring things. The age of the universe is determined by measuring things.

Do those measurements rely on any assumptions?

25

I have indeed learned a lot over the years from AIG, ICR, CMI, etc. But my conclusions are based on the simple fact that God’s written word is my ultimate authority about our world. The question in the OP is based on the fact that the the Scientism (not to be confused with “scientific”) description of our world clearly contradicts the Biblical description of our world.

Do you have an answer to the question with which I ended the OP, jpm?

26

Your assumption is that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is infallible.

27

If you believe that, it seems you would have no option but to reject the Bible if the earth indeed is ancient. Well, since it is, that is not an theologic position that is viable.

1 Like
28

This question? The answer to that is that it is a false dichotomy, as it ignores the possibility that your interpretation is wrong, and God’s revelation and message in Genesis is not that the universe is 6000 years old any more than that we have a solid dome overhead, or the sun revolves around a flat earth, or the moon is a light, but rather who he is and his relationship to us.

3 Likes
29

No straw man, bness. The definition in the OP is straightforward and easy to understand. For example, it is not science that says the earth is 4.5 billion years old anymore than it was science that used to say it was a 100 million years old. Flawed men - not science - have made both of those contradictory claims.

Scientism is the faith-based belief in the authority and interpretations of the flawed men who said 100 million, and then later 4.5 billion - when the undeniable truth is that no man on earth could actually know such a thing.

Do you have an answer to the question at the bottom of the OP?

30

I’m still waiting for an example of flawed human beings with Ph.D.s and disinterest in the relevant science interpreting science data in many different ways.

31

I won’t do that. In fact, I agree 100% with your statement. There isn’t a single thing in the reality of the world God gave us though creation that contradicts the reality of the world God described in His written word.

Agreed?

32

Neither is the truth, because there is no ‘cult of Scientism’ and God’s creation is not lying to us about its age.

 
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.

What is man, that you are mindful of him?!"

1 Like
33

Agreed?
 

34

What is measurement?

35

No. But if you believe in common descent evolution over billions of years, then you apparently don’t believe these words from Jesus…

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

36

The beginning of creation was on Day 1, not Day 6.

37

Show me how it’s wrong.

38

Show me what is wrong with the analysis of the age of the Hawaiian island chain in the little article I cited above.

1 Like
39

I consider 6000 years ago to be “ancient”. But yes, if it was ever proven that the earth is older than the time from Adam and Eve until today, yes, I would have no choice but to reject the Bible on that matter. And at that point, I’d have to seriously consider why I would trust anything else it said.

jpm, why do you suppose that Jesus considered the creation of Adam and Eve “the beginning of the creation”?

40

Asked and answered. Was Jesus mistaken about when the literal beginning of creation was?