No one is asking you to do anything. People are welcome to show up and discuss what is interesting to them, even if it has been discussed before. No one is required to engage if they are already bored with the topic.
2 Likes
Are you possibly a flat-earther?
2 Likes
Given the vigor of the multiple responses, including mine, I don’t think there has been any indication of boredom. I’d be happy to reinvent the wheel and get a patent for it. 
BioLogos has a Common Questions section that has gone through an editorial process and has been vetted by experts in relevant fields. The BioLogos Forum on the other hand is open to whomever would like to post here. Although there are some highly qualified people who participate here and there are some very valuable threads, not all the responses are accurate, nor claims that BioLogos the organization would support, so I don’t think there will ever be officially recommended threads. People are free to use the search function and people are free to recommend past discussions.
4 Likes
You might like to read John Walton. He points out that the Bible never uses science that is outside what the people of the ancient near East knew. So, God accommodates to the time.
When I talked with my children when they were 5, I pointed how the sun rose in the East. I didn’t explain to them that we were actually moving toward the sun.
The Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies (such as a hard sky, three tiered universe, a fixed earth), as we know them, but they are not intended to mislead, I think. Rather, as Denis Lamoureux wrote, God uses the science of the day to communicate regarding to his people.
Thanks.
2 Likes
So what does the Bible use that is outside what the people of the ancient near East knew?
Or precluded atoms from existing, depending on which of the relevant fundamental constants one changes.
1 Like
None that can be scientifically confirmed. I think, O cousin across the water.
1 Like
sOhhhh
What did God communicate in the OT that his people could not have known? What ethics?
Yes. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Things were better when Bob Iger was running the show.
1 Like
No empirically verifiable ones.
1 Like
sOhhhhh, how does that help Denis? Ultimately how do we connect the evolving ethics of the Jews to Jesus’? Going forward? Going backward is a different matter.
1 Like
The Bible is a process…the investigation and collection of raw data. It wasn’t written all at once or by one person or by God directly reaching a hand down to take up a pen. It’s only a collection of many different people writing down their experiences of God. Then flawed human beings interpret that data in many different ways. Those interpretations are not the written word of God Himself, but conclusions based on the data which was collected over time from many different people’s experiences. Those conclusions come complete with personal biases, and much conjecture and speculation.
Fundamentalism is a blind belief in those INTERPRETATIONS/CONCLUSIONS.
Sooner or later, as a civilization, we need to figure out how to cooperatively crunch data and come to conclusions. How to figure out when we’re wrong and correct it. It’s not something to be scared of, it’s just part of being intelligent beings.
4 Likes
I personally do not recognize the Bible as a scientific text. I recognize it as a magnificent collection of historical stories, poetry, parables, and writings that point us towards Gods relationship with his creation, man.
That said, the creation narrative can be summed up in the first four words, “In the beginning GOD”. Outside of that, what else needs to be said?
3 Likes
Just to push back, because, hey, that’s what I do, what experiences of God? By whom? When?
Again, as immediately above, where’s the relationship? Which way?
When you find a scientist who is free of bias and completely disinterested, please let us know. It certainly wouldn’t be those like Charles Lyell who proposed an old earth in order “to free science from Moses” without even the flawed evidence from radiometric dating.
You are right that “science” doesn’t say anything. It is scientists who speak, and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes scientists make statements about things that are not even about science, but attribute their statements to “science” which gives them a false aura of authority. That annoys me too.
For example, Stephen Hawkings said something like this: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” This only shows that nonsense remains nonsense even when a brilliant a scientist as Hawkings says it. Actually, this can legitimately be labeled as “scientism,” as he has done very bad philosophy and called it science without recognizing the limitations of science.
But I think we need to be careful about what “scientism” means. I like the following definition, as it includes both weak and strong scientism: “Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.” Wiki. (“Best” is weak scientism; “only” is strong scientism.)
“Scientism is a blind belief in those INTERPRETATIONS/CONCLUSIONS”—not quite. Scientism is not about the quality of conclusions reached, but about claiming that science can tell us more than it really can. Scientism does not recognize the legitimate boundaries and limitations of science.
As mentioned by others, both the conclusions of science and theology are based on the conclusions of people who can be biased and mistaken about either or both. But the evidence from nature, and the statements of scripture, properly understood and properly interpreted will not and cannot be in conflict, because nature and scripture are both sources of God’s truth. But let me go a bit farther. Scripture is primary, and nature is secondary as to the witness from God. But when scientists began to claim that the earth and universe were certainly millions and billions of years old, theologians felt they needed to come up with interpretations of scripture that were consistent with the new understandings of scientists. And so they did, one of the first being the “gap theory.” See Creation and Change by Douglas F. Kelly page 119. From this deep time paradigm, biological and then cosmic evolution followed.
As far as what the Bible says about the age of the earth—the Bible gives us chrono-genealogies. In other words, it tells us one person’s age when a future generation is born. So there is no issue of “missing generations.” It also gives us a record of how long kings reigned. So when we consider co-regencies and other minor factors, we can pretty well calculate the time of the Genesis flood and the date of creation from these biblical records. So yes, contrary to some statements, the Bible does say something about the history and age of the earth and the universe.
Quote: “ NO. 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.” It is measurement, xcept of course, when what it measures is not accurate. For example, 100 years from the date of the eruption of Novarupta in Alaska, samples from the volcanic rock from the eruption were measured at 5.5 million years old, using the same laboratories that the deep time advocates use. Other dating discrepancies abound, and many are likely discarded before we even see them. Generally when an assumption is made, like how radioactive dating works, we test the assumption to see if it works. When it doesn’t, then we go back to the drawing board. Or illegitimately, we make up “just so stories” and dismiss the evidence.
And then to the question, “Which doctrine is more important—the Gospel or Creation? My answer is, “Which blade of the scissors is more important?” One depends on the other. Without creation and the fall, we cannot understand clearly why we need redemption and a redeemer. Most or all of our biblical doctrines have foundation in the early chapters of Genesis.
And no, humans are not clueless about the age of the earth or the universe. It is either about 6000 years old or 15 billion years old, both simultaneously (physicist Gerald Shroeder, Science of God ) or something else. Now it is for us to sort out the evidence. Deep time advocates think that all the evidence points to deep time. I think that the only historical account we have, the Bible, strongly favors 6000 years as does the evidence from nature. But that takes an extended argument, and I am leaving town in two days. Besides, I doubt anyone will be convinced to change their mind on either side in this forum.
A lot of us came from YEC backgrounds before we understood the science – I am one of them, so gullible am I. 
(I think Schroeder’s relativity days argument is fun, but I don’t think it really reflects Genesis 1.)
2 Likes