Seriously?
Look around you.
For most it will be difficult to find things science did not bring into the universe. Even without seeing around you I can point to a few such things. That computer you are typing on would not exist without science. Most likely YOU would not exist without science considering all the dangers from environment and illness which has been dealt with by science.
Iām not talking about manufacturing products, nor about all the good things that science brings us, as well as the bad things. For example, a man who lost his whole family in Ukraine because of a bombing, would curse science. I am talking about the physical structures that we discover in the Universe. For example, when we talk about Higgs bosons or fossil radiation. Even if we introduce mathematical parameters to explain them, it is not science that produced them. Even in the nucleosynthesis, there is no intervention of the science there, everything is made by the nature. Science only explains us how it happens. So on the basis of this, we cannot neglect the cosmogony, because it is the same observation in nature that has not changed. It is only the terms in which it is described that change from one period to another.
YECās choice of, and imposed insistence upon, literalist interpretation fails right there. In the first sentence of scripture.
The science (which we scientist-Christians rejoice in describing as God-given) says:
Think on this. For two-thirds of the universeās existence, there was no earth. Pause. Reflect. The universe, had no earth whatsoever for two-thirds of its existence.
Yet scripture clearly says (and we scientist-Christians believe it) ābeginningā¦heavens-and-the-earthā. That āheavens-and-the-earthā is an integral, indivisible whole. In Western languages this feature is called a āmerismā, but it also features in Semitic languages equally. A single, indivisible term describing an undivided totality.
So:
A clear misfit. Clearly, some interpretation of something, somewhere, somehow is wrong.
For us scientist-Christians this (though you may not believe it) drives us deeper into exploring the truth of scripture. And our exploration of scriptureās truth, not least combined with (God-given) archaeology reveals deeper truth about Genesis 1-11. And this is why youāll see us returning to the topic of the Ancient Near East (ANE) environment from which it arose, to try to uncover its original ātruthā: what it actually spoke to its writers, editors and hearers, untainted by what we modernists might wish it had said.
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.ā --Galileo Galilei
As I said a week ago David. But weāre wrong. When FLAVIEN says earth means universe, heās right. But we canāt say that he does. Iām far from certain that cultural differences can explain this.
When you find yourself in the midst of a new explanation of the scriptures, you must first reread the Bible and see if your eyes will not open up facing this new revelation. God often reveals certain things with time in mind. I donāt want to divinize my thoughts but, know that since the biblical scheme of creation was written 3500 years ago, it is for the first time that someone exploits it to explain the scheme of the Universe from the origin to the man without break. For your concern, I ask you to reread Genesis 1:1-9. You have just raised a very important point, namely that the earth was not created until later in the evolution of the universe. But, it is the Bible that was the first to raise this point. The earth that it speaks of on the first day was defined as an invisible and empty earth signifying the universe at its beginning. Our visible planet earth was not created until the third stage or the third biblical day. With this analysis where the biblical days were periods, we can see that the Bible is not in contradiction with science which has discovered the true duration of these days or gaps. As for the point concerning the Big-bang, I want to come back in my next publications. Until then, I am only following the verses that concern the pre-Big-bang period.
Who is the publisher?
I have been forbidden in this forum to put a link to my publications. Here, I only bring the summaries of my findings on the biblical scheme of creation and I limit myself to that. In this summary I can only put links to other researchers to show that I am not alone in my thinking. However, if you type my name āFLAVIEN PHANZU MWAKAā in a search engine, you will discover my publications.
How would we differentiate this from us projecting our own thoughts and ideas onto the scriptures?
Avg rating: 0.0 0 ratings
Ā£0.00
Currently unavailable
By returning to reality
How does that work?
We donāt understand each other anymore, if you can be more precise.
There is every chance that the verses you are looking at were never meant to describe the physical nature of the universe. So how do you determine if this is the case?
I spent seven years studying it. If I had discovered that there are phenomena that are contrary to science, I would never have had to publish it. If I understand the universe better nowadays, it is from this diagram that describes the universe from before the Big Bang to man. Only, the author of this diagram tells it as one tells a story and not as one gives a mathematics course. This is why my restitution provokes a lot of debates and I am very pleased to discover the relevance of my work.
That doesnāt address the question I asked. Here it is again:
There is every chance that the verses you are looking at were never meant to describe the physical nature of the universe. So how do you determine if this is the case?
Which verses? So far, I am only focusing on the first two chapters of Genesis and that describes the physical nature of the universe. The very title of this chapter, which is also called the first verse, says āIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earthā. And, from the second verse, we went into details.
No you went in to even more grandiose idiolect.
How did you determine that those verses were meant to describe the physical universe?
By its content; mainly from verse 2 of the first chapter to the end of the second chapter. Verse 1 of the first chapter I have developed here: What does "in the beginning god created... the earth" mean?
āLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.ā -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.