Why God is laughing at our combined efforts to evaluate the Science/vs/Theology issues


(Theophilus Book) #1

While Scientists argue for Evolution, and Christians argue for Creation, divided over such issues as “Shared DNA proves common Ancestor” and a few thousand other minor categories, God is laughing because He already wrote the book on it, and nobody is reading it.

The biggest mistake Men have made is to assign chapters, verses, and “italics” to suggest possible “Helps” in understanding. They only add to the confusion, because sometimes the content should continue way beyond the division suggested by a verse number or a chapter break.

Please, Understand I am not suggesting anyone alive today is responsible for this sad state of affairs.

But to illustrate my point, one example should suffice to establish the fact; The argument over “Common Ancestry” between Humans and other species, based upon shared DNA has already been decided thousands of years ago by a simple acceptance of what God already told us.

What was the beginning of creation about, other than changes in what was to what is? And what was, that is now different?

God separated the seas from dry land. What was it prior to that separation? “MUD.” “MUD” comprised of “Stuff” undescribed, and stuff later discussed. But most important to this issue, a Common source of DNA for creative purposes. In other words, why is it significant that Great Apes share 9?% of DNA with Humans, when all of it came from the same identical unseparated mix of primordial MUD?"

ALL DNA existing since the day of creation, came from that same source, even though the “MUD” was separated into seas and dry land; There is no “common ancestor” involved; rather we share a
"COMMON CREATOR."

Read Genesis - "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth…
And God separated the waters from the dry land, and the waters He called seas, and the dry land He called Earth…And the seas brought forth after its own kind…and the land brought forth after its kind…and it all came from a common DNA source, primordial “MUD.”

That should eliminate that issue. Let’s see if it does.

The next issue we should consider, (at least I offer it for consideration in a suggestive phrase) is the issue oft belabored under the suggestive title of “Natural Science or Religion;” As though they are at conflict.

The truth is “Nature IS GOD.” Allow me to reiterate, “GOD is NATURE” and has told us so for over two thousand years. So why are we still trying to suggest nature is at war with God?

Look at Paul’s significant contribution to this issue, as he offers (I will admit it may be just a tad subtle) where God tells us He is the only NATURAL GOD; i.e., “GOD OF NATURE.”

Paul was describing the subjects of Men’s worship, of those things made by Men, and worshipped, which "By NATURE ARE NO GODS."
If God calls them “BY NATURE, NO GODS,” how is it we continue to miss the simple fact, that leaves GOD as THE ONLY NATURAL GOD?

That would do away with any contrast whatsoever between God and His Natural Creation; ie., All things NATURAL.

There is Nothing found in Nature, no phenomena of Nature that is not of God; He who “BY NATURE IS GOD.” “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no Gods.” (Galatians 4:8)

God has said He is GOD BY NATURE." and who listens? Neither scientist nor theologian has made the point.

God has used Evolution in His design of creation. It is evidenced by many millions of examples. It was God who gave us the hint “Doth not Nature teach you…?” He even told us to look to nature for evidence of His very being; examine “evidence of things not seen.” THAT is the source of FAITH. Look through the microscope to the world too small to see, and you will find evidence in abundance of God, replicated in generation after generation of “LIFE” that has produced uninterrupted from Eden’s Garden, to the present generation.

Then we come to the moral issues raised by immoral people who think they can surmount God in Nature by flouting the “Natural process” by which the species is replicated. Arguments abound in today’s society as to when “life begins in the replication process.”

That is totally nonsense. Life began in the Garden of Eden, and there stands among us today, neither scientist of renown, nor theist of reputable acumen who can either replicate life from any other source than that which was begun in Eden, nor can they explain how life passes from one generation to the next, other than when the sperm impregnates the egg causing the embryonic sack to attach to the Uterine wall through the production of the Umbilical Chord, by which the most ancient secret of all repeats once more the secret uttered in Genesis, “The life is in the blood.”

The same blood that has been produced in every generation form the beginning to the present, has never skipped a generation, and cannot be replicated in the test tube nor in the laboratory of science; neither can it be replicated upon an altar by men of the Cloth regardless of the depth of their belief.

So why the argument? Because they do not read with understanding. They read through the filter of bias, or doctrine, or creed, or translation.
I have seen the results of translators deliberately modify the Greek testament to lead Men’s minds toward a specific doctrine, by adding a word here, deleting a word there, placing a comma where it cannot belong, or leaving out a connection that will tell the story.

We are told that Homosexuality is an abomination before God. Then we debate the issue sometimes with rancor in our hearts, because we do everything except ask God what His position about it is. He has set in motion, a system designed for reproduction, and declared a social approbation upon the sanctity of “MARRIAGE” as between one Man and one Woman.

I have posted on websites where it was stated in rebuttal, that I hated practitioners of Homosexual behavior. I hate no Human on God’s Earth. If I hated them, I could never offer words of council or warnings of punishments for such behavior. What I DO hate, is the fact that I am the one who has to be telling them this is so. I weep for the ignorant, and pray for the fallen. And no, I do not sit proudly among the untempted righteous, and declare “Look at me, and follow my example.” I say rather, pray for me that I fall not into other temptations that society likes to think “makes me better than” some other that is in society’s eyes, worse than I. I do not play such games. I rather look with humility toward He who sees us all and places us in the balance, often finding us wanting. I join the Apostle Paul who stated humbly, “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.”

Then there is the issue of placing “Scholarship” on a pedestal of no dimensions. There are no limits for some who think the fact of Scholarship trumps inspiration from God Himself. But even all of you scholars have not heard God tells us of the common DNA pool, nor of the fact He is “GOD BY NATURE;” both of which are not only significant, but have been argued for centuries by both sides of the issues.

What say ye?


(Christy Hemphill) #2

You and @Tony should start a club. :wink: Many of the rest of us aren’t sold on this idea at all.

In the “by nature” sense we are talking about inherent identity, An idol made of wood or stone, is “by nature” an object, not a living being, not a god. God is “by nature” a personal being and “by nature” sovereign. Jesus “by nature” is God. These are statements about identity. The premise “If God is by nature God” does not logically obtain the conclusion “Therefore God is one and the same as Nature.”

Nature being “of God” (a source genitive) is not the same thing as Nature being God (a predicate nominative)

Also, it sounds like you think there is scientific revelation embedded in Scripture. I can’t get on board with that either. The Scriptures speak of things that were meaningful to the original ancient audience who had no knowledge of modern theories of evolution or DNA. Brad had a good post on this a while back: http://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/no-modern-science-is-not-catching-up-to-the-bible

Are you familiar with the idea of scientific concordism? This is an article that explains why I don’t think it’s the best approach to the Bible: http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/comparing-interpretations-of-genesis-1

And Ted Davis did a series on the history of concordism you might find interesting: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1


#3

@Christy

I’m not especially surprised that you would resort to this kind of behavior. Especially after being pressed up against the wall having no substantial follow-up answers to my claims on Satanism and demonology—except for insulting my “biblical scholarship,” and expressing that you personally are not interested in how “philosophy” or “sociology” explain the Bible… blah blah blah. :smirk:

By the way, it seems like your buddy @Eddie is also up against the wall—on that same thread! :sob:

Moreover, although I personally don’t have access to any first century texts that shed light on the cultural context in which these interactions with spiritual powers took place—or any other physical evidence for that matter—I remain confident that other academics will step in and present any and all such evidence. :sunglasses:

P.S. I have made my position abundantly clear on numerous occasions that philosophically I adhere to the concept referred to as panentheism—that’s a little more sophisticated than simply, “God is Nature.”


(Theophilus Book) #4

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
You and @Tony should start a club. :wink: Many of the rest of us aren’t sold on this idea at all. [/quote]

So why then would God declare them “who by nature are no Gods?” What difference would it make, unless He is in fact the only natural God?

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
In the “by nature” sense we are talking about inherent identity, An idol made of wood or stone, is “by nature” an object, not a living being, not a god. God is “by nature” a personal being and “by nature” sovereign. Jesus “by nature” is God. These are statements about identity. The premise “If God is by nature God” does not logically obtain the conclusion “Therefore God is one and the same as Nature.” [/quote]

I am not sure you see the same genre of deity the scripture presents. God is not saying “They are no gods,” because that is precisely what they are, gods made by Men; but God is saying “They are by nature no GODS.” He is denying them identity as GODS, not “gods.” There was no such trivial pursuit in the day, of BIG “G” - Little “g” to differentiate between True GOD and Man-made Gods.

[quote=“Theo_Book, post:1, topic:4638”]
There is Nothing found in Nature, no phenomena of Nature that is not of God[/quote]

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
Nature being “of God” (a source genitive) is not the same thing as Nature being God (a predicate nominative) [/quote]

Perhaps I could have worded it better upon reflection. I mean to present God as He presents Himself, as “Natural God.” Perhaps there is a discernible difference, though I do not see it. But if God is by nature, God, then He is “THE Natural God.”

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
Also, it sounds like you think there is scientific revelation embedded in Scripture. I can’t get on board with that either.[/quote]

When I used to listen to my teacher, there was no “scientific revelation” in the teaching, but I learned things from the references I was given and following them up with research and study.

God has revealed things to us that by study and research, much can be learned. For example, argument has never ceased as to whether evolution is part of creation. If you want to see evolution in action, watch a newborn infant “discover” things about his/her identity, surroundings, use of hands, communication skills, every aspect of a Human discovering its Humanity. We call that progress. But God tells us of Men who were “Fathers” of industries, by virtue of the fact they introduced the concept and first examples to their societies. "Father of cattle and Herds; Father of musical instruments; even the concept of gathering in cities, was at one time new; as there is listed “the father of Jerusalem,” and several other such accomplishments.

To me, that is a form of evolution unparalleled anywhere other than in nature.

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
The Scriptures speak of things that were meaningful to the original ancient audience who had no knowledge of modern theories of evolution or DNA.[/quote]

From what I have seen there has not been much progress in that area. They still squabble over whether Man descended from Great Apes, which is a direct insult to God who made Man in HIS image, not the Great Apes image.

The common DNA pool takes care of all the issues ever raised about DNA similarities. If there is one gene different, it is a different creation. If two, more different.

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
Brad had a good post on this a while back: http://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/no-modern-science-is-not-catching-up-to-the-bible[/quote]

Being new to the board I may find it and learn from it.

[quote=“Christy, post:2, topic:4638, full:true”]
Are you familiar with the idea of scientific concordism? This is an article that explains why I don’t think it’s the best approach to the Bible: http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/comparing-interpretations-of-genesis-1[/quote]

I certainly can see concordance in much of scripture. I don’t know the approach taken by the author of your reference, but I do know the significance of the antithesis thereof; “discord” would make all things war for food, space to “be.;” water, opportunity to communicate, etc.
.

Thank you for the input and the references. It makes me think.


#5

It did? I don’t think you’re being true to scripture with that statement.


(system) #6

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.