Why should I bother with the Bible and Christianity?

I am glad that you are searching. Following are some thoughts for you to consider.

Why am I a Christian

I am a Christian because I have trusted Jesus as my Lord and Savior for the forgiveness of my sin and for eternal life. But I think your question goes further, “Why do you believe the Bible is true, and can be relied upon for questions of history?” I doubt I would be satisfied if I started my quest with the answers in this forum. So let me give you mine, much different from most of what is written here.

I believe that the Bible is true and accurate, even in the question of history and where it touches on science, from Genesis 1:1 to the end of Revelation. It gives an accurate history of the universe. God created the universe several thousands of years ago, not billions. And he created everything in the universe. He is the creator, and everything else is his creation, including time, matter, energy and space.

Evidence from nature—two worldviews

We all have the same evidence from nature. Adherents of naturalism see and interpret the evidence through their naturalistic worldview lenses; adherents of theism find the evidence from nature to fit well into their theistic worldview.

Briefly, naturalism holds that everything came from nothing, order arose from chaos, life emerged from non life, more complex life (there is no such category as “simple life”) arose from less complex life, and sentient or self aware life came from non sentient life, and the current apex of biological evolution is humans. I find this all incredible, and frankly, irrational. I don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

Genesis chapters one and two, in a natural reading, state that God created the universe and all that is in it in six normal 24 hour days, and utilizing the historical chrono-genealogies given later in the Bible, this occurred a few thousand years ago. The geological sedimentary layers and the fossils in them were laid down primarily during the worldwide flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6 though 8. Despite the expected protestations, the geological evidence is better explained by rapid deposition during a worldwide flood. The ice age following the flood was triggered by post flood environmental conditions and did further significant geological work.

Theistic evolution

Biologos among other groups promotes theisitic evolution, or as they call it, evolutionary creationism. Over the past several years, theistic evolutionists have loudly and publically asserted their view as the only intellectually credible position that thinking Christians can hold. Moreover, they often dismiss anyone who challenges their claim as being out of touch with the latest scientific research as if the evidence for macroevolution and human origins is so unassailable that it cannot be questioned. And what are the philosophical and theological concerns if one accepts the evolutionary explanation for human origins? I think that this is an important part of the question you are asking.

Biologos is a somewhat strange entity, in that it embraces some of the facets of the theistic worldview, and others of the naturalistic worldview. For example, it accepts that God is the creator, and that he was involved in the beginning of the universe and life. In other words, there were at least two miracles, the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. That satisfies two dilemmas of naturalism that it has no answers for; how did the universe begin, or if you understand the big bang to be the beginning, what caused the big bang? And how did life arise? But from there, everything else developed by purely natural processes with at least no evidence of God’s intervention.

The “evidence” for this is all in the distant past, all inaccessible to most people, so we must rely on “experts” to explain all of this to the rest of us. For BioLogians, this spills over into their biblical hermeneutics or Bible interpretation. Understanding much of the Bible, particularly Genesis chapters 1 through 11, depends on “experts” as well, this time through an understanding of ancient near east culture. But again, ANE culture and history is in practice inaccessible to most of us except through these experts’ scholarship. And these experts find the first chapters of Genesis to be mytho-history, to best be understood through a framework hypothesis or as a cosmic temple inauguration.

There are several such explanations, and you must choose which you think is more likely. One author, John Walton who has adherents on BioLogos, has written several books on the Lost World of . . . In other words, he believes he has recovered knowledge of past history that has been lost for thousands of years, but which he has been able to uncover and elucidate to us. This is, of course, history that is in the distant past, and in practice inaccessible to most people, as no one can be an expert in more than a few areas. So we must rely on his expertise. In his view, we cannot take a natural reading of Genesis, because although it was written for us, it was not written to us. We must look at Genesis through the lens of a person living in the ancient near east, or we will come to the wrong conclusions, as have many biblical scholars for thousands of years prior to the current enlightenment.

I believe contrary, that the Genesis creation account is an apologetic (argument) against the pagan creation accounts. And lest I be misunderstood, I also appreciate scholarship, but find it variously helpful and also unhelpful at times. It needs to be considered critically.

So to you who identifies cryptically as “I think, therefore I sigh (did I get that right?),” I understand your concerns. Many Christians teach what I also find difficult to accept. And I find Christian evolutionists to promote both weak science and weak hermeneutics. How do I see this?

What is evolution?

You brought up evolution. Briefly defined, biological evolution is one kind of organism changing into another fundamentally different kind of organism through natural selection working on random variation. I expect that several in this forum will object that evolution is much more than this, but I think this is an adequate and accurate brief definition from which to work, and a definition that many evolutionists would accept when talking to one another.

What are the biblical problems with evolution?

In Genesis 1, we find that as originally created, everything God created was good and very good. But then sin and evil came into the world when Adam and Eve rebelled against God. Because of that, death came upon all people (Genesis 3:3; Romans 5:12) and the entire natural world came under a curse (Genesis 3:14-19; Romans 8:20-24.) For evolutionists, the geological record is a history of destruction, disease and death, all before Adam and Eve and their rebellion against God. In this narrative, contrary to scripture, the link between sin and death is broken, because death and disease come before sin. It also brings up the question of a need for a Savior for those who sin—who break God’s moral law. In secular evolutionism, how is there even a God and his moral law?

Identifying poor arguments and radiometric dating

I also observe some arguments on this forum, and even on this specific thread, to be illogical. But to my dismay, others fail to call this out. Identifying bad arguments in a forum like this should be imperative, regardless of who made it. Here are two examples:

We were discussing radiometric dating in a previous forum. How can we tell if it really works rather than just accepting it as accurate a priori? In other words, if we use radiometric dating to determine millions and billions of years in the earth’s geological records, is there a way to check the accuracy of this method.

As it turns out, there is. We can check radiometric dating against rocks of known age. And we have. For one of many examples, fresh rocks from the recent eruption of Mount Saint Helens were dated a few years old, by qualified scientists using accepted protocols and qualified laboratories. The test results were that the rocks were hundreds of thousands and even millions of years old even though they were only about 10 years old. Other commenters, read the scientific papers that were written on how this process was done before you tell me that Austin, et al, didn’t know what they were doing.

How was that information received in that forum? One response was “It is unreasonable and irrational to weigh a toy truck on a scale that is designed to weigh 50,000 pound trucks. And it is also unreasonable to use a technology that measures millions of years to date something only a few years old.” Yes, I can understand that the dials on the truck scale or the radiometric testing machine might not even move. But that is the wrong analogy; here is the proper analogy: When a one pound truck is put on the scales and it weighs in at 500 pounds, then there is something wrong with the scale. It is not that radiometric dating didn’t find any time passage with the fresh rock; that I would understand. It was that it measured hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

Here is another example, in the context of intelligent design and the concept of a common designer in this current forum:

Q. “Just because two cars have the same basic components does that mean they are from the same manufacturer or are related?”

A. Of course not. I think the commenter is saying that the development of automobiles is a poor analogy for God as an intelligent designer. But is it? Think of the thousands if not millions of people—intelligent designers–have been involved in the development and design of automobiles. It starts with the development of the wheel and wheeled vehicles, metallurgy, the discovery of electricity and using it in generators, motors and wires and much, much more. It is almost mind boggling the collective engineering and intelligence behind the development of vehicles and automobiles. All manufacturers share many components and the design behind them in common.

But the vehicles are all intelligently designed. So was the universe and all that is in it. The only difference is that God is a singular intelligent designer, not one of many or a member of a design committee. The analogy of intelligently designed vehicles to an intelligently designed universe with life is helpful. As a matter of fact, the complexity of the universe and life is many magnitudes of order greater than that of an automobile.

If you spend much time on the BioLogos forum, you read a common thread: “Intelligent Design has been co-opted by creationists, so I distance myself from it.” That’s pretty weak. If the devil himself said that two plus two is four, would you judge that statement by its truth content or deny it because of its source?

Evolution’s magic words

Another problem with evolution talk is that they use magic words to fill in gaps of knowledge. The term “magic words” is used here as a concise idiom that describes the best words evolutionists use to explain “apparent” design. Here are some of those words and phrases: ancestral condition, common ancestor, evolved, elongated, became, took on, developed, and enlarged. These words convey imaginative speculation, not science. Here are more:

Evolutionists confidently insist that a complex biological feature simply appeared, emerged, arose, gave rise to, burst onto the scene, evolved itself, derived, was on the way to becoming, radiated into, modified itself, became a miracle of evolution, was making the transition to, manufactured itself, evolution’s way of dealing with, derived emergent properties, or was lucky.

Creation thinking does not need to resort to magic. A living and ingenious Creator expertly crafted each basic animal form with all the equipment needed to fit an ecological niche. Some creatures even have programs that alter their equipment in order to adapt to different environmental niches. (Thanks to ICR for their articles on this.)

Here is more from Daniel Witt in a recent article in Evolution News:

From: Will Evolution’s New Synthesis Be Hard or Soft Magic?

“These days, quite a few biologists are saying that the neo-Darwinian synthesis has failed as an explanation for life. The magic just isn’t working anymore. There’s a lot of talk about a new synthesis to replace it. Ideas like emergence, self-organization, self-construction, panpsychism, teleonomy, and more are being put forward.

The question is: Will this new synthesis be soft magic, or hard?”

More magic words and sciencey sounding phrases, but not evidence. Look up their definitions!

Where can you find additional resources and information?

There is much more to be said on these topics, and many books have been written on these to which you can refer. It will require reading, research and study on these issues if you wish to resolve this in your mind and relieve your sighing. My concerns were resolved early on. I myself have subsequently spent many years and thousands of hours on these topics because of my interest in these issues. You may be able to resolve your concerns more quickly depending on the depth of your skepticism.

You are already asking questions—that is a great start. So take off your evolutionary worldview lenses, and consider the alternatives openly and with intellectual integrity. Investigate what the Bible says. I would recommend that you read Genesis, the book of Job, the Gospel of John, and Romans for your investigations.

Where can you find resources to investigate biblical creationism, both from and biblical and scientific perspective? Here are three organizations’ websites that provide this information and which can direct you to even more resources and books:

www.creationministries.org

https://www.icr.org/ (Institute for Creation Research—focusing on research)

We pray that you will come to know Jesus as your Creator, Lord, and Savior

My friend, we—and I include all those who have trusted Jesus as Savior including the evolutionary creationists in this forum—we hope and pray that you too will come to know Jesus as your Creator and Savior and Lord. We are all sinful, we have broken God’s moral law, and need to be forgiven and reconciled to God. God is a righteous judge, and we stand condemned before him. But Jesus paid the penalty—the righteous one dying for the unrighteous. We pray that you will ask for God’s forgiveness, as those who trust in Jesus have, and by this receive forgiveness of sins, a right relationship with God, and eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. This is a decision that determines your eternal destiny. Romans 3: 23 explains, For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.*

And there is no excuse for not believing:

Here is my summary of Romans 1:20 For since the beginning of the world, God’s eternal power and divine nature can be clearly seen through what he has made, so they (everyone) are without excuse (for not believing in God.) My comments are in parentheses.

God bless you in your quest for truth.

Faith is not contrary to evidence. But it does go beyond available evidence. Faith can take us beyond what we know intellectually.

No.

Embryonic means that it already existed. I am talking about the first ever flying bird, or the first ever bone, or the first ever joint, Or the first ever pair of limbs. They had to come from somewhere. A convenient deviation with all components intact? We end up with a genetic modular system where by all it needs is to get the right combination and it all happens. Yeah.
2 wings (6 for insects) an even number of legs, One heart, white corpuscles, the list goes on and on. all taken for granted by Evolutionary scientists.

It is just too perfect.

Richard

That’s not what that word means.

They came from the same place as every other organism, from biological reproduction and embryonic development.

1 Like

Mr. Ewoldt,

Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful response. I sincerely appreciate your clear use of the English language. Apparently, some do not realize the importance of expressing their thoughts clearly.

After carefully reading your post, I have found that you have given no reasons for this belief.

I am not a naturalist. I consider myself a deistic evolutionist, but foremost a seeker of truth.

I am very familiar with these claims. After further research, I rejected them. Amusingly, concerning all of the above quoted claims, the Bible is silent. The YEC “scientific models” start on the presuppositions that:

  • The Universe is less than 10,000 years old. The Bible says this nowhere. All the attempts I have seen to extract this age from the Bible are based from hopeful, extremely speculative reconstructions of genealogies. Nowhere in the Bible is it indicated that the genealogies were intended to serve this purpose.
  • That Genesis 1-11 should be read and interpreted through the lens of modern Western thought.
  • Evolution of any normal sort should be rejected because of the created “kinds.”

Then they proceed to explain all natural phenomena with these presuppositions, with oftentimes ludicrous results: hyper-evolution, rapid speciation, geocentricity, unpredictable, elusive light speeds, etc.

The same “disadvantage” applies equally well to YECs. No matter if the distant past is five seconds or 13 billion years ago, GR prohibits backwards time travel. We must rely on experts: the question is whether to trust the YEC experts or the other 95%+ of the scientific community.

You did get that right.

I am not ignorant about evolution. I know just enough to tell what you said is complete nonsense, no offense meant. One kind of organism does not change into another kind of organism. Any decent dictionary gives a definition similar to the following:

“Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.” – The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

I feel quite free to question the integrity of the YEC scientists, because they have only produced a handful of seeming anomalies compared to the vast preponderance of consistent, verifying results. It is not my purpose to prove this or to debate with you or others concerning it: I find it sufficiently self-evident to make the discussion useless.

That may apply to some evolutionists, but certainly not all. Of course, we haven’t got all the details worked out for the history of every single organism, we don’t need to, and we most likely never will. There is enough evidence in my understanding providing sufficient reason to believe that evolution has indeed actually occurred. Many of those phrases would not be used by anyone who really understood evolution, I think. Creationists and some enthusiastic new atheist podcasters might.

Simply replacing a scientific explanation of natural phenomena with God often raises more questions than it answers.

I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

3 Likes

You are just nit getting it.

Look at the shape of a femur. The ends are matched to connect to?

A pair of limbs are not identical, they are mirrored. And each bone is a specific shape for its function. Random? How can nature stumble across symmetry?
Evolution develops and specialises but the feature already exist. Every limb has already got at least two joints. Evolution can grow or shrink, but not one at a time. The shapes of bones, from the word go, a creature either has bones or not. And these bones are already perfectly shaped for the job in hand complete with sinew, cartilage, muscles and the ability to use them properly.
Is flying controlled by DNA or teaching and/or experience? It seems that chicks just fly.

You are not looking at the details. Oh, it just happened. It can’t just happen correctly first time, every time and still be random.

The composition of a bone could be randomly generated but the shape(s)?

Not saying it hasn’t but I am saying it doesn’t have the finesse needed

Richard

There’s plenty of scientific papers on the evolution of body symmetry in metazoans. For example:

I see a lot of claims but zero evidence to back them.

Evolution isn’t random.

Based on what? Because you say so?

1 Like

@RichardG @T_aquaticus and anyone else that I have forgotten. Would you mind staying on topic? Please bring the discussion concerning evolution elsewhere. I do not find it at all helpful or inspiring. Thank you.

Really? then who is controlling it?

Can’t be God! (Science doesn’t believe in God)

How can I provide evidence when there isn’t any?

I am just asking yout to consider how the first femur came into existence? That shape!
Was there also the rest of the limb. complete with perfect hinge at one end and Ball and socket at the other? Brilliant. Instant limb. Yeah! Oh I forgot the foot. Not a ball and socket, or hinge. Plenty of muscles . ligaments and nerves though.

Why can’t you see that all the evidence of the Evolutionary process involves development, or adaption, not creation?

Just pull a four chambered heart off the shelf? Add a rib cage? Attach to a back bone(s)

Each bone is different and precise. How do you account for it? Where is there a rigid backbone? Or half a limb? Or a single limb? Oh lets just invent a liver or a couple of kidneys? One mutation or hundreds? How does the brain know what speed the heart needs to be at?

Who invented the coding that converts DNA sequences to bodily parts? Who invented aa double Helix that can divide in two to allow for RNA transfer? Accident? Cosmic fluke? Trial and error? Random deviations?

If you are going to deny randomness you have just rewritten Evolution.

It would take more than the time available to accidentally achieve a human body. But if there is no God, then that is what we have. The most outrageous cosmic fluke in the Universe.

Richard

If im perceived to do that often[insult], then we are all in good company because im also regularly on the receving end of it (and not necessarily because i started it first btw). also, old habits die hard. I have been both a student writing tripe, and a teacher marking it. I guess habits in the way I respond to tripe can stick in the same way road rage habits stick with truck drivers! Just that i happen to have been both. If im seen to be insulting its because my patience is being tested and i dont have a particularly long fuse. The lighting of that fuse occurs when individuals who claim to be Christian intentionally aim to discredit the very book they claim to follow.

One thing you will find i never do here is claim that im a good Christian. Im a lousy one. However, im not here to play nice. im here to be challenged and to challenge. I do not take kindly to poorly thought out theology in the science arena and that is just the point. Im not a conservative in the SDA sense…I swear far too much for that and worse still, I hardly ever quote Ellen White. However, i do hold to a literal view of the bible where the normal reading of language determines that one should.

Anyone with even a basic level of literacy can understand the difference between historical accounts such as creation, noahs flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, Exodus versus… the parables of Christ or preductions in the book of Revelation (although Revelation can be confusing if not read in conjunction with the narrative of the book of Daniel).

A person should bother with the Bible and Christianity not because they seek perfection in the human nature, but because they recognise that this world is really screwed up and there must be both a reason for that and something better on offer once we all “blow ourselves up”. Lets face it, the environment is on the precipice and practically all the major countries are fighting in wars on a daily basis and even quite a number of the smaller ones spend a great deal of time trying to stave off militants within their own borders.

Moving away from the above, and onto a more fundamental problem i see with Theistic Evolutionism in general…

As far as I can tell, this forum exists to try to melt science and theology.

What is plainly obvious to me sometimes is that individuals here are very focused on reforming the bible in a mould that is designed by naturalism. Most here will deny that, however, as soon as their theology is tested using standard academic methods of referencing and internal biblical cross referencing, cracks appear. The inconsistencies in doctrine become very obvious even to an atheist with little bible training.

For example, i suspect most here would agree that generally, atheists are of the view that the bible is essentially a fairytale that presents some kind of moral guideline for Christians.

The thing is, I have also noticed in my own lifesa experiences with friends who are atheists, any who studied their history will also say that the Old Testament is barbaric and therefore not credible. They certainly do not believe its history…Hezekiahs tunnels, Pontius Pilots stone, the dead sea scrolls…none of the artifacts on display, things they can see and touch, seems to make any difference to the notion that the bible is fairytale/myth.

So when a Christian attempts to preach the bible to non christians, what are they actually supporting their own belief with according to the atheist? Its a mythological book about morality that started out with barbarism and when that failed, the new Socrates (ie Christ) managed to russle up a group of believers with a “turn the other cheek” philosphy. Now the beauty of Christs model was, an entire nation was under the scourge of Roman occupation…they were crying out for relief. This new group intially forced the Romans to align themselves with the Jews, then about 300 years later when Romes emporer realised how rapidly and how large the Christian church had become he sought to align himself with them…pretending to be Christian but also maintaining a lifeline to sadistic Roman and ancient Hellenistic (Greek) practices on the sidelines!

Furthert to the above, Atheism doesnt need morality from a book that has similarities to ancient Summerian mythology that predates it, so exactly where is the support for the proof of the bibles authenticity if one doesnt carefully consider the importance of its internal consistency found via the recorded history contained within it pages?

Whether you wish to accept this or not:

Naturalism fundamentally takes a unformatarian approach to the history of this world. The bible says that this world was corrupted by sin (all creation) and that a global categstophic event killed every living thing on it (noahs flood). I dont think naturalism will accept a catestrophic flood event despite accepting we have sedimentary deposits all around the world thousands of feet above sea level and hundreds of miles from the cost, fossils in places they should not be and, plate techonic theory showing the landmass was once a supercontinent rather than what we see today. There are so many indicators in support of a global flood.

There is an interesting theory relevant here worth your reading. It doesnt directly support the historcity of Noahs flood, however, if this theory gains traction and is chosen to be a better alternative to an asteroid impact causing dinosaur extinction, i think it might just add another indicator supporting the authenticity of the biblical flood.

Verneshot Theory

Phipps Morgan, J.; Reston, T. J.; Ranero, C. R. (15 January 2004

That’s the case for everything physical. What science can say is “this does not look like there definitely was supernatural alteration of the measurable results.” It can say absolutely nothing about whether God intervened not at all, in every quantum event, or something in between.

Yes, and so do I, but not because of philosphical naturalism. I believe that God is unchanging, and thus that he does not execute deceptive, pointless miracles.

Yes–because it has been measured to work. That’s the only way that half-lives can be determined: direct measurement of decay rates. If they had ever changed in the past (by enough to matter for this purpose), then one of the following had to have happened:
1: The earth and everything else turned into plasma.
2: Every atom larger than hydrogen fell apart.
3: God executed a miracle solely to deceive us into thinking that the earth is old.
There are no other options.

That is wrong, they were hundreds of thousands to millions of years old with an error bar wider than those ages. Leaving off error bars is malpractice and guaranteed to leave errors regardless of presuppositions: I have seen molecular clock papers that ignored error bars on the input data and got dating off by a factor of at least 2. What the data actually shows is that that particular technique may give values up to a few million off from the correct one.

This is not a good analogy–the following is the right orders of magnitude and error bars.

If I remember correctly, that was using K-Ar dating, if so, it is the equivalent of setting a large grain of sand on a scale intended for trucks with an labelled accuracy of 5 kg, seeing it say “1 kg”, and concluding that when one sticks a truck on it and it reads “10,000 kg”, the truck could weigh less than a kilogram. The error is not a factor of 100,000, it’s getting 0.994 modern value when one should have gotten 0.999999994 modern value, which is a 0.6% error.

The 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th and last ones are bad usage. The rest are simply using terminology that indicates “this change happened” with no reference to underlying causes, it’s the equivalent of my saying in my organic chemistry lab notebook that “The simple distillation apparatus was assembled as shown in Figure 1.3 of the lab manual.” or in a more ordinary usage that “The glass fell off the counter.” Neither of those gives any indication of whether the occurrence was spontaneous, had a proximate intelligent cause (e.g., me), a proximate non-intelligent cause (a robot assembling the apparatus or an air current knocking things over), or anything about an ultimate cause (God being in some sense in control over the event, a ghost doing it, nothing being in control over the event, etc.) Writing in passive is normal is science (or was, it’s getting less standard).

To me they convey “this person is using normal writing conventions for a scientific paper.” To come to any of those conclusions requires evidence based on a scientific approach.
As an example:
Based on my own research, the ancestral condition of the shell in Teinostomatidae appears to include the following characters: a smooth, multiwhorl protoconch, spirally aligned micropits, a vitrinelliform shell, non-flaring aperture, and an enlargement of the parietal wall into an elongated plug that partially covers the umbilicus, and a thin umbilical callus wash. The absence of micropits in many species appears to be a derived feature, and the species without them to share a common ancestor, whose descendants have radiated into about 8 genera. Micropits seem to have also merged in one genus, giving rise to microscopic spiral lines. The taxa lacking micropits appear to have become dominant in diversity over the last 45 million years.

The inclusion of “elongated” and “enlarged” in this list is bizarre, as those are more commonly used as simple descriptors than anything else (like “Cuspidariids have elongated shells with enlarged rostrae.”)

3 Likes

The problem here is not the validity of the Bible but the validity of your understanding of it.

The Bible is an amazing book but you actually limit it by insisting on a specific understanding and in doing so put off people who cannot view it as you do.
And your lectures do you no favours

Richard

1 Like

im not interested in the claim of lectures…i put up with equally weighted opposing beliefs in exactly the same manner that i return fire. The lectures statement is irrelevant…and prickly to be honest.

We agree the Bible is an amazing book, the problem is, out of the two of us, only one of us seems to reference its internal theology. I consistently illustrate the consistency of internal biblical theology by cross referencing a variety of biblical writers statements regarding its own historicity. Often these writers are eyewitness, often they are not. However, they are all inspired by God via direct revelation through visions, face to face, Christs ministry, etc. You often appear to deny that internal consistency and seek to form some kind of credible defence without any referencing at all.

If im wrong there, a good place to begin refuting my claim would be in providing some biblical references that support your theology…unless you do that, what is your theology based on? Human reasoning? human reasoning is stated biblically as an unreliable method of testing. Humanity is corruptible and corrupted by sin. My understanding is that Christians obtain their world view from the Bible. We do not obtain it from anywhere else…even the “Bereans studied the scriptures daily to see if these things were so”. This early christian church group validated what they were being told using the bible…not secular sources. Whether or not the bible teaches science is irrelevant! That is nothing more than a modern construct hoping to convince the weak doctrinally trained individuals that the bible can be twisted to suit secular theory.

The whole instead of fracturing it.

Your “cross referencing” is flawed. You continually claim that referring to an even ratifies it. it doesn’t. There is a difference between the action and the understanding. We all know what a flood means. We also know what the writer was trying to convey by calling it global. That is what is referred to, not that it was actually global.

IOW you are confusing theology with history. The Bible is a theological book, primarily. Any History is context. Any science is based on local understanding , folklore, and superstition.
Jacob created speckled sheep by getting them to drink from speckled water? Even you would not accept that as valid. (I would hope)
You malign me for not reading the Bible as you do. That is not Christian. It even contradicts Romans 14. The idea is to discuss and understand each other. You seem to think that I do not follow our reasoning? Wrong. I follow it and reject it. As is my Christian right.

I am a preacher, but that does not give me the right to dictate what must or must not be believed. Those days are long gone. I can teach about Original Sin without believing it. I can give the reasons why you read the Bible like you do , and not do the same. It is not about dictation it is about information. At the end of the day what we believe is only between God and the individual. Neither you nor I have any superiority or claim on the “truth” (whatever that might be)
Often differences are due to definitions, or interpretations or understandings based on culture, or upbringing or even the church we attend. We attend the church that conforms to our beliefs (or the other way round). My Church is a “Broad Church” that tries to encourage belief in God without specifying the hows, and the whys… Dogmatism is the enemy of Christianity

Keep preaching by all means. Just understand that you are preaching to the choir not the ignoramus

Richard

Except that it’s a terrible word since the way you use it excludes a great deal of what engineers use the word to describe. This is why there are different modifiers for the term; there is static design, systems design, iterative design, etc.

Except that a living organism is a machine.

I think you’re restricting the meaning of design to mechanical design, the effort to get a mechanism that does nothing but what is desired. But mechanistic approaches are not the whole of design, as I have illustrated.

I find that statement meaningless. If there was no designer, then the only result will be chaos.

Of course – but He had to design for love and freedom; those weren’t accidents.

So you have contempt for a God Who wants order, not chaos? Who intended humans to be able to choose, to fail, to wonder, to explore, to learn?

By saying there was no design you are saying that God didn’t care, that He effectively dumped a heap of crud and that our abilities to laugh and enjoy things was a pure accident He didn’t expect and was most likely surprised by.

1 Like

Your first line has no connection to the second – “created themselves” and volution are not related.

Besides which, Genesis 1 doesn’t tell the “how” – God commanded the land and the sea to “bring forth” without specifying how; there is no indication that He formed any of it individually.

Of course they don’t – they act within their design.

Right – someone else designed and fashioned them.

You constantly speak in terms that show humans were designed, but refuse to acknowledge that without being designed, there is nothing at all but chaos. It’s as though you think that the way to achieve something is to dump a lot of utterly unorganized materials together and then ignore it with the expectation that something will happen, kind of like conceiving of lab work as throwing a heap of paraphernalia into a wheelbarrow and dumping it into a big container just to see if anything happens.

It absolutely does – “heavens and earth” is a phrase that meant “everything there is”.

And if you don’t like Genesis, Psalms and Colossians and Revelation state it clearly.

Unless of course you’re saying that God set the design and let it run, but that’s just confusing the means with the maker.

1 Like

Absolutely – it’s the Resurrection that tells us that what Jesus taught was true. If Jesus had never referred to the Old Testament scriptures we would have no reason to think they had any value. The church accepted the ancient scriptures because Jesus said that they spoke of Him Who had risen from the grave, not the other way around.

Until someone comes to faith in Christ the Old Testament is just a curiosity; it is faith in Christ that gives those writings their value.

The most accessible place I know of is in a book In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood. My copy is loaned out at present or I’d give more detail.
The book is worth reading on all sorts of levels, not just this one point, and it gives sources for everything. All I remember at the moment is that there were at least two very prominent rabbis who came to these conclusions and others who referenced them.

Somewhere there’s a thread where some sources are mentioned, though I wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to start looking!

And with far more interest in using methods of the day to make theological points than in anything we would call history – that’s evident from the fact that the opening Creation account follows the structure of the Egyptian creation story. For anyone familiar with the Egyptian version, the flavor of that opening account is very much like someone giving a report in front of a classroom and the teacher interrupts almost every sentence with, “No, YHWH-Elohim did that!” It isn’t interested in history, it’s interested in taking the very story the Egyptians told and saying, “You got it wrong; it was Israel’s God who made it all, and your gods are just tools He made”.

Which explains why he use the Egyptian story as an outline/structure: it was a version the Israelites had heard over and over due to living in Egypt, and by correcting it at point after point and doing so in memorable fashion he made it so any time anyone might bring up Egyptian claims about who made everything people’s thoughts would automatically go to the corrective version which explained that those weren’t even gods, they were servants made by and for YHWH-Elohim.

I’ll never forget the seminar where it was brought out that Paul’s instruction to Christian women to wear veils was radically feminist, that going veiled in public indicated nobility or at least great wealth, so it was a declaration that all Christian women counted as noble.

Actually what Walton argues for is a natural reading of Genesis – reading it as an ancient Israelites would have heard it instead of piling on cultural baggage that has accumulated over the millennia. The only natural way to read something is the way the original audience would have.

That’s just common sense! The only way to understand any writing at all is to ask what the writer meant his audience to understand by it.

Of course it is – that’s why it uses methods an ancient audience would have understood to be saying, “Those guys got it wrong”. That’s why the writer adapted the Egyptian version, making it both ‘royal chronicle’ and temple inauguration forms at the same time; the forms themselves declare that YHWH-Elohim is “king above all gods” and that He doesn’t need temples because the entire Creation is His temple – while the content systematically overturns the Egyptian (and Mesopotamian) mythology and demotes all the important Egyptian gods to just tools the True God made for His purposes.

Which makes for creative science fiction!

As a caution I have previously pointed out that there have been those down the centuries who insisted that the opening Creation account fit science – the science of their time. Genesis has been used to argue in favor of four elements (earth, water, air, fire) making up everything, and that illustrates the problem: trying to make ancient literature fit one’s personal worldview. As I think Tim Mackie has pointed out, God speaks in the ways that make sense to people at the time for the simple reason that doing so is the only way to communicate.

I refuse to trust them because I have yet to find any who are honest with the text – they refuse to just let the Bible be what it is, instead demanding that the Holy Spirit had to conform to their way of looking at things (an error that has led to ridiculous results down through the ags).

Besides the fact that using human language to describe something outside normal experience always ends up with some degree of anthropomorphizing. On top of that, the phrases listed are more often and more likely to be found in material that isn’t by scientists but by science writers, who don’t write so much for precision but to liven up the reading.

As my first college biography professor put it, even if it is fairies managing the garden one would wish to know how they do it.

Easily – the wind does it all the time; I marvel at the symmetry in sand dunes all summer long when I get out to the beach when I do conservation work. The surf does it, too; I find symmetrically rounded rocks that have near-perfect curves – ovals, ellipses, even paraboloids. Lava does it as well; basalt forms hexagons and other lavas have their own characteristic symmetries.

Plants do it, too, for that matter; a doubling in the chromosomes of digitalis purpurea, common foxglove, doesn’t just double the number of blossoms, it forms them into rows that are mirror-images of each other; it’s a common mutation I’ve seen in my flower bed and out in nature.

A priori assumption there, resulting in circular reasoning: you’re assuming that bone shapes didn’t evolve over time and using that to argue that bone shapes didn’t evolve over time.

It doesn’t – that’s a grammar school biology mistake.

You do this regularly, thinking you’re talking about evolution but getting it fundamentally wrong. Why is this important? Because it makes Christianity look silly. In fact to me it just says you don’t think that God is capable of setting up a system where life begets life in wonderful diversity, He’s only competent enough to design things one at a time. If I thought God that limited I wouldn’t be a Christian.

Given that it can take bacteria that barely survived a few parts per billion of arsenic and end up with bacteria that eat arsenic, I’d say it plainly has plenty of finesse. That to me shows a God whose command “Bring forth!” is still at work, new forms emerging to adapt to whatever comes.

“Discredit”? By claiming that it is serious when it says to use honest measures? by pointing out that it was none of it written to us, that we are reading someone else’s mail? by insisting that God speaks to people in ways that they will understand, not in ways that will make some distant future generation happy? by insisting that if someone claims to us the grammatical-historical method then they can’t go around ignoring both parts of that method?

The question here resonates with me because I saw hundreds of university students ask that very same question, and then follow the YEC reasoning that if there is one error in the Bible then throw it all out, and abandon their faith. If the Bible is what YEC claims, then no one should bother with it because YEC makes it little different from some con game. Happily, it isn’t what YEC claims, it is ancient literature written in ancient language and ancient literary forms under an ancient worldview because that is what the ancient writer and audience would understand, and when read as what it is it stops driving people away and instead calls to them.

For a generic YECer, the answer to “Why should I bother with the Bible and Christianity?” is “Because you’ve never been allowed to engage with either one”.

4 Likes

Thanks for the comment —that is, with regard to what I said. Also note that the various “plagues” in Egypt were meant also to demonstrate to the Egyptians that their gods were not gods. I am sure this was especially tough on Pharoah. But the invitation to believe in, and follow, the true God was open to anyone, not just sons of Jacob.

1 Like

I’ve watched this go back and forth over the years. I didn’t know they’d put a label on it!

Including people healing from disease: we know that doctors and medicines do their jobs, yet we are assured that healing comes from the hand of the LORD.

Hear, hear!

God doesn’t tramp ab out being obvious, or this thread’s very pertinent question would never arise.

Something to consider: if God hadn’t sent Moses and Aaron, no one in Egypt would have had a clue what all the ‘plagues’ were about, and those were YHWH_Elohim at about His most obvious! The same goes for the Crucifixion: if Jesus hadn’t spent three years patiently pounding His points into the Twelve, no one would have had a clue how important that blood dropping down to earth was!
In trying to claim that we can see God in action people forget that Paul pointed out that even though “their voice has gone out to all the earth” if no one preaches then who can believe?
We should take our cue from Moses’ example of taking the Egyptian creation story and changing it to tell everyone “See, God did that!” In all my university days I never saw anyone come to Christ by being told they were wrong about science – but I saw more than a few come to repentance when it was explained that whatever science has figured out, the “deep reality” is that God made it all, and that is all that matters on the topic. They knew they were broken, that they could not live up to their own standards, that they were thirsty for something they couldn’t name, that they were weary and heavy-burdened and needed rest; they didn’t need a discourse on the importance of Genesis, they needed to be introduced to the Savior.

And there’s another response to the question here: in a very serious way the question is wrong! Science and historical details aren’t the issue, the issue is that a certain Man claimed in many actions and words to be not merely God but God come to fix our condition, and that the message is that He rose from the dead and thus proved His claim.

Genesis isn’t the issue, and trying to force it to speak science in some fashion isn’t the issue; Jesus is the issue.

2 Likes

Given that every single one of my various geology professors put in time at St. Helens, some before it blew while most long after – some at least once a university quarter for years! – I heard a lot about this topic, and one thing that was fairly common was that when it comes to lava things can get really uncertain given the radical transformation in substance and content between magma and lava, especially when explosive eruptions are involved. I can’t remember the one professor’s name, but he and others turned out various papers on the matter, one theme being “What is the age of a rock?” when it has been magma for millennia and gone through other conditions starting with subduction.
And thinking of error bars, one professor commented that some error bars reached back to before the St. Helens material had reached a depth to melt again after subducting!

This brought to mind when my sister, working in the mail room of the university at the time, after opening a delivery of a new set of scales said, “Watch”: she dropped a singe stamp on the scales and noted the reading, then licked the stamp and dropped it again. Her point wasn’t that the wight of the stamp changed a bunch from being licked, it was that it wasn’t meant to weight single stamps in the first place.

2 Likes