Feedmysheep
Member
I have some time for response now.The next elephant in the room is the question of how the different religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam consider the sciences and the sciences of evolution and the history of the universe when they are divided over the interpretation of the Pentateuch, and wide spread rejection of science.
Let's cut to the chase. Do you have some rigorous chemical, physical, or mathermatical formula that
conclusively demonstrates the falsehood of this sentence?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
How about this one - verse 2 -
But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters. (v.2 RcV)
Now most English versions do not translate the Hebrew word there "became" as in
"the earth became waste and emptiness". However I am told it well could be rendered that way
as it is the same word translated "became" indicating an act of divine judgment in Genesis 19:26 -
But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
There are in Genesis chapter one 29 more verses to go. I don't think any of them are unscientific.
I do think the language is pre-scientific. I mean certian utterances are scientifically imprecise according
to modern standards. But so also is the saying "I saw the sunrise this morning." To be scientifically precise
the sun did not rise rather the earth rotated.
Let's take a popular objection. How could God create the sun on some fourth day?
But it does not have to be the word create there but made. And it could mean "made" to appear
to the seer. The clouds parted and the stars and sun and moon were made to appear to the seer
on a fourth day.
And God said, Let there be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Gn 1:15 And let them be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth; and it was so.
Gn 1:16 And God made the two great light-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars.
Gn 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth
Gn 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night and to separate the light from the darkness, and God saw that it was good.
Gn 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
So I have no problem with the Bible's discription of what the seer observed as the
revelation of God's creation and making, formation, preparation of a world for human
beings is conveyed.
I won't argue for the Quran because I don't know it.
Judaism's Hebrew Bible is the "Old Testament" of the Bible. So these comments
can apply to Judaism as well as the Christian faith imo.
In fact I find no passage definitely saying God created the unverse in six days.
I find that it says God MADE it in six days. The word is also used for trimming nails or preparing
a calf for a meal or trimming a beard. It does not have to mean created out of nothing.
For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, (Exo. 20:11)
That to me leaves room for an understanding of a destruction and reconstruction of a world for man
which God MADE rather than CREATED in six days. Strict "Young Earth Creationists" would disagree with me. But it is interesting that modern science theories of destruction and mass extinctions are surmised as
having occurred in the ancient past. We here of killer comets, killer meteors, killer gas coming up from the ocean and other theorized catastrophic events.
Are we so sure then the Scripture is incorrect that - But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters. (v.2 RcV) ?
Anyway, I am not persuaded that modern science theories have at all rendered the revelatory
language of the Bible positively impossible in the least.
My view is different. I think science theories often inch closer to what the Bible reveals.The authors of the Pentateuch, New Testament and the Church Fathers believed it is a literal history of our physical universe and humanity, which is an ancient worldview in total conflict with science.
I look at science with interest but not as a determenant on what I could only know by trusting faith.
No one was there to witness the creation of time, space, matter, energy. It is not an event which
we can repeat in any laboratory, even CERN.
And 90 years of trying has not resulted in selecting by breeding a living organism to gradually
develop into a totally different kind of organism. Evolution theory of the macro kind has not been
observed. Dogs remain dogs, bacteria remain bacteria, finches remain finches though difference
in characteristics may be intelligently channeled by intelligent design of researchers.
It a big subject. And much that passes for scientific theory is really just religion.
And if some gradualism has taken place to turn a ameoba eventually into a carrot, a whale, a chimp, a pine tree, a human being - that I would count as miraculous.
Like if a frog turns into a prince that is called a fairy tale.
But if a frog turns into a prince over the course of 20 millions years, well, that's called science.
I don't buy it. But let them keep studying to see what they can figure out.
The Trinity
In this age when we are told to believe in things like the multiverse or the curvature of space or and such
a three-one God should not be impossible to believe.
I think when finite humans encounter a Person who is uncreated and of infinite power, wisdom, knowlege outside of all creation, some very mysterious paradoxes with this God are not unlikely to manifest themselves to us.
I count this to be like a two dimensional being encounter a three dimensional being.
Something beyond our ability to completely understand is likely.
Fortunately we can enjoy God's richness of love, presence and fulfillment without being
able to explain God with finite human minds and limited human language entirely.
Last edited: