The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Who do you have in mind when you think of members of the scientific community preaching in this way?

How do you know this? Does it come from your personal experience of scientists and their day to day issues, or is it based on something else?

How would you square a notion of God creating rocks to have a spurious appearance of age, with one who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life"? There's the theological difficulty with that position. The scientific difficulty with both the ideas you've mentioned is that there is no reason for them to be proposed other than to support a particular way of doing theology, viz. the YE interpretation of Genesis. Not only that, they work a lot worse in practice than the generally accepted ideas (which is why the generally accepted ideas are generally accepted, and the ones you mention aren't). Moreover, the appearance-of-age proposal strikes at the very heart of the assumption that is made by scientists about the universe, that it's consistent in the way it behaves, and not capricious — and the fact that that assumption works in practice is one of the strongest arguments for the nature of God from general revelation that there is.

All in all, I would have to call the appearance-of-age idea a theological and apologetic disaster!

Sure, you don't have to go there if you don't want to! This stuff isn't part of the core of the gospel, after all. On the other hand, I think it's dangerous to assume that the scripture is plainly saying what you've always supposed it to be saying.

Indeed, scientific data needs to be interpreted, and especially at the beginning of radiometric dating (five decades or so ago) there was a lot of uncertainly around. Now, though, we have a situation where a lot of independent experiments have given results for a lot of different rocks, which taken together paint a very consistent picture about the age of the earth, and the way it has developed. It's the fact that there's so much independent but interlocking evidence, that makes the conclusion impressive.

Anti writes:

This seems to be drawing a distinction between some human endeavors and other human endeavors.
I disagree. Any work that God has called a person to do, whether it is to preach the gospel or to work in "secular" business is God's work.

From Exodus 35:

Men filled with the Spirt and inspired by God for work with, among other things, stones. I think this is the first instance in scripture in which people are described as filled with divine spirit.

And interpreting the scripture? You may or may not view this as a human endeavor, but the fact that different believers interpret the passages about the earth's age differently as yours indicates the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old is not a revelation of God, simply an interpretation.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

here is the problem as i see it -- you assumed my comments were presented as FACT vs. their intended inclusion as hypotheses -- wasn't trying to PROVE anything

it has been a long time since i've delved into this realm so was going on memory -- ain't got the time nor desire to dig up data on an issue i find divisive & ancillary -- perhaps it was a mistake to toss out some thoughts -- i know i didn't appreciate some of DB's comments &, to a lesser extent, some of yours -- i pointed this out but only heard back silence...


i do not recall the specifics nor remember my quantum theory enough to know if the above is a valid scenario (E=mc^2 is the simplified formula) -- i do know that c is in numerous formulas so its changing would effect "everything" -- was this feasible way back when? -- dunno, but it is an intriguing Q to me


i agree in part -- if i had time, i'd see if the scenario was valid -- i do not assume you or DB's level of expertise in this area -- summer is a time for catching up on life so perhaps i'll revisit some old books -- but for now, i am unable to do more than scratch the surface which is why my comments have been scattershot -- plus, i could do without the quasi-offensive retorts

what i disagree with is this: ideas & thoughts should not obscure the debate but enliven it -- we have theories that we were taught in college & such -- they are deemed "proven" -- of course, that is only valid today -- tomorrow could bring a startling discovery that "changes everything" -- so i accept today's proof yet admit that it's but a chapter in a long book & not the final word -- some in here have found that line of thinking frustrating & unashamedly castigated it -- so be it -- but it's 1 of the reasons i tend to avoid this topic


yu have a typo so your intent may be hidden -- asuming i understand what you wrote, i disagree -- people accept/reject Jesus because of their heart, not their IQ -- from Mensa to the mentally disabled you'll find saved individuals -- the focus is on the heart gentlemen

_________________
The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist.

Sorry if what I wrote wasn't clearer, Paco. Glossing swiftly over the Spock = Cobra thing (a passing and clumsy allusion made in compliment to Serendipity's most recent post), I didn't say that IQ in itself has anything to do with salvation. I said that YE creationism, and more specifically the perception that YE creationism is an inseparable part of being a christian, makes a whole section of the population inclined to class belief in Jesus along with belief in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, and never give it a second thought. This is one way, it seems to me, in which the 'god of this world' has blinded the minds of a particular group of unbelievers.

This form of gospel-blindness is found more often among the educated and intelligent. Please note that I do not say it is their fault for being educated and/or intelligent; I would say it is the fault of YE creationist organisations for promulgating their doctrine using misrepresentation of science and abuse of scientists' integrity, and so handing the enemy a weapon he ought not to have. (I might also add second rate biblical exegesis to the list, especially when it comes to the NT.)

I wouldn't damn anyone for holding YE beliefs; I know a lot of people cherish that way of looking at things, and there are several on this board I am grateful to know as people of great grace and integrity. What I do say is unworthy of the gospel is to argue for a point of view using inaccurate science, and negative stereotyping of scientists. Unfortunately, that way of doing YE apologetics has gained such traction in parts of the christian community that many christians innocently assume that it's all true.

So, when people on the outside who do know something about science and scientists come across that way of thinking, they very readily form the impression that christians, nice as they are, inhabit some wacky alternative Alice in Wonderland reality, and that nothing they say about faith is to be believed in the real world. That's a huge leap, I know, but it's the way people's gut reactions work.

Much of this was, of course, expressed more concisely and elegantly by Cobra four posts down on page 10 (before he apotheosed into Spock).

Two other brief points: firstly, what DB just said. Secondly, if you do want to read up some of this stuff on the beach this summer, you'll find E = mc² treated mostly under relativity, not quantum mechanics. And as far as I know, it's an exact result, and not a simplification of something else.

Getting in a bit late with this one, but this is unfortunately all too true:

DB/AJ -- thank you for the clarification of your posts' intent


hard to fight perceptions -- my engineering cohorts never much cared about this debate -- my grad gang asked a few times but i made it clear that YE was an ancillary tenet that was heavily disputed -- that was sufficient for them -- of course, i was fluent in the physics back then too

orbital mechanics still interests me today tho what intrigues me even more is discussing this comment:

i had asked for something akin to this earlier but nobody picked up the baton -- please cite an example as this piques my curiosity & is applicable to the thread

as i mentioned earlier, 1 Q i've not seen answered is Exodus 20 -- it speaks of 6 literal days -- i see no way around that so perhaps the OE advocates could enlighten -- personally, i could care less if the earth is old, young, or a precocious teen -- i seek to know what the Bible Says on the matter, if anything

You're welcome! I agree. But I think this one must be fought.

Approaching your question about Exodus 20 first of all from the Genesis end, Exodus 20:11 is a précis of the first creation narrative, and so the 'six days' there means whatever it means in Genesis 1 & 2.

For the purposes of the Ten Commandments, it's probably of secondary importance what is meant by the original six days; Moses can refer to the creation narrative to give a foundation for instituting the seven-day week equally well, whether Genesis means 6 × 24 hrs. or something figurative by its six days. It does make a certain difference: if it were a literal six revolutions of the planet, then the Israelites (and we) may link our weeks' activities to God's own critical path analysis for creation; and if it were that the six days in Genesis are a figure for God's priorities in creation, then they and we may link the work of our weeks to those revealed priorities. I personally think the latter offers a deeper way of engaging with God in daily life, but the main point of the fourth commandment is to have a 6:1 ratio of work to rest; and this is unmissably there in the Genesis 1 & 2 narrative whether it's read as literal or figurative.

Approaching the question from the Exodus end, anyone who wants to make the decalogue normative for science as well as for ethics must reckon with the language of the second commandment as well:

Exodus 20:4 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. Context (NET)

The translation neatly glosses over the last phrase here, which is in fact in the waters below the earth. If we are to read 20:11 as fixing a 6 × 24 hour interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, we must then also believe that there is a body of water beneath the earth containing such things as might be tempting models for a graven image to bow down to. Bacteria living in soil-water films really don't fit the frame here.

In his phrasing of 20:4, Moses is referring (presumably) to some contemporary story about the earth's structure, because some features of it conditioned the mindset within which the temptation to idolatry would be played out among his hearers. He was referring to literal images of beings from the waters beneath the earth, but not mandating any particular take on whether they referred to real prototypes or figurative ones. Similarly at 20:11, he is referring to the creation week narrative because it speaks about the 6:1 work:rest balance that is fundamental to living life well. He is talking about the literal days of the weeks of his hearers' lives, but he is not making any point about whether the days of Genesis 1 & 2 are literal or figurative. It is enough simply that they are there in God's narrative, and that the narrative can shape our lives.

Either one believes that God revealed a literal overview of how he created the world in 6 × 24 hrs., and that our seven-day week is modelled on that literal prototype; or one believes that God revealed his purposes and ways in creation in the form of a seven-day narrative, that would act (among other things) as a model for our work/rest balance. As far as Sunday–Saturday goes, there's perhaps not much to choose here. But in order to harmonise special revelation with general, I prefer the second.

Here's a sample of what I consider to be poor biblical exposition, from a flagship YE site:
Here's the "clearest statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist":

Mark 10:6 6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. Context (NET)

In the Genesis 1 creation narrative, no less than in an evolutionary account of life on earth, mankind comes at the end, not at the beginning! Jesus phraseology has to be read as meaning, "From the very beginnings of mankind, when God created us..."

This answersingenesis stuff isn't exegesis, it's subterfuge.

What are the "waters below the earth"? Are they simply water (which finds the lowest point to flow to) that is lower than where humans live?

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Well, maybe, Antipater. That's certainly the sort of move one would have to make to keep Ex. 20:11 as a lynch-pin of the YE argument.

On the other hand, במים מתחת לארץ / bammāyim mittaẖath lāʾārets (or in the LXX, εν τοις υδασιν υποκατω της γης / en tois hudasin hupokatō tēs gēs) does rather clearly have the sense underneath the earth or beneath the land. It seems perhaps a bit of a stretch to look on it as a circumlocution for the sea.

_________________
The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist.

One could view the scriptures as designed to increase the spiritual knowledge, not the scientific knowledge, of the people.

The preconceptions or prevailing beliefs about geology and the structure of the earth are not corrected because:
1) the Bible is not a science book
and
2) misconceptions about geology and science are not important for the purpose of the scriptures.



If the scriptures say God desires stedfast love, not sacrifice -- it is reasonable to consider that scientific knowledge is even less what God desires. Not that scientific knowledge is bad, it's not -- it is just not what the scriptures are teaching us. The scriptures leave the prevailing science of the time uncorrected and focus on spiritual matters. The revelation of God to man is not a revelation of science but of relationships, our relationship with Him and our relationship with each other.

Jesus followed the same pattern here:

He is talking about spiritual things, the kingdom of God, not giving a botany lessons on the smallest seed and the greatest shrub.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

I think I have been on this thread a long, long time ago, as old as the earth I suppose.
DB. I like your picture. It is reminiscent of Hebrew cosmology. And In fact when you mention the waters one of the Canaanites deities was called chaos and thus Yahweh as understood in the O.T. more so in Psalms, shows his power over the other Gods, i.e. calming of the seas for example as power over the other deities. Interesting the Hebrew poetry. Though I am not sure were this thread has morphed into a different dynamic than the OP. One thing Cobra that you mentioned about the science and bible.



I wonder, I am sure that God in looking down eternity future (our present time), that God would be will aware of our ever increasing desire for scientific curiosity, of which often leads to discovery. It may not have been the talk of the day in biblical times, but surly in today’s culture this much would have been expected, even in God’s providence. Nothing changes about what God demands from us; it is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Science has and will lead to discoveries about many things including the understanding of plant earth’s age, it is old IMO

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

I'm by no means knocking the discussion we have had, especially recently, but this was the question that began the thread.

Offers, anyone?