OT - Another Win for Genesis
Having had a long time interest in astronomy since I was a kid, I follow new developments in the field with interest, especially as they intersect with the Bible. They have now discovered over 400 planets surrounding different stars, most of them much, much larger than our own earth - more like the giant, outer planets of our own system.
Just recently however, they have discovered a much smaller planet, albeit several times larger than earth, but the interesting thing to me is that this may be a planet surrounded by water. If that is the case, that may be a typical situation of smaller planets in what is known as the hospitable zone around a star. Which gets back to the early verses of Genesis where it looks like the early earth was totally surrounded by water.
Obviously there was no one around at that stage, so how could the ancients have known such a thing apart from revelation. Seems the more science discovers, the more it confirms the Genesis account.
Here are a couple of links for those interested (unfortunately I can't find the first one I saw).
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/16/super.earth.discovery/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2152989.aspx
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
Comments
-
Alex Scott said:
Having had a long time interest in astronomy since I was a kid, I follow new developments in the field with interest, especially as they intersect with the Bible. They have now discovered over 400 planets surrounding different stars, most of them much, much larger than our own earth - more like the giant, outer planets of our own system.
Just recently however, they have discovered a much smaller planet, albeit several times larger than earth, but the interesting thing to me is that this may be a planet surrounded by water. If that is the case, that may be a typical situation of smaller planets in what is known as the hospitable zone around a star. Which gets back to the early verses of Genesis where it looks like the early earth was totally surrounded by water.
Obviously there was no one around at that stage, so how could the ancients have known such a thing apart from revelation. Seems the more science discovers, the more it confirms the Genesis account.
Here are a couple of links for those interested (unfortunately I can't find the first one I saw).
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/16/super.earth.discovery/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2152989.aspx
Thank you, Alex ............. Thank you for sharing! I remember in high school in the 50's looking at stars, planets, and the universe with a classmate in high school who made his own telescope ............. Thank God for the joy and the experience! My grandson desires to be "confirmed" in my local congregation. My pastor permits me, retired as I am, to assist in my grandson's theological and faith-full education. He's in grade 8 but since he skipped a grade he is younger than his classmates. Next year he enters the jungle of high school (maybe 4,000 students?) ................ .......... as we discuss various matters ........... including creationism, evolution, and whatever ......... , I share with Luke that he really has a choice ........... either believe we are all "accidents" of nature, and that matter always existed - and what was before the Big Bang ????????? ............ or ..... to very simply trust God and His Grace for us in Christ Jesus .... evealed in Faithful Scripture ....... Luke knows all about light years and quarks and black holes, etc., etc. .......... I rejoice with my grandson (and praise the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!) that this Eternal, Omnipotent, Ominipresent God with all kinds of fantiastic and wonderful Attributes -- who created and sustains the Universe has sent Jesus the Christ to die for each of us and all of us ........ and to Rise Again for our Justification ......
From eternity He has chosen us. I hope one of my grandson Luke's favourite books of the Bible might be Psalm 139. And I hope he will be joining me in this world and the next in singing, "How Great Thou Art!" all stanza!
Yours in Christ,
.......... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
I just wanted to add my 2 cents here. I am intimately familiar with the "Science" of evolution. I am a career changer moving away from High School Math and Science to something else.
To really confound an evolutionist just look deeper at the science! There are so many assumptions that must be made to even get evolution in the picture with creation. The science that we have today is straining evolution but people will still refuse to turn from evolution
Wet dinosaur DNA from T.Rex! As article states few thousad years is ok for DNA to be wet inside a fossil but 65 million years....NO way....... Evolution explain? Nope, Creation? Yep......Can you say flood ? http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
Lots more is found that just can not be explained by the science of evolution They call creation a faith based non-science endeavor. I would contend that there is much more faith based conclusions in evolution.
0 -
Yes...Evolution is just wishful thinking, but the underlying reason for their unbelief is what has to be dealt with...no amount of evidence will convince and unbeliever..."even if they see someone rise from the dead.."
I too love this stuff...so I wasn't trying to rain on your parade... [:D]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
It definately makes you think. Our DNA code is 1000 times more complicated than the code that was written for Windows 7. Yet it took many men years of hard work and testing to make windows seven what it is.. And it is still not perfect! Yet many people think this DNA code just came to be with no outside help.. HOW????
Then again. the pharisees saw all that hrist did. Even raising people from the dead. Yet attributed his work to satan..
So as Robert said,, No amount of evidence will prove anything to those who do not believe,, or refuse to "open" their hearts..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
So as Robert said,, No amount of evidence will prove anything to those who do not believe,, or refuse to "open" their hearts..
"...Unless perhaps God will grant them repentance....leading to a knowledge of the truth"
2 tim 2:25.... [:D]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Scientists and theologians are both human creatures. They both hold strongly to certain sets of ideas and can react strongly when those ideas are challenged. The guy who first proposed that Africa and South America were once joined was roundly scoffed at by the entire scientific community. They simply didn't know of any force of nature, acting on or in the earth, capable of moving whole continents. But as experiments were done to determine the contents of the crust, mantle, and core of the earth, eventually it was calculated that the convection currents under the continental plates were strong enough to move them.
Likewise, when it was first proposed that an asteroid was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, the scientific community completely rejected the idea. But as more evidence was gathered to fill in the fossil record, it was observed that there was a layer of sediment that can be found around the globe that contains a high concentration of elements that are extremely rare in Earth's crust, but are far more common in some space debris. This layer of sediment corresponds to the layer below which the dinosaurs lived and above which they did not live. This was a recent discovery - I have a documentary narrated by David Attenborough (the guy from the recent hit Planet Earth) from just a few decades ago where he unequivocally dismisses the asteroid theory. But now you'd be hard pressed to find many scientists who don't believe that a catastrophic collision with an asteroid was involved and I'm sure David Attenborough is on board, just like you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who doesn't believe in plate tectonics.
Science has a mechanism for embracing change. Mathematical formulae that have greater explanatory power are preferred over explanations that have less explanatory power. Direct observation of the physical world is good, but testable predictions are better. The competing String Theories (and Membrane Theories) are in the first category: they compete for trying to come up with math that has great explanatory power, but they are not yet able to make testable predictions. Evolutionary theory has some testable predictions, but because of the time-scales involved, much of that is based on observation rather than experimentation. Newton's Law of Gravity made many testable predictions and had great explanatory power, but it failed some of its predictions. Predicting the precise position of Mercury was not possible, for example. Einstein came along with his theories of Relativity, and, among other things, the position of Mercury was now predictable, so his "theory" had greater explanatory power than Newton's "law" and is universally accepted as being a more accurate model of how gravity works than Newton's model. So why don't we call them the General and Specific "Laws" of Relativity? The scientific community has embraced a bit more humility than their predecessors: they acknowledge that a better model might come along that includes relativity, but has even greater explanatory power capable of making even more accurate, testable predictions. Relativity breaks down when thinking about really small objects with really large masses, for example, so there is a point in Big Bang theory where Relativity isn't very useful in its current state. But someday, someone may well be able to make a quantum theory of gravity that can merge quantum physics with relativity and make even more testable predictions. When they do, you can bet there will be some scientists who have championed competing theories who will scoff at this discovery and rail against it. Scientists are human after all. The new physics might not even be well accepted until a generation passes away. But ultimately, the theory with the best explanatory power and that is capable of correctly making the most testable, repeatable predictions, will win the day.
And here is a fundamental difference between science and theology. Theology has no mechanism for embracing change. There is no single 'religious studies method'. When a new exegetical idea comes forward, just like in science, there is resistance, even scoffing. But there is no agreed-upon method for resolving those differences, so the result of each new discovery is usually a fracture in the church: a new denomination or movement. In less than one generation, science has embraced the idea of an asteroid killing off the dinosaurs, but in 400 years the Protestants and Catholics haven't resolved their differences. In 1000 years, the Catholics and the Orthodox haven't achieved unity. And I doubt in my lifetime if the mainstream evangelicals and the guys proposing any of the New Perspectives on Paul will ever reach a consensus. Indeed, we're so used to operating in a field that has no testable predictions, that we sometimes have a hard time imagining that people in the scientific fields can really KNOW anything at all. So the church has a history of doing things like persecuting people who believe that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Thank goodness that the separation of church and state has generally stopped us from killing scientists any more, but the church has a long track record of looking pretty bad in its interaction with science.
I'm inclined to think that the Church should give a bit more respect to the scientific community. After all, the scientific community might have failures, but ultimately they "fail forward" towards a better understanding of the world. And since scientists aren't claiming direct revelation from God, though they might feel sheepish about their mistakes, science can weather the blow. But when the Church plays at being scientists and fails, we drive people towards unbelief.
0 -
It's funny. No matter where you are, if a conversation like this comes up there is bound to be a lurker with the "at least science has a mechanism for change" spiel.
Rather than go around this merry-go-round again, I'll just direct you this post which sums it up nicely.
[Edit: I am curious though, did you go to some training camp that gave you this line of reasoning or was it from some specific book? I'm not trying to be derogatory, it's just that I've truthfully seen this so many times from different people that they must be getting a script from somewhere.]
[Edit 2: As I was grabbing myself a Pepsi at Walmart I was reminded of two other items that may be of interest. See here and here. While science looks great in theory, the fact is that science and scientists have presuppositions, biases, and blind spots just like theologians. And they both use logic and experience in forming, maintaining, and modifying their views.]
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
The water-covered earth in the Creation account was a common understanding of how the world was created among Ancient Near Eastern cultures, of which the ancient Isrealites were a part of. It reflects not advanced thinking or modern science, but an ancient worldview.
In no way does this discovery validate any sort of relevant creation theology that believes the earth, in the shape of a globe as we understand it now, was created out of water.
I'd recommend looking at the newly released Zondervan Illustrated Old Testament Bible Background Commentary on Genesis, along with John H. Walton's recent book, The Lost World of Genesis One, as well as his commentary on Genesis. He also gave a lecture for the Logos Lecture series on this subject too that I'd highly recommend.
And just some advice...last thing we Christians need is another Galileo incident where we presume to have the upper hand on science because of our "superior exegetical ability."
0 -
Chet,
the church....(i.e. those who are saved)...have nothing against science...there are many Christians who are scientists, we are not some medieval monk hiding his head in his cloak......it's the "psudeo-science" of evolution that we have a problem with, which has nothing to do with actual science....sorry.
If you'd like to throw your post up against some Degreed Scientists who are Christians, go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Greg Masone said:
The water-covered earth in the Creation account was a common understanding of how the world was created among Ancient Near Eastern cultures, of which the ancient Isrealites were a part of.
For my own part, I'm not really concerned with this question. I'm more concerned with the ideology that goes on behind both the YEC and other views OEC and theistic evolution.
Greg Masone said:And just some advice...last thing we Christians need is another Galileo incident where we presume to have the upper hand on science because of our "superior exegetical ability."
[Edit: I should generalize this since I really didn't have "you" in mind in particular] My advise would be to be careful who we get our history lessons from: "Giorgio de Santillana, author of The Crime of Galileo, "argues that the Galileo affair was not a confrontation between `the scientist' and a religious credo at all. Ironically `the major part of the Church intellectuals were on the side of Galileo,' de Santillana notes, `while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas' (i.e., from the academic philosophers." (source) [Of course, there are competing views to this. History, just like science and every other discipline, is riddled with presupposition, bias, etc.]
This is another one of those issues that Christians tend to swing like a pendulum on. Either they buy into the secular facade of science (and yes it is a facade) hook, line, and sinker or they go to the opposite extreme of reading their Bible as though it were a science textbook.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
I personally love science. I have a science degree so I definately am not against it. Once thing I love is the more science finds. the more they prove to me there is a God, who is perfect and created all things.
What I do not like about science is when they take things like Evolution,, which is technically still just a theory, and call it science..
Do I believe God gave his creatures the ability to change, and adapt to climate and other things.. Yes.. Do I believe a single celled organism in a bunch of muck evolved into every single life form found on earth today.. NO!!
0 -
I have to admit, Greg, I'm really at a loss as to where you're coming from and what point you're trying to make.
Greg Masone said:The water-covered earth in the Creation account was a common understanding of how the world was created among Ancient Near Eastern cultures, of which the ancient Isrealites were a part of. It reflects not advanced thinking or modern science, but an ancient worldview.
You make it sound that the Genesis account is there because it was a part of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, not because it was a revelation to Moses from God.
Greg Masone said:In no way does this discovery validate any sort of relevant creation theology that believes the earth, in the shape of a globe as we understand it now, was created out of water.
I don't know what relevant creation theology you might be referring to, and I certainly was not claiming that the earth was made out of water any more than the moon is made out of green cheese, only that earth-like planets may be formed with a surrounding mantle of water in the same way that larger planets are surrounded by methane atmospheres. Certainly if the mountains and valleys were to be leveled, guess what, this earth would still be surrounded with water.
Greg Masone said:last thing we Christians need is another Galileo incident
... and what does that mean??
And just so there's no confusion about my position, in no way am I implying that such a scenario would give rise to any life forms without divine intervention, nor am I a young earth creationist.
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0 -
John Bowling said:
It's funny.
Glad I could amuse you, John.
I read every word of the rather long-winded post you directed me to (Pot calling kettle black? Guilty as charged). In it, a poster had posed a logic puzzle that can be summed up:
If A is true, and if B is true, and if A and B cannot both be true, what is the solution to this conundrum? Here 'A' represents propositions in the Bible and B represents propositions made by the scientific community.
The blogger's reply to this puzzle was to say that either A is not actually true, or B is not actually true, or A and B are not actually mutually exclusive. For example, the philosophical blogger might switch the value of A from 'what the Bible claims' to 'what we think/interpret the Bible to be claiming' and then he has an out, falsifying the 'given'.
In other words, the way out of the puzzle was to deny the validity of the puzzle itself. Seems like cheating to me, but I never took a logic course, so maybe I just don't understand the rules of the game.
I fail to see how that post had anything to do with what I wrote about. I hope I'm not being obtuse; I just don't see any connection.
Since I started my post talking about scientists as humans who make mistakes, not only as individuals but also as a community (including the existence of some rather non-scientific, but very human, forms of peer pressure, tightly held assumptions, etc.), I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from articles that talk about mistakes made by the scientific community. How are these observations supposed to negate what I'm talking about, when they mirror my own comments? That blog post used the example of the scientific consensus affirming Newtonian physics 200 years ago as an example of how you don't have to put much stock in the scientific consensus. That seems remarkably uncharitable to me, since Newtonian physics is still far more right than it is wrong, and it is still tremendously useful today. The engineers who designed your car were probably able to do ALL of their work with Newtonian physics. However, the guys who designed your GPS navigation system needed Einstein's theories of relativity. I used the same example, but taking a big picture view, Newtonian physics certainly 'failed' in the right direction - forward towards a better understanding of our universe.
In response to your Edit 1: None of those thoughts came directly from any particular book or course. Since they seem obvious to me, it doesn't surprise me in the least that others have said similar things. I make no claim to originality, but I don't read books about the debate between religion and science. Closest I've come to that is watching a DVD from an ID organization about the concept of Irreducible Complexity. I was a humanities student in school (and studied enough Hebrew to be annoyed when people do violence to the Bible in order to harmonize it with science), but recently decided that there was no reason a Renaissance man like myself should have absolutely no idea what's going on in the hard sciences, so in the last few years I've taken 2 courses each on astronomy, physics, and biological anthropology, and one course each of geology, genetics, origins of life theory and opera. (I also wondered why a man of sense and education was unable to appreciate opera. Turns out, I just don't like Wagner.)
I'm not really trying to start a big debate, despite my inability to say anything in 20 words when 2000 will do. I was just suggesting that a big picture view might lead us to a little more humility and charity when it comes to science and scientists. YMMV.
0 -
Chet Silvermonte said:
I read every word of the rather long-winded post you directed me to (Pot calling kettle black? Guilty as charged).
I guess one "long-winded post" deserves another:
Chet Silvermonte said:If A is true, and if B is true, and if A and B
cannot both be true, what is the solution to this conundrum? Here 'A'
represents propositions in the Bible and B represents propositions made by the
scientific community.This isn’t an accurate representation of the questioner’s
problem. If I were to restate it using the structure of your paraphrase it
would look like this:“There seems to be good reasons for believing A. There seems to
be good reasons for believing B. There seems to be good reasons for believing A
and B are mutually exclusive. Scripture presents the reasons for A and science
the reasons for B. What do we do?”I’m sure you can catch the difference. “A is true” and “there
are good reasons for the validity of A” are two very different propositions.Chet Silvermonte said:The blogger's reply to this puzzle was to say that
either A is not actually true, or B is not actually true, or A and B are not
actually mutually exclusive. For example, the philosophical blogger might
switch the value of A from 'what the Bible claims' to 'what we think/interpret
the Bible to be claiming' and then he has an out, falsifying the 'given'.The blogger, professor James Anderson of RTS, mentioned that
there is difficulty in assessing the *reasons* supporting the truth ‘B’, the
particular proposition relevant to the questioner. In part, this is difficult
because of the philosophical issues that lay the foundation for science (he
admits as much with Scripture in point 3). His position is far more nuanced
than what you present here and he even states in point 1 that “there are further options… but the three above are the
least radical.”Chet Silvermonte said:In other words, the way out of the puzzle was to
deny the validity of the puzzle itself. Seems like cheating to me, but I never
took a logic course, so maybe I just don't understand the rules of the game.This is too ambiguous and I’m not sure what you are
referring to. You could either mean it is “cheating” to take the position presented
in point 2: (A &B) (correct me if I’m
wrong) or that it is cheating to take the position presented in points 11 and
12. Concerning the former, if you (re)read point 3, you will see that Anderson
would actually agree with this in certain instances. Specifically those in
which “scientific knowledge is given ‘veto power’ over our best
historical-grammatical interpretations of Scripture, forcing us to accept very
contrived readings of the text.” So you’ve misread him here. Concerning
the latter, If you (re)read points 11 and 12 (and the whole thing) you will
notice the conditional/hypothetical language.He doesn’t “deny the validity of the puzzle,” rather
he provides various ways one might go about trying to solve it. He even states,
point 5, that “I don’t see that there’s any easy way to answer that question… Each of us has to think through the issues as best we can, try
to get as objective a view of the overall evidence as we can, and make our own
best judgment with a clear conscience” (Perhaps you read it too quickly.)
In fact, he states (1st paragraph) that his personal solution to the
particular problem raised is ~B, although he explores the possibility and
legitimacy of all the options with caveats.Either way, I’m not sure how it would be “cheating”
to take any of the options (I’m not even sure what it means to “cheat” in an
argument, do you mean fallacy or handwaving or …?). He gives reasons and
examples of ways in which each position might be valid, so I guess I would have
to see your rejoinders.Chet Silvermonte said:I fail to see how that post had anything to do with
what I wrote about. I hope I'm not being obtuse; I just don't see any
connection.You propped science above theology in its “mechanism for change”
Anderson’s post gave some reasons as to why those mechanisms can and do fail.
The other links I gave provided concrete contemporary examples, not the possibility of mistakes (which you mention) but of false data from sheer dishonesty. My point was
that science has no surer epistemic footing than theology (I would argue it has
less, but that’s not my intention here).For example, you stated, “And here is a
fundamental difference between science and theology. Theology has no mechanism
for embracing change. There is no single 'religious studies method'.” If
you haven’t already, you may want to look into a course in philosophy of
science. There is no single universally agreed upon scientific method or
worldview. Even mathematicians disagree on the function and theory of math to
some degree. My purpose isn’t to tear down science, only a false perception of
the epistemic certainty one can achieve through “science” (not sure what “science,”
simpliciter, would refer to here). I would say that if you think science gives
you some advantage over theology, you’re working with an overly inflated view
of science. Theologians can use logic, empirical data, existential data and
other tools that are available to scientists (so Turretin, “Reason is minister”).
Both of them make mistakes in these areas and can go back to the tools as a
corrective. Both of them are subject to the same impediments and in both of them there is no universal agreement as to how they should be applied or the data interpreted. The tools and impediments
simply express themselves differently as they are applied to (and resultant of)
different questions. But on what basis would you say one type of discipline is better than another? That itself is an
evaluative remark which has to be supported on some philosophical or
theological worldview.Chet Silvermonte said:Since I started my post talking about scientists as
humans who make mistakes, not only as individuals but also as a community
(including the existence of some rather non-scientific, but very human, forms
of peer pressure, tightly held assumptions, etc.), I'm not sure what I'm
supposed to take away from articles that talk about mistakes made by the
scientific community.I was focusing on where you compared it to theology. If you are
*really* saying the same thing as me, James Anderson, et al. and we are just mirroring each other then couldn’t you
just have said “I agree with that”??Chet Silvermonte said:That blog post used the example of the scientific
consensus affirming Newtonian physics 200 years ago as an example of how you
don't have to put much stock in the scientific consensus.I don’t think you read the post very carefully (or else it’s an
ironic example of one’s preconceptions drastically effecting the data). He
states, “Rejecting mainstream
scientific opinion is never a comfortable move, even when rationally and
morally justified…” So obviously he’s not trying to undermine consensus
as such. He is trying to undermine an inflated view of science that borders on
the verecundiam fallacy (that does pervade both secular and Christian societies).
The fact that such an inflated view of science pervades
society can be ironically proven in seeing how defensive people get when anyone
says anything to try and balance the perspective.Chet Silvermonte said:That seems remarkably uncharitable to me, since
Newtonian physics is still far more right than it is wrong, and it is still
tremendously useful today.You’re simply attacking a straw-man. His remark on
Newtonian physics was a passing statement. He simply said “If
neo-Darwinism currently functions much like a Kuhnian paradigm, the scientific
consensus in its favor may be worth little more than the consensus in favor of
phlogiston theory 300 years ago or Newtonian physics 200 years ago.” Notice
that he didn’t say it had zero value (practical or theoretical). He wasn’t
trying to give any flushed out statement of his view on Newtonian physics. His point was that (some) scientists are now searching for a theory that will allow them to, in a sense, do away with the narrowness of the Newtonian theory.Chet Silvermonte said:In response to your Edit 1: None of those thoughts
came directly from any particular book or course. Since they seem obvious to
me, it doesn't surprise me in the least that others have said similar things.It seems misguided to me.
Chet Silvermonte said:I was just suggesting that a big picture view might
lead us to a little more humility and charity when it comes to science and
scientists. YMMV.I sort of agree with you here. Some Christians do read
their Bible as though it were a science textbook. Perhaps they partly need more
respect for science, I tend to think have a greater need to simply respect for
the Bible as literature with the various genres and norms that are common to
literature. In my experience, the more widespread problem is too much respect
for science and too little respect for Scripture.perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Alex Scott said:
You make it sound that the Genesis account is there because it was a part of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, not because it was a revelation to Moses from God.
I would further point out the fact that it was a common concept of creation in ANE does nothing to weigh against it's historical accuracy. If anything, we might say it supports it. You're line of reasoning, Greg, seems to be completely off here.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
.it's the "psudeo-science" of evolution that we have a problem with
My father and I often debate what the correct classification of knowledge "creation science" falls under, i.e. not whether or not it should be taught but if it were to be taught, what discipline should it fall under. From Bing ...
ScienceNOUN1.study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment
(
often used before a noun
)2.branch of science: a particular area of study or knowledge of the physical world
"the life sciences"3.systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject
"the behavioral sciences"4.something studied or performed methodically: an activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
"the science of dressing for success"5.knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world
[ 14th century. Via French < Latin scientia < scient-, present participle of scire "know, discern" < Indo-European, "cut" ]Please describe for me, which definitions are applied in:1) the pseudo-science of evolution2) creation scienceUntil the basic definitions are agreed upon, the discussion is meaningless ... although occasionally amusing.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Alex,
"You make it sound that the Genesis account is there because it was a
part of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, not because it was a revelation
to Moses from God."It's there for both reasons. Revelation from God within an Ancient Near Eastern context and to a people steeped in Ancient Near Eastern ideas. Any scientific statements made in the Bible are best understood in the context of their worldview, not ours. God spoke to them in ways that they could understand, and He took what they already knew about the cosmos, something that was a general belief in their culture, and presented them a new understanding of Himself.
Cultures of that time generally believed that the earth was formed out of a sort of cosmic ocean, which still existed but had been relegated to a part of the cosmos by a firmament so the waters didn't cover the earth anymore.
We can see this very easily in Genesis 1:6-8: And God said, “Let there be an expanse [1] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made [2] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. [3] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Notice here the exapnse seperates the waters above from the waters below, and in verse 8 is named Heaven. Later, in verse 17 we see God, after making the great lights and the stars, placing them within the expanse he just created to hold back the waters above.
Note that the sun and moon are placed within the expanse, which itself is holding back a the great waters above. Quite literally, this is saying that there is an ocean above the sun, moon, and stars.
No where that I am aware of is this actually present in our understanding of the universe.
But it was a common viewpoint to people living in the Ancient Near East. Just as we learn ancient Hebrew to faithfully interpret scripture, so should we learn their worldview to do the same.
So the point of all this is Genesis, and the rest of the Old Testament, was written to a people that had a different understanding of the universe than we do today. If we want to be faithful in our interpretation, and not read things into scripture that are not there, we should not try to force ancient scripture into modern science, or modern science into ancient scripture.
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
What I do not like about science is when they take things like Evolution,, which is technically still just a theory, and call it science..
Okay, you totally lost me. See my post on definitions but
All science is provisional ... all science is"technically just a theory" ... in fact, Whitehead and Russell failed (just barely) to make math the first "science" to be "proven true". Newtonian physics is still treated as "science" despite it not being 100% accurate and true - it's true enough to be useful in most situations. So what were you trying to say? I don't get it. As I've already asked another, what meaning are you assigning to the word "science"?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
What I do not like about science is when they take things like Evolution,, which is technically still just a theory, and call it science..
Gravity is still a theory.
Just letting you know.....
But anyway, gravity is a fact and a theory. A fact because we can easily observe it, and a theory because we are still trying to figure out how it works.
Evolution is the exact same thing. A fact, because we can observe it in the fossil record, in nature, and by studying genetics and a few other fields, and it is still a theory because we are still trying to figure out how it works.
Just because something is called a theory in science doesn't mean it doesn't have any value, or is nothing more than educated guesswork. That's what we reserve hypothesis for. Generally, a theory is a well-supported explanation of a set of data that explains what is known at the time in the best possible way, and also makes future predictions regarding new discoveries.
0 -
John Bowling said:
Some Christians do read
their Bible as though it were a science textbook.Reading a bit of history of Biblical interpretation is very interesting on this point especially regarding the influence on the Campbellite movement - now this is a topic worthy of a huge Logos library which, unfortunately, I do not own.[:(]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Greg Masone said:
Cultures of that time generally believed that the earth was formed out of a sort of cosmic ocean,
I'm feeling particularly impish (grumpy imp) tonight ... come on, the Indo-Europeans were far more into the cosmic cow than a cosmic sea - witness both Scandinavian and early Indic sources ... and I think Slavic but my mind can't quite dredge up the supporting evidence there.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
As one who has occasionally wandered into the off topic - just a reminder that these forums are primarily for discussing Logos Bible Software. We were reminded of this only yesterday: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/7136/56416.aspx#56416
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
As one who has occasionally wandered into the off topic - just a reminder that these forums are primarily for discussing Logos Bible Software.
mea culpa which IS Latin not Greek
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John Bowling said:
For my own part, I'm not really concerned with this question. I'm more concerned with the ideology that goes on behind both the YEC and other views OEC and theistic evolution.
The ideology that guides me is the pursuit of truth. I have to go where the evidence leads me. The physical and biological sciences have led me to an old earth and the likelyhood that all biological organisms, even humans, have a common ancestor.
The sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics has led me to read ancient scripture through ancient eyes before I read it through my own. Doing so, I see plainly the worldview of Moses and the Isrealites in Genesis, and I can appreciate and understand what the creation account is saying more so than those who limit themselves to a surface level reading of it. The pursuit of truth guides me even more here.
John Bowling said:This is another one of those issues that Christians tend to swing like a pendulum on. Either they buy into the secular facade of science (and yes it is a facade) hook, line, and sinker or they go to the opposite extreme of reading their Bible as though it were a science textbook.
I couldn't agree more. I learned this the hard way as I progressed from YEC to where I am now. My solution is rather simple: Keep them separated.
"Modern" science is always in a state of flux, as someone else already mentioned. I'd hate to find confirmation for this or that science in scripture, only to have that science replaced by something different later on. And we already know about the intellectual disaster that young earth creationism has brought on its supporters, who have to wake up every morning and convince themselves that God's creation is lying to them. No thanks.
I prefer taking scripture and nature at face value. Since ancient scripure is first built off of an ancient worldview, it has nothing to say to modern science, and modern science has nothing to say to it. Since science can never speak on the supernatural and scripture is insulated from its grasp, I have nothing to fear from whatever conclusion it may come to this decade or the next.
Its really nice to do it this way, and I'd really recommend other people taking the time to understand Genesis like Moses and his audience would. I gave some resources above that can really help with that.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I'm feeling particularly impish (grumpy imp) tonight ... come on, the Indo-Europeans were far more into the cosmic cow than a cosmic sea - witness both Scandinavian and early Indic sources ... and I think Slavic but my mind can't quite dredge up the supporting evidence there.
I didn't know that, and since I like cow more than I like fish, I could really get on board with this idea!
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
As one who has occasionally wandered into the off topic - just a reminder that these forums are primarily for discussing Logos Bible Software. We were reminded of this only yesterday: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/7136/56416.aspx#56416
Sorry Damian!
I'm attracted to these sorts of threads like a moth to a light, so I sometimes overlook the real purpose of these forums.
Bowing out now!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
mea culpa which IS Latin not Greek
and appears only 30 times in 25 articles in my library of 3830 resources.....
0 -
Greg Masone said:
Sorry Damian!
No need to apologise. I occasionally get caught up myself....
And I am not the forum police.....
The star is not a sheriff's badge (nor a deputy's)
0 -
Greg Masone said:
Alex,
"You make it sound that the Genesis account is there because it was a
part of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, not because it was a revelation
to Moses from God."It's there for both reasons. Revelation from God within an Ancient Near Eastern context and to a people steeped in Ancient Near Eastern ideas. Any scientific statements made in the Bible are best understood in the context of their worldview, not ours. God spoke to them in ways that they could understand, and He took what they already knew about the cosmos, something that was a general belief in their culture, and presented them a new understanding of Himself.
Cultures of that time generally believed that the earth was formed out of a sort of cosmic ocean, which still existed but had been relegated to a part of the cosmos by a firmament so the waters didn't cover the earth anymore.
We can see this very easily in Genesis 1:6-8: And God said, “Let there be an expanse [1] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made [2] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. [3] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Notice here the exapnse seperates the waters above from the waters below, and in verse 8 is named Heaven. Later, in verse 17 we see God, after making the great lights and the stars, placing them within the expanse he just created to hold back the waters above.
Note that the sun and moon are placed within the expanse, which itself is holding back a the great waters above. Quite literally, this is saying that there is an ocean above the sun, moon, and stars.
No where that I am aware of is this actually present in our understanding of the universe.
But it was a common viewpoint to people living in the Ancient Near East. Just as we learn ancient Hebrew to faithfully interpret scripture, so should we learn their worldview to do the same.
So the point of all this is Genesis, and the rest of the Old Testament, was written to a people that had a different understanding of the universe than we do today. If we want to be faithful in our interpretation, and not read things into scripture that are not there, we should not try to force ancient scripture into modern science, or modern science into ancient scripture.
Greg, you’re line of reasoning is still completely off here
if you wish for this to add something to the argument of whether or not the
Genesis account is communicating historical truths or not (i.e. there really was
an expanse of water).For example, let’s say that today the majority of scientific
and philosophic opinion is that substance dualism is false (there is no “mind”
or “spirit” distinct from brain and body). A Christian, raised in secular
education, comes to adopt this view. When you try to prove substance dualism to
him from Scripture (e.g. Matthew 10:28), his response is “Look, no where that I
am aware of is this actually present in our modern scientific and philosophic
view of man. It was common in the ANE to view man in substance dualist terms. We
even see it in Plato. God was writing to a people that had a different
understanding of man and we should not try to force ancient Scripture written
to ancient man into our modern science and philosophy.”As one sports commentator might say, “boom goes the
dynamite.” You’ve successfully got a defeater (I use the term in its technical
sense in the field of epistemology) for anything in Scripture that goes against
“modern science” and whatever the popular opinion of “modern science” is (that
will look very different in 300 yeas I suspect).I will state that I’m not trying to argue for YEC or this
particular understanding of Genesis (I know some commentators think it simply
refers to the clouds (in the sense that they are “water”) being separated from
the oceans, rivers, etc.). Like I said, I’m concerned with the ideology and
forms of argument as such.I’ve seen tons of OEC and theistic evolutionists get a very
big head on their shoulders because they think they have “modern science” on
their side when in fact they just look a bit foolish with their bad arguments
and big egos. I’m not saying that is
you, but I am saying that if this is
the extent of your justification in your OEC (or theistic evolutionary) view,
then I’ve just given your belief a defeater. You’re going to have to find a
better argument.perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Greg Masone said:
But anyway, gravity is a fact and a theory. A fact because we can easily observe it, and a theory because we are still trying to figure out how it works.
Evolution is the exact same thing. A fact, because we can observe it in the fossil record, in nature, and by studying genetics and a few other fields, and it is still a theory because we are still trying to figure out how it works.
Ouch. You've got a major gap there, Greg, in the type of observations and data. Very little interpretation goes on between a ball falling and my interpretation of the ball falling (and yes, interpretation of data is involved even at this level). But looking at one object and then looking at another and trying to deduce priority, relation, etc. requires *much* more interpretation with presuppositions and guesswork. This is another throwaway argument.
I agree that the fact that evolution is universally recognized as a "theory" does nothing to undercut its its evidential value or explanatory power. But to put the particular strain of evidence from the fossil record next to the our experience of gravity is simply weak at best.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Greg Masone said:
The ideology that guides me is the pursuit of truth. I have to go where the evidence leads me. The physical and biological sciences have led me to an old earth and the likelyhood that all biological organisms, even humans, have a common ancestor.
The sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics has led me to read ancient scripture through ancient eyes before I read it through my own. Doing so, I see plainly the worldview of Moses and the Isrealites in Genesis, and I can appreciate and understand what the creation account is saying more so than those who limit themselves to a surface level reading of it. The pursuit of truth guides me even more here.
"Evidence" can be a dangerous thing if you don't know how to weight it or interpret it. Or, from another angle, virtually *everyone* (Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, and Tom Cruise) is just going where *they think* the evidence leads them. At that level, the evidence leads you where ever you're blind spots, ignorances, and desires happen to be. [;)]
Greg Masone said:Sorry Damian!
I'm attracted to these sorts of threads like a moth to a light, so I sometimes overlook the real purpose of these forums.
Bowing out now!
I'm sorry too. I didn't see your post, Damian, till just now. I'll be quiet too now, but, Greg, I hope you feel that you can responds to what I've said above (if you want to) and don't feel that you have to sit out because you said you were bowing out before I posted.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:
I'm sorry too. I didn't see your post, Damian, till just now.
Once again, no need to apologise.
0 -
Just wanted to say thank you john for responding to that fossil evidence comment. I went to comment earlier, but decided not, might not have been as humble as yours..lol
I am sure there are many resources on logos that would help in understanding.. (wink wink)
0 -
John Bowling said:
This is another throwaway argument.
Actually, the deductions are very certain. The study of comparative genomics, for example, has essentially sealed the coffin lid on any and every theory of biological diversity that doesn't include common descent.
John Bowling said:But to put the particular strain of evidence from the fossil record next to the our experience of gravity is simply weak at best.
I have a friend who doesn't believe in God because he's never seen a miracle before. I pointed out to him that he doesn't spend time with the sort of people that report seeing miracles more often than the typical person, such as foreign missionaries and such.
Now God doesn't cease existing simply because my friend hasn't seen any miracles. And neither do transitional fossils cease existing because your experience with them is nothing compared with that of gravity.
What work have you done with fossils recently? Are you employed in that field? Ever read any research on the issue that isn't trying to disprove it because of a previous theological position? I'll admit your own personal experince with graviy is most likely greater than anything having to do with the fossil record, but in no way does that negate the fact of transitional fossils. You simply don't "run" with the right crowd to know about them.
I know many Christians like to say there aren't any transitional fossils, but that is simply not true. When statements like that are bounced around in a bubble though, I can easily understand why its easier to believe that than real science. While I don't have the time right now to be the only advocate for evolution in a forum dominated by those opposed to it (while I enjoy helping anonymous people on the internet understand scripture and science more, visiting with my extended family over the holidays is slightly more important), I can point you to a few places that have taken the effort to explain this complicated theory, and the evidence supporting it, if you are truly interested in learning about it. For example, type in "List of Transitional Fossils" in Wikipedia for a decent list to start with.
0 -
Greg Masone said:
Evolution is the exact same thing. A fact, because we can observe it in the fossil record, in nature, and by studying genetics and a few other fields, and it is still a theory because we are still trying to figure out how it works.
Greg, I would question your statement that evolution is a fact. The fossil record actually does not prove evolution. It refutes evolution. There are way to many gaps and discontinuites. In fact, one discontinuity would dismiss a fact. By the statement that it is a fact, implies to me it was "proven." In math one false example breaks a proof.
There are just too many, "but what about this" and "can you explain that" questions in the face of evolution. Evolution is certainly being questioned by many many scientists. For example, my posting earlier. Explain with evolution why we have wet dinosaur DNA if the fossils are truly 65 million years old. One scientist said, "this does not fit into evolution so it must be wrong. Therefore, I do not believe it." Now, is that "science?"
It will probably be another 50 years but evolution as it is today is going to be on its last leg if scientists truly want to explain things.
0 -
John Bowling said:
Like I said, I’m concerned with the ideology and
forms of argument as such.I'm interested in knowing what you mean here. As I mentioned, my ideology is focused on arriving at the actual meaning of the creation account.
Also, where do you come down on this debate, if you don't mind me asking?
John Bowling said:I’ve seen tons of OEC and theistic evolutionists get a very
big head on their shoulders because they think they have “modern science” on
their side when in fact they just look a bit foolish with their bad arguments
and big egos. I’m not saying that is
you, but I am saying that if this is
the extent of your justification in your OEC (or theistic evolutionary) view,
then I’ve just given your belief a defeater. You’re going to have to find a
better argument.For what its worth, my justification includes much of the Old and parts of the New Testament, information derived from the study of comparative religions in the Ancient Near East, and for my friends in the YEC, OEC, gap-theorist, frame-work, progressive creationist, and IDer camps, the sciences of geology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology and about half a dozen sub-fields in biology.
So I think I have decent justification for my views. If you want a fuller treatment, I recommended some books earlier that can be helpful, and even a lecture in the Logos Lecture Series if you don't want to buy anything.
An old earth is a scientific fact, as is evolution, so that may qualify calling me an OEC and a theistic evolutionist. I prefer the term "Evolutionary Creationist" or something like that. But just to confuse you a little bit, or throw you off my trail, I'll be happy to let you know that I read the creation account (and the rest of Genesis) historically and very literally. For example, the days in the account are 24-hour ones. I probably read it more literally than you and most young earth creationists do. That's my experience, at least.
To correct you, I never claimed modern science in my corner regarding my interpretation. As I mentioned previously, I think modern science has nothing to do with the creation account in Genesis and should be kept separate. I only claim modern science when I use it to show how a young-earth or anti-evolution interpretation or position is wrong or mistaken. Of course, that approach usually isn't very productive, as most Christians holding those positions have already closed their ears to reason. I know that's what I did back when I believed those things too.
I prefer helping people understand how the original author of Genesis meant the original audience of Genesis to understand it. The moment a person looks at scripture through ancient eyes is the same moment when all this debate and Christian-hatred of science comes to an end.
When you understand scripture correctly, there isn't a problem anymore. It's really that simple.
For example, 500 years ago many competent theologians, like Luther and Calvin, opposed various declarations the science of astronomy was making at the time. They justified their opposition by quoting scripture. Very reasonable, in my opinion, but their interpretation turned out to be wrong. When those interpretations were corrected there wasn't any problem anymore, and ever since then people like you and I have considered that change good. We read portions of scripture differently know than in the past because of things science has discovered.
So this idea and practice isn't new. Problem is you get a bunch of Christians together who think reading Genesis according to their own worldview and biases is more than enough to figure out what its really saying. Doing that is as foolish as knowing only English and thinking you can get something useful from the original Hebrew just by looking at the text.
If you are really interested in this subject, I listed some resources above that have been very helpful to me.
0 -
William Bingham said:
Greg, I would question your statement that evolution is a fact.
That's fine. Can you show me a scientist in a relevant field that has no theological agenda that agrees with you?
William Bingham said:The fossil record actually does not prove evolution. It refutes evolution. There are way to many gaps and discontinuites.
Do you have any examples of this on hand that aren't an apologetic for a certain interpretation of Genesis?
William Bingham said:In fact, one discontinuity would dismiss a fact. By the statement that
it is a fact, implies to me it was "proven." In math one false example
breaks a proof.In math. This isn't math though. But if you want to bring math into this discussion, it won't help you. Comparative genomics has demonstrated evolution as a mathematical certainty.
Show me something like a crocoduck, something that evolution doesn't predict nor can the current theory explain.
William Bingham said:There are just too many, "but what about this" and "can you explain that" questions in the face of evolution. Evolution is certainly being questioned by many many scientists.
Are you confusing questioning the theory with the fact? Just about every theory in existence is being questioned by scientists, even gravity. That's how science works. Doesn't mean someone's going to come out and say gravity isn't real anymore, or never was. Evolution is a fact. Any new biological theory that comes about through the scientific process will have to account for that fact.
William Bingham said:For example, my posting earlier. Explain with evolution why we have wet dinosaur DNA if the fossils are truly 65 million years old. One scientist said, "this does not fit into evolution so it must be wrong. Therefore, I do not believe it." Now, is that "science?"
You got the exact source for the quote? Just curious.
I think you've missed out on a lot of the debate that's happened after this news hit creationist websites. This really doesn't go against evolution either, but would be something you'd file in the "young-earth" category. FYI, it fails there too.
The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been
sensationalized. The tissues were not soft and pliable
originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the
surrounding mineral components of the bone.
Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues.
Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in
which the original material was not preserved.DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as
old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft
tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however,
from samples much more than 10,000 years old, even
more than 300,000 years old.
If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft
tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should
be easy enough that it would have been done by now.The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved,
because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The
age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it
was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has
been reliably dated by several independent methods. An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino
racemization dating techniqueI can almost promise you that any YEC argument that you bring up will be answered in the same way.
William Bingham said:It will probably be another 50 years but evolution as it is today is going to be on its last leg if scientists truly want to explain things.
Actually, that's about the time frame I give to young-earth creationism. Many prominent evangelical theologians are beginning to embrace the theory of evolution. Just go to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders and look at the number of books dealing positively with these subjects that have been published by Christian writers over the last few years.
Even more importantly, more accurate interpretations of Genesis are becoming more widely known, taught, and preached. It'll just be a matter of time before young-earth creationism is sent to the same corner that geocentrism now occupies.
0 -
[Deleted]
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
To prevent the trollers (advertisers) who lurk around this forum from getting my email I've instead posted my response on my blog. See my signature below.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
(Posted to John Bowling's blog)
John,
I like how you've deleted my replies.But since you weren't capable of having a discussion without throwing out red herrings like you own the supply, I'm not surprised.
Because you're only strategy is red herrings, responding to you with any substance was useless and a waste of time. My first reply was sufficient for all you've provided in this discussion, and even with that you misrepresented and ignored what I said.
If you are teachable in the slightest, walk away with these two things:
1. Interpret scripture according to its own standards, not yours.
2. Don't constrain God's revelation by the science your culture decides is right at the time.If you only listen to these two things, you will profit from our discussion.
Good day to you, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.
0 -
Chet Silvermonte said:
I'm not really trying to start a big debate, despite my inability to say anything in 20 words when 2000 will do. I was just suggesting that a big picture view might lead us to a little more humility and charity when it comes to science and scientists. YMMV.
All men are to be humble before the Living God. That can only happen when we catch a glimpse of Who He is. We must diligently seek Him in His Word.
We do not need to exalt man, ANY man, scientist or not. Man has exalted himself plenty already and God will see to it that He will abase the haughty in His Own timing.
We cannot push man to unbelief (as was stated). Man is already in unbelief and only God can draw Him to belief.
I cannot figure out why so many of you spend so much time talking about so many things instead of God! He is Everything! To live is Christ! That is not ideology or theology or philosophy -- that is empirical practical-ness!
Redeem the time for the Lord's Kingdom - every moment, every thought, every thread, every post! (Just being on this forum does not excuse any of us from first and foremost being a servant of the Most High. We need to be found faithful about HIS business alone day and night!)
Everything we need for life and godliness is in the true knowledge of God - and that can ONLY be found IN HIS WORD THROUGH HIS SPIRIT!
In the end, it is GOD'S WORD that will STAND!
Brothers - we do not have time to do anything but to obey the Master - and He does not delight in men debating the glory of anything beside HIMSELF! He is a jealous God.
Before answering another thread, this one or any others, will you go to God and ask Him to open your mouths and shut your mouths at all times, each and every time you speak - all for the sake of The NAME!
He has magnified His Word together with His Name!
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Alex, I take your initial post in this thread to be one which seeks to glorify the God of creation! Now that's something to talk about! Amen!
Thank you,
Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Let me rephrase that - "Now HE"S something to talk about!" Amen! Amen!
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Greg Masone said:
But since you weren't capable of having a discussion without throwing out red herrings like you own the supply, I'm not surprised.
Because you're only strategy is red herrings, responding to you with any substance was useless and a waste of time.I'm sorry to feel obligated to tell you that I don't feel this is an appropriate post for the Logos forum as it is a response to an outside blog with no evident connect to Logos ... and with its references to blog entries and responses that are not visible in the Logos forum, it feels to me like a personal fight that has spilled over into Logos. I feel put-upon to need to even screen for such entries here.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thats prety sad, John at leasts takes it out of the room. Greg seems to have something to prove as he had to bring it back in here..
Face it Greg, you have shown absolutely nothing to prove your point about evolution being scientific.. All you have done is prove you have a closed mind, and have a grudge against anyone who does not believe your point of view.. In fact.. you are quite sad!
0 -
Sharon Jensen said:
Alex, I take your initial post in this thread to be one which seeks to glorify the God of creation! Now that's something to talk about! Amen!
Thank you,
Sharon
Now this I can say AMEN too! [:D]
0 -
[Removed]
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Greg Masone said:
But since you weren't capable of having a discussion without throwing out red herrings like you own the supply, I'm not surprised.
Because you're only strategy is red herrings, responding to you with any substance was useless and a waste of time.I'm sorry to feel obligated to tell you that I don't feel this is an appropriate post for the Logos forum as it is a response to an outside blog with no evident connect to Logos ... and with its references to blog entries and responses that are not visible in the Logos forum, it feels to me like a personal fight that has spilled over into Logos. I feel put-upon to need to even screen for such entries here.
Sorry, you're right. I'll remove my response too.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Thats prety sad, John at leasts takes it out of the room. Greg seems to have something to prove as he had to bring it back in here..
I went to John's blog assuming he was an upright individual who could sustain an honest conversation. Instead my replies were deleted, with only his remaining. That is why John took it out, so he could strong-arm the last word with feathery rhetoric. if his victory was so certain, as he maintains, he would leave my sayings up as a trophy and warning to his superior logic and argument.
Bryan Brodess said:Face it Greg, you have shown absolutely nothing to prove your point about evolution being scientific.. All you have done is prove you have a closed mind, and have a grudge against anyone who does not believe your point of view.. In fact.. you are quite sad!
Bryan, first, the conversation on John's blog hardly touched on evolution, but on issues mildly related to it. If you think evolution has no merit, find me on Facebook and we'll start a discussion on the topic. I'm still waiting for an answer what I've said on it so far here. Knowing Christian's poor knowledge of science and their reluctance to read Genesis free of a modern influence, a discussion would be informative, I am sure, for you.
Second, in my experience it is Christians who are the most guilty of a closed mind. Ignorance and wishful thinking are the essence and fuel of creation science in the Christian community. I'm always willing to challenge what I believe to move closer to truth, and I assume others do too. If you are so certain of your current position, or even wonder about it, lets discuss it. You have nothing to lose except false beliefs and everything to gain and bolster the views you already hold to if they are shown to be superior.
I long nothing more for the Word of God to be known and appreciated alongside His wonderful creation in all it's glory, not dumbed down by ignorance and fear, with people snubbing their noses at those who are the real open-minded among us. Those who are not afraid where God's revelation may lead them.
I hope someday you will see that it is right to read scripture in its historical and cultural context, the same context God revealed it to the Israelites. I hope you'll realize the arrogance one has by insisting scripture was written with all the questions a modern American Evangelical wants answered.
Bryan, I am sad, but not in the way you imagine. I am sad when I see unnecessary burdens placed on people, ones even you cannot carry. I'm sad when I see God's word trashed, boxed up, and hijacked for your own selfish motives.
Make fun of me and slander me all you want. It wouldn't be the first time its done to a Kingdom citizen standing up for truth.
I'll close with what I've said before:
If you are teachable in the slightest, walk away with these two things:
1. Interpret scripture according to its own standards, not yours.
2. Don't constrain God's revelation by the science your culture decides is right at the time.
If you only listen to these two things, you will profit from our discussion.
Good day to you, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.
P.S. - To the pseudo-forum moderators: I apologize for taking it back here again. I thought a fellow brother would act honorably on this very important topic, but I was let down. I take misguided descriptions against myself seriously, so I felt I was justified in responding to Bryan. If he or anyone I haven't already discussed this with wishes to continue the discussion, they can find me on Facebook under the name I post with here. Any response to me can be made there from here on out, as I've said what is necessary for this thread.
0 -
Note: this post is not specifically about this post - rather it is about several posts that I have recently read that fall under "if I only saw myself as others see me I would have ...)
Greg Masone said:P.S. - To the pseudo-forum moderators: I apologize for taking it back here again.
Ah, do you mean me? If so, no apology needed. However, may I get on a soap box? Er ... hand me a megaphone too. One think I think all of us need to consider: With the new release, the traffic on the forums has increased exponentially. Many people are using the forums for the first time - and often using the forums because they are puzzled or frustrated. How we present ourselves - reasoning or bigoted, factual or inflammatory ... you can easily add several additional pairs to the list - determines whether or not they wish to join the Logos community. If our words and actions do not reflect God's word, why should they believe Logos assists in the study of Scripture.
I will now step down off the soap box (and the invisible high horse), wish everyone a joyous celebration of the incarnation and surrender the megaphone.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
