View Full Version : Is there room for God in science of origins?
Did God create the processes of science that we study? If the history part of the Bible could be reconciled with science, could we conclude it is being interperated properly?
The ideas that God is outside of time and space, is not confined by the laws of physics, is eternal from past to present, possesses the power to create and destroy matter/energy, is of superior intellect, makes perfect plans, and is just have been common ideas among thologians as far back as we can study. According to these beliefs, it's logical to see that science can never fully explain God, nor can it ever explain away God. Also, according to these ideas, the certain physical processes of God (science) are a product of God. This said, it is easy to see that a study of God can not be contained in the realm of science, but must be one of theological thought. However, according to these ideas, one can conclude that the study of science can be contained in the realm of theology!
I think that many of us can see that popular theological studies include history and timelines that are not popularily reconciled with today's studies of science. I assert that this is a problem which lends to the incredibility of theology. Just as well, some studies of science violate the boundaries of scientific method and enter the realm of theology with intent to disprove the existence of God. This is also a problem that lends to the incredibility of the study of the science.
This being said, this thread is for an exchange of ideas that can reconcile the two types of studies to possibly co-exist. Let's also take it a step further and see if it is possible that the message of the Bible is the perfect Word of God.
Therefore, let us limit our comments only to ones that would not be destructive to the purpose of this study, but would be constructive to the notion that the two realms of study (and the third; being the Bible) can co-exist. This includes taking the Bible as literally as possible. In other words, please limit the discussion to ideas that can reconcile the claims and rebuttals that can cause problems to the ideas presented.
This short lived subforum has seen its fair share of flaming, and it has run a lot of people off. Lets have a discussion involving lots of thought provoking ideas of how a concept of God allows science to be a product of Him, and how the Bible can be interperated to fit earth history. :) I hope we all get along in this thread, and I hope there are still some open minded folks left reading this subforum to contribute. If we can get this rolling, I have some great ideas that I have been studying and would like to toss in for scrutiny.
kravman4
03-28-2005, 06:50
I'm all for a logical discussion! :D
snowhound
03-28-2005, 10:22
Intelligent debate over this subject? Ballsy!
I'm in!
...God created the heaven and the earth...
How did he do this? Is it possible that he let an enormous cloud of dust come together and become so dense that its physical properties created a release of energy which eventually resulted in an expanding universe full of stars, planets and what not? Science calls it the "Big Bang"!
Does the bible contradict this method of creation?
To create living beings in a static form is incredible! To create living forms with the ability to change with the changing environment, to evolve into more complex forms and to radiate into other species is nothing short of divine!!!
I can see Science and theology come together if you dont take the bible so B****Y litteraly.
I agree that the Bible has lost some interesting details in translation that can make it difficult to reconcile it with science -- no doubt about it. However, I think that most of these details can be recovered by looking to the Greek or original Hebrew words. I also think that most of the Bible can be taken very literally, except where that is not possible, and then one should refer to Hebrew words, and if it can still not be taken literally, then and only then can one not take it literally.
For instance:
Gen 1:1 states, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." "Heaven" is translated from a Hebrew word that is almost always in the plural and implies all the universe besides earth, so would be better stated as "heavens." Many places in the Bible, God refers to the begining of creation as being in a perfect state where the host of heavens rejoiced in the perfect creation thereof.
Gen 1:2 states. "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
"Was without form and void" was translated from the Hebrew words "hayah tohu va bohu," which means "became waste and empty!" Whoa! very different meaning here! First we have original creation; created in a perfect state, then suddenly an empty waste of earth. The word "and" is used 148 times to seperate 102 independant acts of God in Gen chapters 1 and 2 alone! There is no evidence that the actions in Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 were one right after another but could be seperated by a period of time. The Bible accounts for the story of the creation of a perfect angel named Lucifer who was given dominion over earth and heavens, but exalted himself above God started a war in heaven(s)with 1/3 of the angels following him. He and his 1/3 therefore fell from his perfect state. God cast him and his followers out of the earth and destroyed it with the flood spoken of in Jer 4:23 where because of God's fierce anger, there was no light in the heavens, mountains trembled, hills moved, cities were in ruins, birds had fled, vegetation was destroyed, and there was no man. The earth was covered in water, the lights went out (everything probably froze), and all life died. This was before Adam was created.
In Gen 1:3, God said, "let there be light" and then He divided light from dark by setting the rotation of the earth, which began the first 24 hour period He called a day. Moving on, God seperated the water (which probably melted by the heat of the sun now shining on the face of the earth again) into water on the face of the earth and water in the sky (clouds). He then seperated the water on the face of the earth to reveal dry land and then made vegetation to grow on the dry land etc.
The words used for create are two seperate words in the Hebrew where one is create and the other is made or make. This is better understood as create being to create something into existence from nothing and make to form something out of existing creation.
You can see where this is going; it's called the re-creation theory by many, some of which do not agree. It is a better and closer study of correct translation and appropriation of events within the Bible. It is very reconcileable with science.
Further, accurate translations of Gen 6, or what Enoch and Ezekial were shown, could possibly blow some minds! Those who realize there were giants in the past as well as phenomenon such as UFO's and E.T. in the past and present, would appreciate such translations of the aforementioned. But, those who can not bring themselves to believe such things could exist will disagree as well.
Proper study of Bible prophecies can also shed light on the study of History and current events, as well as the strange feelings many of us have regarding the future of earth and humanity.
Btw, I just thought about two real cool things I read a while back about the shape of the universe and its orientation with respect to our solar system.
One is the popular idea that the universe is shaped like a horn where the thin part of the tube is infinitely long; the longer and thinner it gets, the less volume it can hold. At the bell end of the horn it gets shorter and wider and can hold immense volume. If one could start from the inside of the thin part of the tube and travel towards the bell end of the horn, at some point one would go from the inside of the bell to the outside of the bell and then begin to travel back towards the thin part but on the other side. Any piece of the horn shape that can be sectioned will curve down on opposite sides while curving up on perpendicular sides -- kind of like a pringle or saddle shape. This pringle shape is observable locally by satellites as negatively curved space and explains why supposed round shapes appear elliptical. Here is a picture of it!! (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/9999/99994879F1.JPG)
Also, deep probing satellite telescopes are looking so far out now that they are capturing images of what may be the farthest edges of the universe as well as its earliest observable stages. What they are viewing is very odd compared to local time and space. One such oddity is that the farthest reaches and oldest times of space seem to operate upon the very same vectors that our solar system operates upon. The chance that this could actually be the case is considered extremely slim and has caused scientists to run the numbers over and over, but they come up with the very same data each time, to their dismay. Is it possible that in a strange way, our solar system is the center of the universe? A universe created to drive our solar system and keep it perfectly balanced? hmmm, I dunno but it sounds like a plausible possibility based on these findings!
kravman4
03-29-2005, 07:23
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1* NIV
I think it's interesting to note the differences between the KJ version of the Bible and the NIV. It happens quite often during Sunday sermons; our pastor reads and studies from a KJ version of the Bible, but every once in a while, he stops and says something like "This verse could be better translated as ........." and then says almost word-for-word what I've got in my NIV translation.
Tunug, as you can see from the Genesis quote, the NIV uses the word "heaven" in the plural form.
Just one more quick note on this topic. I'm sure you're all familiar with the origins of the KJ version of the Bible? When King James came to the throne in England, he decided that he needed a "new" version of the Bible. One that could meet his approval. Now I'm not sure what changes were made to satisfy his whim, but I do know that the KJ version was born under weird circumstances. Just thought I'd throw that out there...
snowhound
03-29-2005, 07:36
Tunug wrote:some studies of science violate the boundaries of scientific method and enter the realm of theology with intent to disprove the existence of God. This is also a problem that lends to the incredibility of the study of the science.
Tunug, could you please give an example to show just what you mean?
darjeeling
03-29-2005, 13:01
Ahh, the old Hegelian argument of god. As much as I hate the man its the only one that makes sense. Go read his "Science of Logic" and you'll understand. Its a painful read, but worthwile.
In what ways can the Bible be understood literally to agree with science and history?
In what ways can science and history be accurate as to agree with the Bible?
Krav,
Tunug, as you can see from the Genesis quote, the NIV uses the word "heaven" in the plural form.
Yeah that's cool... big difference between heaven and heavens. Heaven usually refers to a single perfect place where good souls spend eternity, whereas heavens usually refers to the universe.
I do know that the KJ version was born under weird circumstances.
what were they I wonder? I sometimes think that the small mistakes in translation, while they do not negate the message of God's plan of salvation for man, they have come to a point where they have aided in the propagation of ideas that don't quite jive with science. Ideas like the earth is only 6,000 years old. A proper study of Gen 1:1-5 shows that this week that Adam was created was not necessarily the very beginning of earth. Ideas like this threaten the credibility of mainstream Christian beliefs because they go against so much scientific study and logical conclusion (which is why I made this thread). I wonder if Lucifer had a hand in the translation as well, may it be so small, so that it would cause confusion in the last days. Then there is the idea that each "day" of the six days of forming the earth was really one thousand years because of a verse somewhere else that says "a day is as a thousand years to God." Gen 1:4-5 make it pretty clear that the day was a 24 hour period.
Jim Jordan
03-29-2005, 18:34
I am just blown away by this discussion and I commend all of you for it. This is GREAT stuff.
I don't know as much about this subject as some of you obviously do. I can not prove that God is really there. I don't think that possible on this earth. But I have FAITH that God is there, and that makes all the difference in my life, and in the lives of many others.
Faith is believing in what is true. Faith has two elements: 1) being convinced of the truth, being certain of reality, having evidence of unseen things, and 2) believing, hoping in, embracing, seizing the truth.
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:1 (NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (NEB) Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Mof) Now faith means that we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Wey) Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.
While faith requires being convinced that what we believe in is true, just knowing the truth is only half of faith. God's word must be hoped for, embraced, seized!
Luke 17:5 (NIV) The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."
Believing is not exactly the same as faith. For belief to be faith, it must light on what is certainly true. Yet Scripture gives examples of situations where belief alone is required, even commanded. There's no time for evidence collection, to wait, to hear, for certainty. Just believe. Like Peter walking on the water--don't think, act! God even requires us to believe in him when, temporarily, the evidence looks bad: to trust. God requires belief and trust in moments of human weakness, but faith is what makes us strong. Faith is the state of being convinced about what we hope for.
Contrary to popular teaching, faith is not mental delusion, presumption or self-deception, but a work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
Rom 10:17 (NIV) Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Rom 10:17 (Phi) Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.
Rom 10:17 (Wey) And this proves that faith comes from a Message heard, and that the Message comes through having been spoken by Christ.
New-Age Faith
Eze 13:6 (NIV) ... they expect their words to be fulfilled.
C.S. Lewis: "We must not encourage in ourselves or others any tendency to work up a subjective state which, if we succeeded, we should describe as "faith", with the idea that this will somehow insure the granting of our prayer.... The state of mind which desperate desire working on a strong imagination can manufacture is not faith in the Christian sense. It is a feat of psychological gymnastics."
Websters: CREDULITY \ kri-du-let-ee, CREDULOUS \ krej-u-les 1) Naive, not critical, believing on slight or uncertain evidence. 2) A tendency to believe too readily, especially with little or no proof.
Belief detached from the truth is not faith. Believing in what is not from God, not true, believing in "the word of your own imagination", or even the "word of Satan", is deception pure and simple. Calling this deception "faith" does not make it so.
A.W. Tozer: "I do not recall another period when "faith" was as popular as it is today. If only we believe hard enough we'll make it somehow. So goes the popular chant. What you believe is not important. Only believe... What is overlooked in all this is that faith is good only when it engages truth; when it is made to rest upon falsehood it can and often does lead to eternal tragedy. For it is not enough that we believe; we must believe the right thing about the right One.
2 Thes 2:10b-11 (NIV) They perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
"It is no sin to doubt some things... it may be fatal to believe everything. Faith never means gullibility. Credulity never honors God. The healthy soul, like the healthy blood system, has it's proper proportion of white and red blood cells. The red corpuscles are like faith: they carry the life giving oxygen to every part of the body. The white cells are like discernment: they pounce upon dead and toxic matter and carry it out to the drain. In the healthy heart there must be provision for keeping dead and poisonous matter out of the life stream. This the credulous person never suspects. He is all for "faith".
I was taught something that is profound to me by an old Korean who taught me in the martial arts. He said, " Always seek the truth." So I asked him what was the truth. He said, "The truth is that which is; falsehood is what seems to be, but is not." It was just that simple for him, and it is just that simple for me. It may or may not be for any of you. I have faith that I know the truth and that God knew all about what is going on in the world of science and the battle over creation. I don't get involved in it because I have faith that I know, and I know that I know. I can't tell you boys what a feeling of comfort that brings to me now, and that it has brought to me in places all across this planet as I was in places that I was not always sure that I was going to get out of in one piece. It will bring me comfort as I cross the bar, and I hope that it will comfort you as well.
kravman4
03-30-2005, 08:18
Originally posted by Tunug@Mar 29 2005, 01:30 PM
I sometimes think that the small mistakes in translation, while they do not negate the message of God's plan of salvation for man, they have come to a point where they have aided in the propagation of ideas that don't quite jive with science. Ideas like the earth is only 6,000 years old. A proper study of Gen 1:1-5 shows that this week that Adam was created was not necessarily the very beginning of earth. Ideas like this threaten the credibility of mainstream Christian beliefs because they go against so much scientific study and logical conclusion (which is why I made this thread). I wonder if Lucifer had a hand in the translation as well, may it be so small, so that it would cause confusion in the last days. Then there is the idea that each "day" of the six days of forming the earth was really one thousand years because of a verse somewhere else that says "a day is as a thousand years to God." Gen 1:4-5 make it pretty clear that the day was a 24 hour period.
Actually, there is a wealth of evidence supporting the idea of a young earth.
Here are two fairly quick reads:
1. Evidence for a young world (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp)
2. The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp)
Here's a more technical article:
1. Comets and the age of the solar system (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp)
Krav... thanks for those links... I will check them out. Me and my dad have debates about young earth vs. old earth... he believes in young earth and I old (well not totally, I'm on the fence but leaning towards old). I think there are very valid points in his arguments, so I can not be definite either way. Here is one idea i think may be possible regarding the old earth theories....
when God created the angels and gave them the earth and heavens he told them to go out and be stewards of creation.... not sure exactly what that means but it could come into play with my theory (not just my thoery, sorry I shouldn't even be claiming it, a lot of people believe in this). If Lucifer dwelled on the earth before his fall, and before Adam, and if Jeremiah is indeed viewing earth before Adam and after Lucifers fall (Jer 4:23), and I think so, then it is possible there were prehistoric creatures including hominids and dinosaurs in the times before Adam. After all, jeremiah saw the earth when it was "without form and void" or "hayah tohu va bohu" translated "became waste and empty" just as in Gen 1:2; this is the only time we know of that the whole earth became a waste and was empty. Jeremiah said there was no man but cities were broken down, vegetation had died off, birds had fled. There is no found link between prehistoric hominids and today's humans, so I dont believe we evolved from monkeys. But ,it is possible in the days before Adam, there were angels with gender (the Bible speaks of only male angels ?), hominids with gender, cities that fell to ruins, a total earth flood greater and longer lasting than Noah's, an ice age as a result of the flood and the total darkness the earth fell into as a result of God's anger toward Lucifers fall. This can explain the fosil record. I also think it's possible that angels and other creatures could have lived on other planets (mars; we will see as scientist are discovering peculiar things about Mars that lead them to believe there once was life there) as well before the days of Adam. These days of Lucifer's rule (before his fall) are called the dispensation (era) of the angels. It's possible this so called process of evolution was something designed by God, that the angels were to be stewards of; again, before the days of Adam. Today's time is called the dispensation of man, and we haven't seen any evidince of this macro evolution goin on in the last 6,000 years; only micro evolution. The reason for the dispensation of angels and the dispensation of man is that first the angels were given free will and dwelling places to rule where they could chose to be for God or against God. Lucifer fell with 1/3 of the angels, and therefore God had time tested angels to serve him forever and to watch over the earth during the dispensation of man. The dispensation of man's purpose was similar in that men (under Christ) will one day rule the earth (millinium reign) and are trusted with it because they have proven each through their own life of free will that they will serve God. It's really an interesting theory that exposes a glorius and devine plan for the angels and man. I dont think the age of man ends with the end of the millenium reign. Christ said when he ascended into heaven, "I will always be with you; even til the ends of the earth." Isnt it interesting that, God, man, and the angels, may see the earth come to an end but we will all move on? cool stuff.
Anyways, it's a theory, it seems to work very well with with science and history. I'll never know for sure, but I can't wait to ask God when I meet Him in person (or spirit).
Krav, I agree about taking the Bible literally. Especially concerning the gospels but also concerning genesis. Also I'm readin the links ya posted... interesting stuff. I'm wondering if it is possible that the earth experienced some serious changes just before God created Adam.
Regarding the advancement of the stone age technology... I think those creatures may not have been the same species as man today (created in Gods image, we have spirit). They just weren't as capable. And another peculiar thing... look at our own advancement of technology in the last 100 years compared to the last 6,000-10,000 years. Lucifer tempted eve with the idea of knowlege and becoming like God. Lucifer fell because he thought he could become greater than God (stone age advancement under their god Lucifer maybe?). Babylon fell when they began to think they could become gods and their technology advanced immensly. The days of Noah displeased God because of the wickedness spreading with war technology given to corrupt rulers by fallen angels (Nephilim whose ruler is Lucifer). Today mankind is looking for an enlightenment era where they will be as gods as a result of our increase of technology, and we are dealing with a serious problem with war and war technology. The Bible says the last days will be as the days of Noah. I think Lucifer has always had his hand in the advancement of technology and war, hoping to thwart God's plan for man, hoping we will destroy ourselves and beat God at His own game.
Thanks again for the links, I'm also gonna pass them on to my dad... he's real into the young earth theories.... and he can use em as ammo on me! heh heh :lol:
(self pruned prior to moderator intervention) Just trying to save you time. :)
(self pruned prior to moderator intervention) Just trying to save you time. Thanks fer that IVM.
"The Great Pyramid of Giza was also placed in the exact center of all the land area of the earth. Lines drawn through the north-south and east-west axis of the Pyramid divide equally the earth's terrain. The north-south axis (31 degrees 9' east of Greenwich) is the longest land meridian, and the east-west axis (29 degrees 58' 51" north) is the longest land parallel. According to Isaiah 19:19-20 this "altar" was to be for a "sign" and a "witness." In it is contained prophesy of Christ's coming to the earth, and it is the only wonder of the ancient world standing today. A remarkable mathematical relationship exists between the text of Isaiah 19:19-20 and the Great Pyramid. The sum total of the numerical value of the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 19:19-20 is 5,449. The actual height of the Pyramid, as left unfinished by the builders was 5.449 pyramid inches. The distance from the Pyramid's entrance right through to the farthest extremity of the interior passages and chambers is also equal to 5,449 Pyramid inches. The original Hebrew language is based on a number system and it is said that it was given to man by God." - E. Raymond Capt M.A., A.I.A., F.S.A. Scot
kravman4
03-30-2005, 22:06
Tunug, just a thought, but maybe the title for this thread should be "Is there room for the science of origins (old earth) with God?"
;)
kravman4
03-30-2005, 22:13
Tunug, you've made lots of interesting points! To tell you the truth, I'd never heard much about the Nephilim other than what's in the Bible. I'd like to do a study on that... any books you'd recommend?
Thanks again for the links, I'm also gonna pass them on to my dad... he's real into the young earth theories.... and he can use em as ammo on me! heh heh
:lol:
AiG (Answers in Genesis) is one of my favorite ministries. Ken Ham (I believe he's the founder?) is an excellent speaker and highly intelligent. If you can get a hold of any of his debates or lectures, I think you'd like him. :)
Well Krav, I am finding very interesting and credible evidence in both camps (old and new). A book I would recommend is by Finis Dake called "God's Plan For Man." www.dake.com (http://www.dake.com)Old earth theory is only a very small part of it. I have to say, it is absolutely THE BEST close study of the Bible I have ever seen!!! when I started reading it, I became sooo excited because it's worth it's weight in gold. I wish the whole world could read it, because if they did and believed it (mostly anyway, im still a skeptic of course, lol) it could really unify Christians. Now I'm starting to sound like a cult follower.... but I kid you not, it follows the Bible very closely and doesnt dare to draw conclusions... it takes the bible most literally. I saw it on half.com used for $10, but I am about to order the cd rom which includes gobs of extras look here (http://www.dake.com/idb.html)
But just as well the young earth proofs are equally as interesting and I would bet that there lies truth between the two ideas.
ooops... sorry, bout the nephilim..... try a google search and some serious guidance of the spirit!!! heh heh... there's tons of stuff out there -- some truth, and LOTS of lies, but you'll see it!
may the schwartz be with you! :lol:
(self pruned post prior to moderator intervention) Just trying to save you guys some time. :)
1. This thread is seeking to take the Bible literally concerning history and science.
2. And idea to support science and history that requires one to assume the Bible can not be taken literally is the opposite of what this thread is about.
If anyone wants to discuss #1, this is the thread to do it in.
If anyone wants to discuss #2, many of the other threads are currently doing this, and it can be discussed there, or in it's own thread.
OK, if that's what you wish the discussion to be about, then I'll just stop posting, despite the fact that whether or not you take the Bible literally, the argument is about God and Science. :) Just remember next time you read the Bible to take it literally. None of this "What he meant was.." stuff, because that's interpretive and not literal. ;)
Here are some links for you that should lay your argument to rest, as they validate every claim you are attempting to make and support your ideas (Though they are still wrong ;))
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://www.creationtalk.com/
Just please don't read http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-yo...youngearth.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html) because that might put things in perspective against your beliefs, which apparently is not wanted. ;)
The fact of the matter is, if you say the Bible is literal, then you must concede that you believe the Earth is young. This provides a problem reconciling God in Science of Origins.
I'll create a new thread or post in another. Thanks anyway. :)
There are some very interesting mysteries floating around that science and history tend to stay away from such as giants, dragons, UFOs, stonehenge, astrology, extinctions, pyramids, floods, etc. The Bible is a great tool for trying to understand such things.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.