Evidence for God from Science

Well, it's rather irrelevant what the early church thought of Darwinism. As, the average person had little Bible training or even knew Scripture terribly deeply. They had few widely read teaching materials available to examine such issues. Plus, modern science had not yet revealed the many unanswered and seemingly insurmountable questions surrounding evolution. That said, IF God guided such processes, while the questions still remain, certainly God COULD have created in any way He saw fit to. But DID He? I say, "no." But most of whom today speak of evolution are talking about purely random, unguided processes. And ANYONE believing that the HUGE problems that such random processes would have overcome could do so unguided is deluded. And so those of Darwin's time had not nearly the Scriptural understandings of today's Christians (as a whole) and the scientific knowledge base available to them was far less detailed. So is it surprising that a far-less educated generation of Christians were more at ease with discussions concerning evolution. Scientists of the day were often held in such great esteem.

And the funny thing is that, when it comes to a universe coming into being by itself, unguided, arguments about evolution are nearly 10 billion years after the basic argument. Of course, if one believes God is behind the Big Bang and evolution, you can't really argue with them based upon pure, unguided science. But, IF true, why would God also make up some cockamamie stories about a Garden, forbidden fruit, a devil figure (the snake), the Fall and it's consequences requiring a Savior? Why is Adam referred to as a real person in other parts of Scripture? And if Adam's story and Genesis were merely allegorical, what in the Bible is and isn't allegory? And how do you know?

Philip wrote:But, IF true, why would God also make up some cockamamie stories about a Garden, forbidden fruit, a devil figure (the snake), the Fall and it's consequences requiring a Savior?

You do realise God didn't write Genesis. The literal story is not the important bit, it is the theology behind it and that was what the writers were intending as the purpose for the text, not to give a scientific account but to tell a story that made theological points about the nature of reality, God and man.

Why is Adam referred to as a real person in other parts of Scripture?

Adam was probably representation of all humans, so technically he is real in a theological sense.

And if Adam's story and Genesis were merely allegorical, what in the Bible is and isn't allegory? And how do you know?

I am starting to think it wasn't allegorical but literal in a theological sense, these days I am leaning towards what the Jew's say which is that it was designed as a theological text not a scientific one, so I read the rest of the Bible the same way, what theological point is it trying to make and not constantly looking for discrepancies, errors etc... because they are just not important and not what the real message of the Bible is.

You do realise God didn't write Genesis. The literal story is not the important bit, it is the theology behind it and that was what the writers were intending as the purpose for the text, not to give a scientific account but to tell a story that made theological points about the nature of reality, God and man.

Daniel, my dear boy, are you suggesting that God didn't inspire the writers to write as they wrote and what they wrote? I'm not suggesting that God literally dictated what was written down or that the writers didn't write in their own styles and also insert their own understandings and observations. But if you are saying that the entire Garden and Fall sequence is just made up, that's pretty dangerous. And you say it was the theology that was really important. So you're suggesting that Genesis is really more about theological points that are based upon mythical, made-up, non-historical stories? That the writers just went wild with what they had learned in their Creative Writing 101 course? Let's not forget that Moses is the indicated writer of most of Genesis, and that he is writing of things that he could have no direct knowledge of - especially the Creation elements before Adam's time. Yes, he would have had access to all of the handed-down, word-of-mouth transmitted stories, but even these God would have guided. And, clearly, there was a lot key information that he could not have known details of, unless inspired by God to transmit them.

Philip wrote:Daniel, my dear boy

Now you are just making me feel uncomfortable.

are you suggesting that God didn't inspire the writers to write as they wrote and what they wrote?

Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

I'm not suggesting that God literally dictated what was written down or that the writers didn't write in their own styles and also insert their own understandings and observations. But if you are saying that the entire Garden and Fall sequence is just made up, that's pretty dangerous.

I didn't say they were made up, I am saying they can be wrong about the how without it changing the theological points that they were making. I don't think it was their intention to give a scientific account of what happened, they gave an account of what they believed to have theologically happened.

And you say it was the theology that was really important. So you're suggesting that Genesis is really more about theological points that are based upon mythical, made-up, non-historical stories?

I never said the stories were made up, they were told as they understood them to make a theological point.

That the writers just went wild with what they had learned in their Creative Writing 101 course? Let's not forget that Moses is the indicated writer of most of Genesis, and that he is writing of things that he could have no direct knowledge of - especially the Creation elements before Adam's time.

As far as I am aware the creation story was oral before it was ever written down by Moses, the story predated Moses, he just happened to write it down.

Yes, he would have had access to all of the handed-down, word-of-mouth transmitted stories, but even these God would have guided. And, clearly, there was a lot key information that he could not have known details of, unless inspired by God to transmit them.

I believe God may have guided them on the important bits, but he may also may not have guided them, who knows except God, and if he did I believe it would only have been the theological points, the why of it, the how of it was not important and is still not important to this day. I think God more inspired the theological content rather than the scientific content, if that makes sense.

Why do you feel the how is so much more important than the why?

Do you think God would intervene with our freewill to choose?

Daniel wrote:
Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

Daniel my boy, Scripture disagrees with this.

2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

Daniel my boy, Scripture disagrees with this.

2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

That all depends on how you interpret inspired now doesn't it Ricky my sonny Jim.

Now as for the first verse, it is clearly talking about prophesy, pretty sure Genesis was not prophesy.

On the contrary Daniel. In the verse in 2 Peter, the OT word we translate as prophesy, is another name for word of God, or written scripture.

Scroll down to (page 24 of 56) on the notes on 2 Peter 1:20-21 in this link:
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/not ... 2peter.pdf

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

It is meant to be taken literal, it was literally written to make a theological point and not written as a science book.

Indeed, that is why I make the distinction between literal ( in regards to its literal genre) and literal AND concrete.

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

Daniel my boy, Scripture disagrees with this.

2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Here is the thing though, there has never been a definite agreement on what/how inspired by the HS they were, what it means.
Were they just "robots" controlled by the HS? Did the HS tell them what to write?
Even if that is the case, they were writing for a certain people in a certain way to get a certain point across.
While the bible was written FOR us all, it was written TO a certain group of people.
2Peter referes to prophecy and it is clear that all TRUE prophecy is from/of the HS.
2 Timothy states that scripture is INSPIRED by God and is good for the TEACHING, REPROOFING, CORRECTION and TRAINING of what? RIGHTEOUSNESS.
That is what the bible was written for.
I would add to that, of course, that it was also written to POINT to Christ and all salvation in Him.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

Daniel my boy, Scripture disagrees with this.

2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Here is the thing though, there has never been a definite agreement on what/how inspired by the HS they were, what it means.
Were they just "robots" controlled by the HS? Did the HS tell them what to write?
Even if that is the case, they were writing for a certain people in a certain way to get a certain point across.
While the bible was written FOR us all, it was written TO a certain group of people.
2Peter referes to prophecy and it is clear that all TRUE prophecy is from/of the HS.
2 Timothy states that scripture is INSPIRED by God and is good for the TEACHING, REPROOFING, CORRECTION and TRAINING of what? RIGHTEOUSNESS.
That is what the bible was written for.
I would add to that, of course, that it was also written to POINT to Christ and all salvation in Him.

Paul,

Look at my above post to Daniel. Read the link that explains what the hebrew word translated as prophesy means.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

Daniel my boy, Scripture disagrees with this.

2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Here is the thing though, there has never been a definite agreement on what/how inspired by the HS they were, what it means.
Were they just "robots" controlled by the HS? Did the HS tell them what to write?
Even if that is the case, they were writing for a certain people in a certain way to get a certain point across.
While the bible was written FOR us all, it was written TO a certain group of people.
2Peter referes to prophecy and it is clear that all TRUE prophecy is from/of the HS.
2 Timothy states that scripture is INSPIRED by God and is good for the TEACHING, REPROOFING, CORRECTION and TRAINING of what? RIGHTEOUSNESS.
That is what the bible was written for.
I would add to that, of course, that it was also written to POINT to Christ and all salvation in Him.

Paul,

Look at my above post to Daniel. Read the link that explains what the hebrew word translated as prophesy means.

Yeah, I think you may need to read that page ALL the way through.
When they OT prophets spoke, they WERE prophesying.
They were speaking IN THEIR OWN WORDS what God was revealing to them about what was to come.

Yeah, I think you may need to read that page ALL the way through.
When they OT prophets spoke, they WERE prophesying. They were speaking IN THEIR OWN WORDS what GOD was revealing to them about what was to come

Well, first off, do you really think that God would reveal things and events (often with considerable detail that came true precisely) that would come to pass that would not be true and accurate? And if God has he ability to tell precise details about a DISTANT future, do you really believe He couldn't accurately convey to them about the events and what he wanted them to record for events in the distant PAST? And would our all powerful and sovereign God have allowed men to mess ups key points about important things that God wanted them to convey? You see, any student of prophecy will see that there are remarkably detailed prophecies that were written down and later totally confirmed. And so we're to believe that God couldn't see to the accurate transmission and recording of HIS words that are so important to Him? God saw His words - of which all ultimately point to the Cross and Jesus - as being so incredibly important that He actually died a hideous death to FULFILL. And THAT is precisely how important God sees His word as being. And let's not forget that God says human history and the earth will end EXACTLY as He has forecast. And he's going to use mere mortal men to accomplish that. God does NOT need perfect men to accomplish what HE is in control of - and that includes an accurate recording of His messages to man!

Please don't conclude that what I'm saying means I believe that what God had his prophets and writers communicate (in Genesis) was meant to be accurate SCIENTIFIC understandings. I see that as a different matter. The HOW of the Creation story would have been FAR beyond the early Israelites' basic understandings of the world and universe - as theirs necessarily was a pre-scientific age worldview. However, the story of Adam and Eve, of rebellion against God, of evil, of consequences of going against the Lord, these ARE things that the post-Egyptian Israelite would have well understood. So the assertion that God had to communicate the story of the Fall by dumbing it down - as if they couldn't understand such dynamics - seems silly. And let's not forget that the New Testament does not a whit give a more "sophisticated" explanation of the Fall of Man and the origins of our sin nature, the characteristics of the devil. So did God still see the need to keep a "cute" story about Eden alive for New Testament believers? So the question becomes, if the story is not REALLY the story, then what WAS? And why the need to cook up some mythical, allegorical tale? Explain THAT!

Do you really think that if God wanted something accurately conveyed, that just because He used mortal (yes, fallible) men to do so, He couldn't achieve what He wanted to with His communication. Now, interpretation of some things is debatable. But to suggest that the Bible records inaccurate events that weren't historical is to also say God couldn't precisely control all He so desired to with His word - and there are powerful, FULFILLED prophecies to refute this. To suggest that Adam and Eve couldn't be real people or that their story is no different than telling your children they were delivered by the stork - well, the way in which their story and failure, explanatory references to them in other portions of Scripture, and their actions and God's response pointing to our need for a Savior, makes no sense at all if one can simply say the Genesis story is mostly allegorical. Because if it is not HISTORICALLY true, then 1) the theology is based upon fiction and 2) thus God has put forth a series of fictions to base His truth on. And if not as stated, the stories in Genesis could be interpreted in a thousand different ways. So then, what WAS His purpose if giving us tall tales instead of truth? What about the post-Adam story is so complicated that God couldn't give Moses the actual facts? There is far greater complexity written into the Bible's first five books, and yet we're to believe that God "dumbed down" Adam and Eve's story to a society that couldn't accurately understand the facts? Really, that doesn't square with the rest of the Pentateuch, much of it detailed. And remember, we're referring to books of stories written down and consolidated for a post-Captivity Israel. So, we're not talking about something like God having to simplify complex scientific details for a much-less-sophisticated ancient audience. The story of Adam and Eve merely includes stories of mortal events, rebellion, and their subsequent response by God. It's all about people built for relationship who also BROKE that relationship, and a God who loved (us and) them enough to provide a solution to the fallout from that brokenness.




And while the details of how God created, as GIVEN, can accommodate several different viewpoints. However, this is mostly due to a lack of corroborating details or information concerning God's pre-Adam Creation activities. So there's room for interpretation on this. But many KEY details about Adam and Eve, and especially the Fall and God's Response and pre-prepared plan to deal with that, are specific. So questions concerning Adam and Eve and their actions should be very different because we're not speaking of things God DIDN'T tell us as much as they are questions and wildly differing viewpoints over what He DID tell us. And there are not a few people I've read on this forum that don't even believe much of Genesis was God's actual words. To me, that viewpoint is a slippery slope leading to no certainties about ANY of Scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
Yes I am, God did not inspire them, they were inspired by their interactions with God.

Daniel my boy, Scripture disagrees with this.

2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Here is the thing though, there has never been a definite agreement on what/how inspired by the HS they were, what it means.
Were they just "robots" controlled by the HS? Did the HS tell them what to write?
Even if that is the case, they were writing for a certain people in a certain way to get a certain point across.
While the bible was written FOR us all, it was written TO a certain group of people.
2Peter referes to prophecy and it is clear that all TRUE prophecy is from/of the HS.
2 Timothy states that scripture is INSPIRED by God and is good for the TEACHING, REPROOFING, CORRECTION and TRAINING of what? RIGHTEOUSNESS.
That is what the bible was written for.
I would add to that, of course, that it was also written to POINT to Christ and all salvation in Him.

Paul,

Look at my above post to Daniel. Read the link that explains what the hebrew word translated as prophesy means.

Yeah, I think you may need to read that page ALL the way through.
When they OT prophets spoke, they WERE prophesying.
They were speaking IN THEIR OWN WORDS what God was revealing to them about what was to come.

Bingo, we have a winner winner chicken dinner.

Seriously though Paul hit the nail on the head.


This thread has been totally derailed.



Unless anyone has anything to say about the early church and belief in evolution I have nothing more to say.

Philip wrote:s. To me, that viewpoint is a slippery slope leading to no certainties about ANY of Scripture.

I wanted to address this part because I feel it is very important ( not the the rest wasn't though):
The view that ALL the bible must be viewed as literal and concrete ( or in a given way) or NONE of the bible is certain is, IMO, very unfounded.
That so many great ones before did NOT view the bible as absolutely literal and concrete and YET valued it immensely makes it clear that the value of the bible is NOT based on HOW WE READ it but WHY it was written and BY WHOM.
I do NOT view all the bible to be read other than by the literary genre it was written in ( letters as letter, poems as poems, historical accounts as such, etc).
I value the bible above everything OTHER than Our Lord, Our Father and the HS that guides Us all.
There is a slippery slope ONLY when we decide that we know better than anyone else HOW to read the various books of the bible based on the reason that IF we don't read it as THIS way, then it has NO VALUE.
I have no issues when someone decides to regard the bible as 100% concrete and that everything written happened EXACTLY word -for-word as it was written AND copied AND translated over the centuries.
I just don't agree.
To suggest that because I do NOT agree with that means the bible has no value is an insult to me and to the bible.
I decide what value the bible has for me, not anyone else.
If YOU can't value the bible unless it is read how YOU think it must be, that is YOUR prerogative, NOT mine.
I simply disagree with it.

Biblical interpretation has been around since the first time the bible was transmitted from the written word and that will never change.
Lets not forget that the Pharisees, Saudacess and Essenes ( to name just 3) ALL read the same bible, ALL valued it above anything else and ALL have different views on many things AND ALL were convinced they were right.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: I believe God may have guided them on the important bits, but he may also may not have guided them, who knows except God, and if he did I believe it would only have been the theological points, the why of it, the how of it was not important and is still not important to this day. I think God more inspired the theological content rather than the scientific content, if that makes sense.

Unlike the writers of the other books of the bible, God spoke directly to Moses. It was not a matter of inspiration. For all we know, the history in Genesis was given word for word from God to Moses, who wrote it down.