Evidence for God from Science

Not to mention that it appears he believes one can gain and then later lose their salvation due to not having an accurate view of creation events. Some of the most dedicated and effective evangelicals harbor - or are at least open to such views - typically after long and thoughtful studies of both science and scripture. To dismiss them by suggesting they have been politically influenced - as they hold a such a wide variety of differing creation views - is just naive.

Going by the English language alone,
my statements in the previous post, do not indicate someone being lost for having a different view on creation,
but on someone who will not make progress with the truth by holding on to false teachings/doctrines/lies.

Big difference, RickD.

My whole point is not about a static belief criterion but about progressive Christian growth, which by the way Philip, is essential for salvation.

The Bible calls this persistence in error "willing ignorance." for which there is no salvation.
However, there is unknowing ignorance, or ignorance of the past, which God "winks at" or does not hold against anyone.
Jesus said "IF you CONTINUE in my word, you are my disciples."
The opposite - "if you don't continue in my word you are NOT my disciples."

In regards to the topic, if I am challenged on my view about creation, and proven to be wrong from the scriptures, and I don't pull into line with truth, then I am no longer following Christ, I am discontinuing in His word and accepting the traditions and thoughts of men above God.

But RickD, I take your point and will take care with the issue.

Starhunter wrote:
Going by the English language alone,
my statements in the previous post, do not indicate someone being lost for having a different view on creation,
but on someone who will not make progress with the truth by holding on to false teachings/doctrines/lies.

Of course they do! You just accused believers who hold to evolution, as not being able to be saved because they hold on to lies. You wrote:

It is not an issue when accepting Christ, but after it becomes an issue when the saved is confronted with the lies of evolution. One cannot be a Christian or claim to be converted if they hold on to lies and false doctrine, which includes the lies of Satan through "science so falsely called."

You disagree with evolution, which in itself is not a problem. But questioning someone's salvation because they believe differently than you believe, about a belief that has nothing to do with salvation, will not be tolerated here.

Starhunter wrote:
My whole point is not about a static belief criterion but about progressive Christian growth, which by the way Philip, is essential for salvation.

This is a different subject altogether, but it seems you are conflating salvation and discipleship.

Your Young Earth interpretation of scripture, is not equal to scripture itself. Creation beliefs, whether OEC/PC, Theistic Evolution, YEC, or whatever, are not beliefs that are essential for salvation. You are free to have your YEC interpretation, and can argue for YEC. If you question the salvation of a believer because he believes in evolution, you will be banned.

Which view do you hold RickD?

YEC, OEC, gap theory?

Starhunter wrote:Which view do you hold RickD?

YEC, OEC, gap theory?

Old Earth/Progressive Creationism. But I used to be YEC.

you know, I find this passage of scripture interesting:

Rom 11:33, Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! NASB

Yet for some (but not all) YEC's, agree with the above verse. Others, like Ham, do not concerning Age of the Earth as for them, it is an authority issue. For such is is all about defending God and really not about young earth or old earth. They are defending God and therefore they much superior than all others. Yet, to accuse OEC'ist as attacking and undermining the authority of God is not defending God's authority at all and in fact helps to undermine it in the minds of onlookers. The reflection of Christlike character of both the unsaved and save alike see from militant YEC's words and actions is of a bigot.

I am so thankful of God's grace that changes us out of darkness into His marvelous light. I am thankful that the Lord permits us to search and explore the mysteries within the bible that grant us all brief glimpses of his wisdom and knowledge and brief sightings of his unsearchable ways! Creation is one such mystery that should never turn one into a religious bigot.
-
-
-

Funny thing, but both YECS and OECs attempt to use science to buttress their views. And, BOTH camps cherry pick their evidences. YECS are selective as to how they apply their literalist approach. OECS like Hugh Ross attempt to match up scientific evidences, often with Scriptural passages that were never meant to speak to the science of things. Hugh has often made this blunder due to inadequate understandings of what the original languages actually allow. Sometime he'll take a passage meant symbolically and render it to prove a science view. But Hugh and other OECS have done a strong job of giving credible evidences for an old earth, and showing the tremendous problems inherent in macro evolution.

To me, it matters not whether the earth and/or the universe is young or old, whether a Creation "day" was 24 hours or a billion years. SOMEHOW the text is true and SOMEHOW God created. I may have misunderstood parts of the meaning - and that may be or may not the parts I most focus on. I have no doubt that Genesis is ALL God's word, its just that I have doubts about how accurately ANY of us truly understood some of the hotly debated portions. Norman Geisler states that he has been studying the time issues in Genesis for 50 years and still cannot be certain about it - although he notes how the text most definitely allows for a very old earth and universe.

well said Rick.

Here's something to think about theophilus. If you want to read genesis literally and concretely, and say that the creation days are 24 hours long, because that's what "day" means, then how long is the day in Genesis 2:4?

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Did God make the earth and heaven in 6 days, or 1 day? Taking day as only a 24 hour day, brings a contradiction in scripture.

RickD wrote:Here's something to think about theophilus. If you want to read genesis literally and concretely, and say that the creation days are 24 hours long, because that's what "day" means, then how long is the day in Genesis 2:4?

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Did God make the earth and heaven in 6 days, or 1 day? Taking day as only a 24 hour day, brings a contradiction in scripture.

My name is not Theophilus,
but in Genesis 1:5, KJV
God names the light -"Day," from which everything was generated.
All the "generations" of matter in our earth system came from that first light.

Genesis 2:4 KJV. simply says that the generations occurred in a day. It could mean what you said also, but not exclusively, so can we leave that one open? and as you said it causes a contradiction - so we are left with the one answer. Unless of course we replace every other yom in local text with an indeterminate time.

It seems to me, that a generation begins with whatever God has put into place to make something, the foundations of the earth were made before the earth actually appeared in sight or materialized.

The earth did not "appear" until the third day, when God named it "Earth."

The generations of our solar system seem to begin on the same day that the light was spoken.

We could go back even before the light, before the foundations were laid, and know that as far as God is concerned the earth existed then, even though, if we were there, it would not appear, it had no form and was void.
I don't think that there was an indeterminate time before the first day, because the whole creation of earth system, is said to be only six days, from invisible things to visible things.

"So that the things which are seen were not made of things which" we can see. Hebrews 11:3 KJV.

Starhunter wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:See, the issue is NOT what Genesis says, it is what WE THINK it MEANS.

There are rules of language or grammar in English. The Bible should be read as it appears in English.

Ham reads English.

Evolution, gap theory, OEC are not in the Bible. I have never read - one day means any amount of time, day and night means eons of time, evening and morning means blah.

If we cannot accept the plain text, then we ought to have doubts about whether God knew what He was doing in preserving an original version of the scriptures until our day.

Doubt erodes faith. "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" "Without faith it is impossible to please God" does not include falsehood.

So yes, the issue is not Genesis but the sin of thinking of something that is not written in there.

The bible in english is a translation/transliteration of Hebrew, Aramiac and Koine Greek and the KJV, for example, is based on latter texts ( Receptus textus) and mostly translated the supposed/preconceived meanings of verses.
You can NOT accept the plain text washout grist understanding the GENRE of the text.
The issue with Genesis is that it is quite clearly NOT a scientific account of creation but a THEOLOGICAL account.
It is NOT a chronological account of creation but an ORDERLY account.
Genesis 1 is about the creation of either the whole universe or the planet earth and Genesis 2 is about the creation and events in a special place knows as the Garden In Eden.

Starhunter wrote -
...Doubt erodes faith. "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" "Without faith it is impossible to please God" does not include falsehood....

...

Paulsacramento wrote - The issue with Genesis is that it is quite clearly NOT a scientific account of creation but a THEOLOGICAL account.
It is NOT a chronological account of creation but an ORDERLY account...

Genuine science is theological isn't it?

If your wife has just had a baby, while you were away, she calls you and let's you know,
is what she said a scientifically proven fact or is it a theological reality?
According to science, it is not a fact until it has passed under the noses of a peer reviewing board, but according to God she has just had a baby.
If you believe in science, you say to her, "you have no evidence though do you?" "I can't really accept that until you show me proof."

But God states the facts, that's real science isn't it?
So the story of Genesis is genuine science.

In regards to "orderly" versus "chronological," when someone tells you of an event, do they always do it chronologically or do they point out what impressed them most first and then go into the other details later?

Does this mean that what they are saying is not chronological? Probably not?

In regards to the text style some 'analysts' have even claimed that the first 3 chapters are 3 different creations, written by 3 separate authors. I don't think they really get narrative patterns.

Starhunter wrote:
Genuine science is theological isn't it?

If your wife has just had a baby, while you were away, she calls you and let's you know,
is what she said a scientifically proven fact or is it a theological reality?
According to science, it is not a fact until it has passed under the noses of a peer reviewing board, but according to God she has just had a baby.
If you believe in science, you say to her, "you have no evidence though do you?" "I can't really accept that until you show me proof."

But God states the facts, that's real science isn't it?
So the story of Genesis is genuine science.

In regards to "orderly" versus "chronological," when someone tells you of an event, do they always do it chronologically or do they point out what impressed them most first and then go into the other details later?

Does this mean that what they are saying is not chronological? Probably not?

In regards to the text style some 'analysts' have even claimed that the first 3 chapters are 3 different creations, written by 3 separate authors. I don't think they really get narrative patterns.

Theology is not science per say, science it about observation of the natural world.
Theology is about God.

Genesis is NOT science per say because it was not based on observable facts, it was passed on to Moses (according to tradition) by God and passed on in such a way that it would accommodate God's intended audience.

Yes, most scholars agree that in Genesis we have at least 2 different traditions, the Priestly writer ( Genesis 1 for example) and the Jahwist writer ( Genesis 2 for example) and those two tradtions are distinct and clear based on the textual critic of Genesis ( and the rest of the Pentateuch). Not only based on writing styles but based on theological distinctiveness.
Narrative patterns do NOT address those distinct features ( among others of course).

To look at Genesis as a scientific statement on the creation of the universe and/or Earth is to put into the pen of the writer something that clearly wasn't the point of writing it.
Genesis is a theological statement on WHO created the world, WHY He did it and, to a very limited degree, HOW and it was done not only to inform the Israelites BUT also to counter the ANE creation stories of the pagan cultures that hey were being exposed to.

PaulSacramento wrote: Theology is not science per say, science it about observation of the natural world.
Theology is about God.

Genesis is NOT science per say because it was not based on observable facts, it was passed on to Moses (according to tradition) by God and passed on in such a way that it would accommodate God's intended audience...

I go along with most of that, because you are using the terms "scientific" and "theological" by their strict definitions.

I was hoping to bend those definitions away from their common boundaries, and see science as a word not restricted to the observations of man alone, and theology as the Creator's view of reality.

I don't see Genesis as either theological or scientific, in regards to the strict use of the terms, it is just God telling me how it was and is.

Starhunter wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Theology is not science per say, science it about observation of the natural world.
Theology is about God.

Genesis is NOT science per say because it was not based on observable facts, it was passed on to Moses (according to tradition) by God and passed on in such a way that it would accommodate God's intended audience...

I go along with most of that, because you are using the terms "scientific" and "theological" by their strict definitions.

I was hoping to bend those definitions away from their common boundaries, and see science as a word not restricted to the observations of man alone, and theology as the Creator's view of reality.

I don't see Genesis as either theological or scientific, in regards to the strict use of the terms, it is just God telling me how it was and is.

No, Genesis was God telling ancient Man how it was in a way that he ( ancient man) would understand based not only on his culture understanding BUT also VS what he was being exposed to via his pagan neighbors.