Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:My faith in in THE word of God, Jesus Christ.
I have faith in HIM.
I understand that my interpretation of the written word of God, the bible, is a human one so it is, at best, adequate and at worse, wrong and because of that I have faith in my understanding of the bible based on how the holy spirit guides me BUT I am always aware that, as a human, my understanding can be wrong.
The written word of God is very important BUT it is NOT more important than the LIVING word of God, Jesus and the HS that guides us.

That is what I am asking about. One finds that the spirit leads him here, another there, an opposite direction. Both are equally sincere.

Didnt mean to go this way here, but it comes up so naturally..see the part above, in bold.

Not all are as humble as you in this, of course, but here is the question that comes up:

How do you try to find out if you got it right?

Is it ever acceptable to interpret the Bible in terms of some outside source of info?
When, why, why not, etc?

See, the spirit does NOT lead people in different directions BUT we as humans have different understandings and that is why we are told to be patient with each other.
Of course that isn't any different than humans having different views of the same things in other fields as well.

In regards t interpreting the bible, there are many fields and, IMO, the best way is to not just use one but various methods (such as textual criticism, the socio-historical method, etc).

No outside sources allowed?

Sure, why not?

So in practical terms, how does that work? If one has read the bible to say that the earth is so many years old, more or less, and feels that it is God's word that its about that age.

(Making up this example here).. If one had determined that Gods word shows an a ge of 6000 years, and a core from a bristlecone pine showd it was 7000 years old, then what?

melanie wrote:There are some beliefs in christianity that are open to interpretation but the core message has been held by majority of christians for many years.
God's word trumps science and man's reasoning. Interpretation in some instances very well may not discredit them as such but it is not a defining factor.
Science and reasoning cannot explain a man walking on water, feeding five thousand from a few fish and loaves of bread, talking donkey's, a virgin birth, parting of seas and ressurection from death.
If someone interprets the bible to include current scientific theories then that is absolute right to do so, but you can't look at science as the authority on all that is possible and fit scripture around man's reasoning because the bible is full of the power of God completely outside of scientific explanation.
Just because science fails to explain biblical text does not make that text therefore unreasonable.
If that were the case we would question the very core message of Christianity, Jesus' death and resurrection.

Id not suggest anyone fit all of scripture around man's reasoning. How about, tho, something like the above example of a specific thing like a date?

Audie wrote:
So in practical terms, how does that work? If one has read the bible to say that the earth is so many years old, more or less, and feels that it is God's word that its about that age.

(Making up this example here).. If one had determined that Gods word shows an a ge of 6000 years, and a core from a bristlecone pine showd it was 7000 years old, then what?

Audie,

If I run across something that I think is a contradiction between my interpretation of scripture, and my interpretation of something in nature, if it bothers me, I try to find where one or both of my interpretations may be wrong.

You have to remember that what I believe scripture says, is ultimately my interpretation of scripture. And what I believe nature shows, is my interpretation of what nature shows. And sometimes if I don't understand something about scripture or nature, I may defer to someone who I believe knows better than I do.

And that's no different for anyone else who interprets the evidence we see in nature.

Audie wrote:
Id not suggest anyone fit all of scripture around man's reasoning. How about, tho, something like the above example of a specific thing like a date?

It's my personal belief that the bible makes no claim to the age of the earth. So, my reasons for believing whatever I do about the earth's age, comes from outside the bible.

Audie wrote:
So in practical terms, how does that work? If one has read the bible to say that the earth is so many years old, more or less, and feels that it is God's word that its about that age.

(Making up this example here).. If one had determined that Gods word shows an a ge of 6000 years, and a core from a bristlecone pine showd it was 7000 years old, then what?

We use outside sources to try an understand what is written, keeping in mind that the bible, while written FOR us was NOT written TO Us.
We use outside sources to help with understanding IMPLIED text or texts that have a culture context, or text that may have a tradition context, etc.
If we think that the text implies, as per your example, that age of the Earth being 6000 years old ( it implies because nowhere is it EXPLICITLY stated)we need to confirm our INTERPRETATION of what is/seems to be implied.
We do that with the full knowledge that God is revealed in creation/nature as well as in the bible.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:
So in practical terms, how does that work? If one has read the bible to say that the earth is so many years old, more or less, and feels that it is God's word that its about that age.

(Making up this example here).. If one had determined that Gods word shows an a ge of 6000 years, and a core from a bristlecone pine showd it was 7000 years old, then what?

We use outside sources to try an understand what is written, keeping in mind that the bible, while written FOR us was NOT written TO Us.
We use outside sources to help with understanding IMPLIED text or texts that have a culture context, or text that may have a tradition context, etc.
If we think that the text implies, as per your example, that age of the Earth being 6000 years old ( it implies because nowhere is it EXPLICITLY stated)we need to confirm our INTERPRETATION of what is/seems to be implied.
We do that with the full knowledge that God is revealed in creation/nature as well as in the bible.

Ok that is a good point. "Implied" leans very heavily on how one interprets things.

Not that I believe in any god, but, if such there is then of course, much about the maker would be reflected in the creation.

I do wonder about the the thinking of those who turn their back on the "book" written into the earth, and say that their reading of the bible has to be right, regardless of what the earth itself says.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:
So in practical terms, how does that work? If one has read the bible to say that the earth is so many years old, more or less, and feels that it is God's word that its about that age.

(Making up this example here).. If one had determined that Gods word shows an a ge of 6000 years, and a core from a bristlecone pine showd it was 7000 years old, then what?

We use outside sources to try an understand what is written, keeping in mind that the bible, while written FOR us was NOT written TO Us.
We use outside sources to help with understanding IMPLIED text or texts that have a culture context, or text that may have a tradition context, etc.
If we think that the text implies, as per your example, that age of the Earth being 6000 years old ( it implies because nowhere is it EXPLICITLY stated)we need to confirm our INTERPRETATION of what is/seems to be implied.
We do that with the full knowledge that God is revealed in creation/nature as well as in the bible.

Ok that is a good point. "Implied" leans very heavily on how one interprets things.

Not that I believe in any god, but, if such there is then of course, much about the maker would be reflected in the creation.

I do wonder about the the thinking of those who turn their back on the "book" written into the earth, and say that their reading of the bible has to be right, regardless of what the earth itself says.

It has been my experience that when peoples faith is based on the written word of God ( the bible) and an interpretation that they agree with in regards to the bible, that they will deny anything that they THINK ( note, what they THINK not that is actually DOES) threaten, in their OPINION, the way they see the bible.

No matter that what degree the bible is infallible or inerrant, what is NOT is OUR understanding of the bible.
Many times people forget that part.

All truth is God's truth.

Where things get silly, in my opinion, is when people take a particular approach to interpreting Scripture and they take their methodology or the systematic theology derived from it and then equate that with Scripture itself. You get all sorts of silly things when that is done. A prime example, in my opinion, is YEC which establishes dates or time frames and then attempts to force all evidence into that already predetermined framework. It can happen in other contexts as well, including science, but say what you like about science, it is designed to change with evidence. It's far more flexible than most dogmatic theology.

Canuckster1127 wrote:All truth is God's truth.

Where things get silly, in my opinion, is when people take a particular approach to interpreting Scripture and they take their methodology or the systematic theology derived from it and then equate that with Scripture itself. You get all sorts of silly things when that is done. A prime example, in my opinion, is YEC which establishes dates or time frames and then attempts to force all evidence into that already predetermined framework. It can happen in other contexts as well, including science, but say what you like about science, it is designed to change with evidence. It's far more flexible than most dogmatic theology.

No water canopy?

Tut, tut, it looks like rain .....

Canuckster1127 wrote:Tut, tut, it looks like rain .....

Dont make me haul out the hydroplate theory video!!

Audie wrote:I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.


How would anyone know which is which?

You must be born again by Jesus to understand but I would like to know why you seem to trust man so much?Don't you know how many times man has thought one way for years and thought they had evidence and everything only to later be proven wrong?I cannot understand how you can put your faith in what man says is true,it is very unwise to me.Whole countries have been indoctrinated before and so the truth is very important to me.How do you know man is right this time?

It makes no difference whether man believed in God or not man is sinful,lies,hates,slanders,propagandizes whole societies,man is evil,lies andd needs God's truth for it is the only thing we can put our faith in.I learned this as a Christian realizing all of the doctrines of man and not of God in Christian churches.Imagine a time when Christian preachers were rascists while preaching Satan's lies instead of God's truth.I do not put my faith in what man says is true at all,my faith goes into believing God's word because it is the inspired word of God,and only it to the best of my ability do I put my faith in,I ignore lies from Satan and try to expose them.

All sources that we rely upon for truth (whether some holy book, physical sciences or reason) require faith to believe in them, don't they?

Kurieuo wrote:All sources that we rely upon for truth (whether some holy book, physical sciences or reason) require faith to believe in them, don't they?

Science does not do "truth", and I dont do equivocation on the word "faith".*

Science does probabilities. The holy book to which reference is made does absolutes.

*"belief in evolution takes more faith than belief in god" is an exact counterpart to
the lame arguments against god being savaged in a different thread

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.


How would anyone know which is which?

You must be born again by Jesus to understand but I would like to know why you seem to trust man so much?Don't you know how many times man has thought one way for years and thought they had evidence and everything only to later be proven wrong?I cannot understand how you can put your faith in what man says is true,it is very unwise to me.Whole countries have been indoctrinated before and so the truth is very important to me.How do you know man is right this time?

It makes no difference whether man believed in God or not man is sinful,lies,hates,slanders,propagandizes whole societies,man is evil,lies andd needs God's truth for it is the only thing we can put our faith in.I learned this as a Christian realizing all of the doctrines of man and not of God in Christian churches.Imagine a time when Christian preachers were rascists while preaching Satan's lies instead of God's truth.I do not put my faith in what man says is true at all,my faith goes into believing God's word because it is the inspired word of God,and only it to the best of my ability do I put my faith in,I ignore lies from Satan and try to expose them.

If you read my post you will see I asked how some people can be so sure that they know the exact meaning of "god's word" .
Given that people with the same claim to "born again" understanding read the same passage and get a rainbow of different meanings, it looks to this observer that their faith is in themselves as inerrant readers.

If you have no response on topic, that is fine. Twisting the question around to invent faults in me and make it about me is not fine, Why would you think it is?

Of course people make mistakes in science. Distrust of authority is essential to science. (Opposite to religion, that way) My question had to do with how people can think they cant make any mistakes regarding what they believe "god" is telling them.

You present as very confident in your ideas about science, to the extent of making some rather extreme statements on the
mentality, character and eternal destination of those who dont see it your way.

I asked about football, because I know very little about it, so you know more.
If I started in talking about the rink, the goalie and so forth, you'd soon see I was not in a position to say anything credible
about the game.

It is obvious to me that I know science at least that much better than you; your talk of proving a theory for example is as amateur a bit of ignorance as thinking there is a football net and home base would be to you, if I argued for those things.

And yet you are confident that "god's word" backs the falsehoods that comprise the substance of your posts
trying to denounce science.

Think well who is preaching "Satan's Lies".

Here's something I wrote about this general subject elsewhere some time ago:

--------------------------------

It’s common in Bible study to hear statements like, “that’s just your interpretation!” Sometimes, when we talk about the Bible, the objector is more sophisticated and will say, “Don’t confuse your understanding of Scripture with Scripture itself,” implying rightly that our understanding is fallible but wrongly that we can’t know what the Bible teaches.

The central question is whether or not we can be objective in our interpretation. That is, can we understand what the text means in and of itself, apart from our pre-conceived notions. That last clause is extremely important. One of the hardest parts about getting the Bible right is getting rid of our presuppositions. For example, if you just presume that any reference to burning refers to Hell, you are very likely going to misinterpret Hebrews 6:4-6.

The vast majority of theorists, even in Evangelical circles, have concluded because of this that objectivity is impossible. They say that we cannot approach the text without presuppositions, and therefore, that objective interpretation is a myth. Unfortunately, what they don’t acknowledge is that if all interpretation is merely subjective, then there is absolutely no way to know what the Bible does teach. Truth cannot be known, so we may as well give up on “Thus saith the Lord.”

There are good reasons for thinking this is not the case, however. While it is true that we all approach the text with some presuppositions, two points are in order. First, when someone says that objectivity is impossible, they are assuming that they know something about the way the world works objectively. In other words, if all interpretation is just personal opinion, how can anyone know that all interpretation is just personal opinion? If that were true, then even the statement “all interpretation is just personal opinion” would itself subject to personal interpretation. We would have no way of knowing, and no reason to believe, that it represented reality at all. It appears, then, that objectivity really is possible on some level.

Second, the statement that all people come to the text with presuppositions is itself a presupposition. Now, if presuppositions can be changed (I can change my view of the idea of burning in the Bible), then what about the presupposition that all of us come to the text with presuppositions? Can that be changed? If not, then some ideas are immutable and necessarily true. And if some ideas are necessarily true, then we have an objective ground on which to interpret the text.

As it turns out, there are many of these unchangeable, necessarily true presuppositions. The law of non-contradiction is just one more example. Nothing can both be and not be in the same way at the same time. You can’t say that words “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” means both that God created the earth and that He didn’t create the earth in the same way. Both may be wrong, but both cannot be right.

And by the way, this principle isn’t just true for biblical studies. It’s true for everything. There are many people who actually argue that we can’t know anything, because everything we know is tinted by what we already believe. But, of course, is that is true, then we can’t even know that we can’t know anything, nor can we know that our beliefs effect what we know. All such claims are self-defeating.

Biblical interpretation isn’t easy. Some complain and argue that it should be, but the Bible was written two thousand years ago (and some parts much further back) in different languages, in different cultures, to different people with different problems. Those barriers can be crossed, however, and given the right tools, we can be confident that we know what it teaches. If two people disagree, they can examine their reasons for taking the text like they do and discover which one (if not both) has not considered an important piece of evidence. Biblical interpretation can be objective. It doesn’t have to be just your interpretation.

--------------------------------

The short answer to your question, Audie, is "reason." Words have meaning and context is king. Authors put words to paper intending their audiences to understand that meaning. The author may do a poor job communicating his or her ideas, or the audience may mistake that meaning. But from an interpretational perspective, the fact remains that what we have to work with is the text as it stands within the culture in which it was written. When we take those things into account, it turns out that possible interpretations of a text are very limited. Most disagreements among Christians on what the Bible means has nothing to do with any difficulty in what the text says and everything to do with whether or not those Christians are willing to accept what the text says. They tend to read the text in light of the culture, tradition, and other points of view that they impose on the words they are reading. They come by some of that honestly. Some of it is mere sophistry. All of it can be corrected to the extent that we are willing to be honest with ourselves. Unfortunately, few of us are (and that includes me, sadly). But that just highlights the issue all the more, doesn't it? If the Bible really is the Word of God, then our refusal to be honest with ourselves and our concurrent insistence to reject its actual message and impose upon it our own says a great deal about our desire to obey God. So we have the same problem that the Jews of old did. The Scriptures say, "Thus saith the Lord." We either give Him our "Amen" or we reject it.