Evidence for God from Science

Forum Monk wrote:Continuing -

Again, before I give my opinion, I would like the readers of this thread to answer a couple of questions.

Since the idea of OEC is a fairly recent construct (no one prior to 1800 thought the bible suggested an old earth), what is the question Christians are trying to answer with this theory? And who is asking the question?

Actually, the idea of a recent earth is a new one. I know you don't like simply referring to the website, but this is simply convenience. Once school ends I will gladly search out other referecnes if you would like

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.php

Personally, I believe that all evidence points to the universe being billions of years old and the earth to around 5 billion years old.

Speed of light is only one piece of evidence.

What question? How old is the universe... WHi is asking? People with inquiring minds

Also let me rephrase the question a bit. Is it fair to say, you want to know how old the earth is, because you doubt the 6000-10000 year literal interpretation, because you have some other evidence it is older?

The reason I am asking this, lets be frank, is because I want to establish that we would not be wondering were it not for scientific investigation discoveries and theories. I mean, it is not a philosophical or theological doubt.

Correct. The current interpretation (at least in my english bible) would suggest (or actually, would come right out and say) that the earth was made in six days. However, i have never done a study of the genealogies (or any other dating method using the bible) so i cannot say for certain the bible claims the earth is only 10000-6000 years old. I wouldn't have guess billions, just from the bible, but then again i wouldn't have guessed there are other galaxies or other planets even. I wouldn't have guessed God would have made other "Earths" (not sure he did, but i think he may have). So i think in light of recent discoveries (scientific one) we need to reread the scripture and see if we maybe had the interpretation wrong.

Enigma wrote:However, in exodus (don't remember exactly), in the ten commandments when commanding us to remember the sabbath day, the writers says somethign to the effect of, for God made the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, so you shall toil for six and rest.... (biggest paraphrase ever).

So, i began to think. All the bible, in my humble opinion seems to point to a young earth. All of science points to an old earth. I am torn. I can make science and the bible mesh, but the above verse would seem to be a conflict. Any thoughts?

Just want to get this back in focus.

Zoegirl wrote:Actually, the idea of a recent earth is a new one. I know you don't like simply referring to the website, but this is simply convenience. Once school ends I will gladly search out other referecnes if you would like

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.php

I checked the references to the early church fathers and I whole-heartedly disagree. It was and is a very common belief that the whole of history would last 6000 years. This came from the "day to God is like a 1000 years" scripture in Peter iirc. The 6 day creation in the early church mind was a prophesy or type or shadow to the idea that history would last 6 days (6000 years) then the sabbath (1000 year millenial rest). I can show specific references and quotes which support this view within the CCEL documents referenced in Rich's article. For many the idea of the rapture and second coming beginning around year 2000 was based on the day=1000 year formula using an approximate 4004bc creation proposed by Ussher.

Enigma wrote:Correct. The current interpretation (at least in my english bible) would suggest (or actually, would come right out and say) that the earth was made in six days. However, i have never done a study of the genealogies (or any other dating method using the bible) so i cannot say for certain the bible claims the earth is only 10000-6000 years old. I wouldn't have guess billions, just from the bible, but then again i wouldn't have guessed there are other galaxies or other planets even. I wouldn't have guessed God would have made other "Earths" (not sure he did, but i think he may have). So i think in light of recent discoveries (scientific one) we need to reread the scripture and see if we maybe had the interpretation wrong.

It seems odd to me that you say 'english' bible as if other languages say it differently. Do you think the french bibles say "the morning and evening were the first indefinite period of time"? And what do you think the meaning of 'morning and evening' is? It seems to me the period of time is framed between morning and evening, whatever that means. Don't you think?

I have done many studies of the genealogies and the differences between the septuagint and the masoretic. The masoretic, which your 'english' bible is based on, is actually much younger than the septuagint, first written well after Christ. When Jesus entered the temple and read the Isaiah scroll, he was reading the septuagint version, most likely. It is also the version used by Peter, Paul, John, etc. It is the reason the genealogy of Matthew is not the same as the genealogy of genesis. But that is a whole different story. We needn't get hung up in the manuscripts for this discussion. The point is, the precise language is really not the issue in this case (I believe) because we are dealing with manuscripts that have passed from some unknown script (When Moses was alive there is no evidence the Hebrew alphabet existed), to Hebrew, to Greek, to Hebrew again and then to the world. As Rich correctly points out context becomes all important. Context, intent and corroborating scriptures.

You make an interesting observation. Very good, because I never thought of it before. From the text itself, you really don't get the full scope of what was created. Moon and sun are not explicitly mentioned. Let alone galaxies, comets, and so on. And so it seems the details are missing and probably for a reason.

Oh, and one more thing.
I won't be able to keep the same pace as Arch as he had in his head and I need to research it.

You should also know, he emailed me last night and he has been banned.

Forum Monk wrote: You should also know, he emailed me last night and he has been banned.

Banning a user is never done lightly, often with much consultation, and after warnings and clear explanations have been given of where the line has been crossed. It is often sad when seen as necessary, but for the safety of posting here, moderation must occur at times. An under-moderated board can provide considerable misery and have people leave rather than face the constant unpleasantness when expressing their genuine and honest thoughts and points of view. We must all exercise humility and respect where others have views that differ from our own, and given that there is a degree of variance in the interpretations and understandings of Christian belief that is still considered "mainstream" Christianity, no one advocating that their position alone is the true one can attack or vilify the Christianity of another and not be in contention on this forum. Strongly held opinions are allowed expression, but only with all due consideration for others and in a manner that enhances debate rather than frustrates or stymies it. Arch presented some interesting points of view, and his contribution here can still be seen positively for the way it brought out some ideas very worthy of discussion.

~Judah
Moderator

Probably the most reasonable statement I have heard in this regard came from A New LOok at an Old Earth where the author essentially states that both the Bible and Creation are trustworthy testaments to God. They will agree. So if they apparantly disagree only two possibilities are true. Either our understanding of scripture is incorrect (as in the case we those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe and used the scripture as the basis for this belief) or our understanding of the creation is incorrect.

So far, the weight of our observations show that the universe is old. Multiple pieces of evidence show this. In order for our understanding of the creation to be incorrect, all of these must be incorrect.

That is a good book, by the way.

Also reveals some of the very bad evidence and thought processes still used by some YEC's

I will gladly post some....need to find time.

I have read the book, Hugh Ross, right? - there is an online version here http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM so the interested reader may look at his leisure. You have really hit the nail on the head haven't you z/g?

Either our understanding of scripture is incorrect ...or our understanding of the creation is incorrect.

So given only these two possibilities and our burning insistince that a religious book must conform to a scientific theory, we have only two choices for solving the divergence.

1) Change the theory or 2) change the book. Well not really change the book, change what we think it says.

That is the thrust of where this thread should go in my opinion (I hope you agree Enigma). So since every debate needs two sides; guess I'll take the first position unless someone else wants to volunteer. ??

Forum Monk wrote:I have read the book, Hugh Ross, right? - there is an online version here http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM so the interested reader may look at his leisure. You have really hit the nail on the head haven't you z/g?

Either our understanding of scripture is incorrect ...or our understanding of the creation is incorrect.

So given only these two possibilities and our burning insistince that a religious book must conform to a scientific theory, we have only two choices for solving the divergence.

1) Change the theory or 2) change the book. Well not really change the book, change what we think it says.

That is the thrust of where this thread should go in my opinion (I hope you agree Enigma). So since every debate needs two sides; guess I'll take the first position unless someone else wants to volunteer. ??

A negative connotation- a religious book must conform to a scientific theory....why not that we simply might not understand the Hebrew?

Look, people eventually had to see that their understanding of scripture for the geocentric view was incorrect...why is this such a horrible thing?

Don Stoner was the author

Very nice site...thanks....when I read the book, I found this chapter to be one of the enlightening

http://www.answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR5.HTM#Top

That is the thrust of where this thread should go in my opinion (I hope you agree Enigma).

Not necessarily. I agree we need to discuss things, but i am more interested in WHY you think the earth is young and the theory is wrong. What parts of the theory (age of earth?) could and would you change?

So given only these two possibilities and our burning insistince that a religious book must conform to a scientific theory, we have only two choices for solving the divergence.

Why shouldn't it conform? Personally, if it did not conform (for the sake of argument, lets say we have a perfect understanding of both science and scripture) i would have a problem with that.

For example, if the bible said the sky is always a dark purple, never ever blue and i look up at a blue sky, i have a problem with that. Or, if the bible said that the earth was flat beyond any doubt, i would have a problem with that. So, IF the bible says the earth is young (which would appear to be up for debate) i have a problem with that. Granted, the age of the earth is not as obvious as the color of the sky or the roundness of the globe, but i think some more digging needs to be done, both on the side of science to attempt to accurately determine the age of the earth and on the side of biblical scholars to try and determine how old the bible says the earth is.

I do not personally know enough of hebrew or biblical writings to say for certain what the bible thinks. But it appears to me that it could say the earth was old.

It seems odd to me that you say 'english' bible as if other languages say it differently. Do you think the french bibles say "the morning and evening were the first indefinite period of time"? And what do you think the meaning of 'morning and evening' is? It seems to me the period of time is framed between morning and evening, whatever that means. Don't you think?

What i meant by 'english' is that i do not speak hebrew. If i completely udnerstood ancient hebrew, then i could read the original manuscript (maybe not original, but you follow me) and maybe it wouldn't be so obvious that it is saying the earth is young. Yom, i understand, can mean more than just a day.

And i do not know what morning and evening is. If i knew hebrew, i would tell you what else they could mean. The people who interpreted my bible to english probably had a young earth view, and may have been biased in their interpretation. Now, i do not know that and i would like to think God would lead them, but people make mistakes, even with God's leading.

Twice you have cited the Roman Catholic teaching of geocentrism which is irrelevent to this discussion. So I would like to clear the air about this so we can move on.

First, by citing that position as if the Church has erred, you take the same position of secularists and unbelievers who wish to discredit the Church and demonstrate that the Church has no authority to rule in scientific matters. It is a common tactic to "say you were wrong about geocentrism so what makes you think you are right about anything else?"

Second, the problem of geocentrism as a church position, came about from attempts by the church to reconcile the prevailing 'scientific', philosophic idea of geocentrism as put forth by the greek philosphers. This occured before Galileo's discoveries. This is not unlike what many are doing today by taking the prevailing theories and then declaring the scriptures confirm the theoies. It is dangerous and later when discoveries inevitably disprove the current theories, the beleiver is left to sort out the mess and face further criticism.

Thirdly, even Galileo attempted to reconcile the scripture by stating the idea of an unmoveable earth was true from an "obervational point of view". But Galilieo did not say 'our interpretation of the hebrew words are incorrect'. Literal and allegorical interpretations must be properly exegezed. I am not sure if I am capable of properly doing do it, but we must remember one very important fact. We are Christians engaged in a spiritual war. The Word of God is the sword of spirit. We must defend Him with all diligence and guard against the attacks of the enemy. If we destabilize the Word we are defeating ourseleves and by reinterpreting the scripture to suit our prevailing idea this is the danger we face when the next great theory comes along.

EDIT: The comments above are addressed to Zoegirl. Enigma's post came while I was composing this post.

Enigma7457 wrote:Not necessarily. I agree we need to discuss things, but i am more interested in WHY you think the earth is young and the theory is wrong. What parts of the theory (age of earth?) could and would you change?

Nowhere have I stated that I believe the earth is young. As you recall, there are three major possibilities:

1. Traditional interpretation has been 6 day creation, about 6000+ years ago. I point this out because there is historical precendence to the interpretation.
2. There is a gap theory (a billions+ years gap between Gen1:1 - Gen1:2) which suggests old earth but the writings of Rich Deem discount it.
3. Supporters of OEC now, mostly lean on the day-age concept, basically the hebrew word 'yom' could mean some indefinite period of time. Again, Deem makes his case to support this definition.

Since there are two sides to the debate, and I have decided to take one side, I may argue my position by a) being pro plan or b)con counter-plan
For me, plan is change the theory. Counter-plan is change the scripture.

Why shouldn't it conform? Personally, if it did not conform (for the sake of argument, lets say we have a perfect understanding of both science and scripture) i would have a problem with that.

Before it can conform, Enigma, both must be true. So really, it comes down to which is true. Science or the Bible. Now I know you and Zoe will both rush to say, the Bible is true, but our interpretation is incorrect. But if that is correct, we must throw them away and start over. And I ask you - how can anything it says be believed, as many words can be reinterpreted.

Nowhere have I stated that I believe the earth is young. As you recall, there are three major possibilities

Correct. But you said you would take the former side (ie, change the theory). So i asked, what would you change.

Before it can conform, Enigma, both must be true. So really, it comes down to which is true. Science or the Bible. Now I know you and Zoe will both rush to say, the Bible is true, but our interpretation is incorrect. But if that is correct, we must throw them away and start over. And I ask you - how can anything it says be believed, as many words can be reinterpreted.

Agreed. However, i believe the main message of the bible (ie, salvation thru Christ, do unto other..., love the lord...) are unchanging. Those cannot be interpreted differently due to the large amount of times they are cited.
But, i do believe other parts (namely, the 'unimportant' ones [nothing in the bible is unimportant, but you understand], like the age of the earth, how GOd did what he did, etc.) are open to re-interpretation if necessary. OR even if unnecessary. I do not believe that it will hurt any Christian (as long as his/her heart remains in the right place) to do so.

If we destabilize the Word we are defeating ourseleves and by reinterpreting the scripture to suit our prevailing idea this is the danger we face when the next great theory comes along.

Yeah, i guess. But, at the same time, we need to always work within our understanding at what the bible means to us. As a new Christian, i am constantly seeing new scripture just jump right out of the bible and smack me in the face. I've read the same things seemingly hundreds of times and then suddenly !!!POW!!! right in the face and it finally makes sense . (By the way, that is the coolest feeling).

I'm sure ten years from now it will still be happening. Our understanding of certain scriptures will constantly be changing. As long as our core message remains the same (ie, what is the truth) then I think we will be okay.

My only worry is that we will stick to an incorrect interpretation just because it has become tradition.

PS-Just for the record, the phrase "Smacks me in the face" is one i use when i hold onto one idea only to a have simple remark throw it completely away and reveal (what is possibly) the truth.

Enigma7457 wrote:Correct. But you said you would take the former side (ie, change the theory). So i asked, what would you change.

There is another position I should have mentioned in our three points of view. Really it is a clarification of point 1, we can call point 1a which states that the earth was created about 6000 years ago with age. Arch started a thread to discuss this with a poll, and though it received a small response, it is an important position.

Agreed. However, i believe the main message of the bible (ie, salvation thru Christ, do unto other..., love the lord...) are unchanging. Those cannot be interpreted differently due to the large amount of times they are cited.
But, i do believe other parts (namely, the 'unimportant' ones [nothing in the bible is unimportant, but you understand], like the age of the earth, how GOd did what he did, etc.) are open to re-interpretation if necessary. OR even if unnecessary. I do not believe that it will hurt any Christian (as long as his/her heart remains in the right place) to do so.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. It is not proper to claim some doctrines more essential because they are talked about more frequently. Zoegirl loves the analogy of the symphony. Who would take the work of Mozart or Brahms (two of my faves z/g) and then decide which bits are unimportant or which can be changed, perhaps improved? Not only is it pretentious, it would no longer be an original work. It is a deviation.

Yeah, i guess. But, at the same time, we need to always work within our understanding at what the bible means to us. As a new Christian, i am constantly seeing new scripture just jump right out of the bible and smack me in the face. I've read the same things seemingly hundreds of times and then suddenly !!!POW!!! right in the face and it finally makes sense . (By the way, that is the coolest feeling).

Yeah its real cool. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, imho. He reveals truth. But I also contend, it is an illumination of the truth that was there all along, not a reinterpretation. Has the Holy Spirit ever said to you, "I know this says such and such, but that's not what it means."?

Also common sense must be applied when interpreting scripture. For example, the command, "Pray without ceasing." Does this mean we should pray 24 hours a day, non-stop? Perhaps in spirit, but there are practical limits which common sense dictates.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. It is not proper to claim some doctrines more essential because they are talked about more frequently. Zoegirl loves the analogy of the symphony. Who would take the work of Mozart or Brahms (two of my faves z/g) and then decide which bits are unimportant or which can be changed, perhaps improved? Not only is it pretentious, it would no longer be an original work. It is a deviation.

Not a big symphony person, prefer rock n roll.

But i guess i didn't present what i meant clearly. I struggled to find the words. What i mean is that the essential tenets of christianity are clearly written in the bible. Even if some parts are open to interpretation (ie original hebrew not clear) they are illuminated by other sections.

But things like the age of the earth and such are not as clearly illuminated. So, even though various aspects are interpreted differently by various people, the essential tenents of christianity are unchanged.

Have you ever read the giver? If so, i have a great example.

Yeah its real cool. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, imho. He reveals truth. But I also contend, it is an illumination of the truth that was there all along, not a reinterpretation. Has the Holy Spirit ever said to you, "I know this says such and such, but that's not what it means."?

What does imho mean?

Correct. It is an illumination of truth. But if i had read it once, or accepted someone else's interpretation, would i have that truth now?

Also common sense must be applied when interpreting scripture. For example, the command, "Pray without ceasing." Does this mean we should pray 24 hours a day, non-stop? Perhaps in spirit, but there are practical limits which common sense dictates.

Agreed. Adam named every living animal on the sixth "day". Common sense would dictate that either the "day" was longer than 24 hours, or Adam can talk really fast

I might write more later, but for now I'll make this quick.

forum monk wrote:But if that is correct, we must throw them away and start over. And I ask you - how can anything it says be believed, as many words can be reinterpreted.

As we have always scrutinized scripture, carefully, prayerfully, and continually....

Good grief, we can't even agree to doctrinal positions !
Calvinism? (just check out the many thread devoted to this subject!!)
Free will?
Order of salvation?
Baptism? infant, adult, role of...
Tribulation? Pre, post-millieniel position?
Effects of prayer...How to pray,
Communion?

There will always be difficulty in pinning down doctrinal positions....there are some that we do not compromise on (by grace through faith in Christ alone, not through works)

I agree with reformed theology....talk about a touchy subject!! Although I think this is the biblical view and would say that those who disagree are not looking at the scripture properly, I also must admit that there are those who will maintain that their's is the biblical position and will argue furiously on the subject, thinking I am unbiblical

We will always have controversy....Just because we can't agree on a position of interpretation does not mean that we not trust in scripture or in God or feel we must throw everything out.

IMHO= in my humble opinion