Evidence for God from Science

Thought about posting about creation theories that have come along in Christian Circles.

First one that comes to mind is the Gap Theory: A gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It was popular a hundred years ago and the basic format was that an older earth was destroyed due to the rebellion in heaven, wiping out an existing world and God reshaping another one in verse 2.

Next is the Literal 6 days creationism like that espoused by Ham... no comment needed ...

The other is Progressive Creationism - or Old Earth Creationism.

Any other creation theories out there you know of...

Please feel free to comment and add to the list
-
-
-

Just to add to it, The mainstream T.E model, under christian faith also falls under creation, as long as God is guiding it.

The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

I'd also highly recommend: The Genesis Debate which is where I first came into contact with the Framework interpretation.

Kurieuo wrote:The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

The thing is, even my view of genesis does not say that there is nothing wrong with humans. I just don't think sin in all men is because of the original sin. I reject the original sin scenario brought death. So all men do need saving, they just don't need it via the original sin route. All men are sinners but not because of the garden story. So the gospel is infact not meaningless for me, or this view, as you have portrayed it. There is absolutely fixing needed.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

The thing is, even my view of genesis does not say that there is nothing wrong with humans. I just don't think sin in all men is because of the original sin. I reject the original sin scenario brought death. So all men do need saving, they just don't need it via the original sin route. All men are sinners but not because of the garden story. So the gospel is infact not meaningless for me, or this view, as you have portrayed it. There is absolutely fixing needed.

But there is no beginning to a Christian understanding that culminates in the Gospel and the need thereof of forgiveness.

It's like just the ending you get as a Christian, and you just read between the lines to see that we are obviously sinful and that God is righteous and would not like that, and thus a need for the Gospel that is through Christ.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

The thing is, even my view of genesis does not say that there is nothing wrong with humans. I just don't think sin in all men is because of the original sin. I reject the original sin scenario brought death. So all men do need saving, they just don't need it via the original sin route. All men are sinners but not because of the garden story. So the gospel is infact not meaningless for me, or this view, as you have portrayed it. There is absolutely fixing needed.

But there is no beginning to a Christian understanding that culminates in the Gospel and the need thereof of forgiveness.

It's like just the ending you get as a Christian, and you just read between the lines to see that we are obviously sinful and that God is righteous and would not like that, and thus a need for the Gospel that is through Christ.

It's certainly deeper than that. We are not obviously sinful, we are sinful because we are not perfect. We are not perfect because we have free will to disobey God. So either God gave humans the capacity to go against him too if they should chose to or he didn't.

Otherwise one needs to elaborate an difficult thing, which is how sin of one man entered all, given that we do know its not in the genetics?

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

The thing is, even my view of genesis does not say that there is nothing wrong with humans. I just don't think sin in all men is because of the original sin. I reject the original sin scenario brought death. So all men do need saving, they just don't need it via the original sin route. All men are sinners but not because of the garden story. So the gospel is infact not meaningless for me, or this view, as you have portrayed it. There is absolutely fixing needed.

But there is no beginning to a Christian understanding that culminates in the Gospel and the need thereof of forgiveness.

It's like just the ending you get as a Christian, and you just read between the lines to see that we are obviously sinful and that God is righteous and would not like that, and thus a need for the Gospel that is through Christ.

It's certainly deeper than that. We are not obviously sinful, we are sinful because we are not perfect. We are not perfect because we have free will to disobey God. So either God gave humans the capacity to go against him too if they should chose to or he didn't.

Otherwise one needs to elaborate an difficult thing, which is how sin of one man entered all, given that we do know its not in the genetics?

I guess this is another issue we'd have to disagree on.

Many religions have rites and rituals to try and cleanse themselves. I know I'm sinful and obviously so. And I see sin rampant in civilisation. I'm not sure I see how it follows that having "free will" to obey/disobey results necessitates imperfection.

I'm also not here debating original sin... I'm not sure why genetics are being introduced so a little confused. Yet, do you think morality is found in the physical world? What about numbers? These cannot be found somewhere and yet we believe they exist. Sin is about morality and in particular for Christians our inability to meet or keep God's righteousness standards.

Given the immaterial nature of sin, I'd question the logic of any physicalist reductionist position that attempts to reduce sin to the physical world like genetics -- though I'm open to hearing arguments for such a position.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

The thing is, even my view of genesis does not say that there is nothing wrong with humans. I just don't think sin in all men is because of the original sin. I reject the original sin scenario brought death. So all men do need saving, they just don't need it via the original sin route. All men are sinners but not because of the garden story. So the gospel is infact not meaningless for me, or this view, as you have portrayed it. There is absolutely fixing needed.

But there is no beginning to a Christian understanding that culminates in the Gospel and the need thereof of forgiveness.

It's like just the ending you get as a Christian, and you just read between the lines to see that we are obviously sinful and that God is righteous and would not like that, and thus a need for the Gospel that is through Christ.

It's certainly deeper than that. We are not obviously sinful, we are sinful because we are not perfect. We are not perfect because we have free will to disobey God. So either God gave humans the capacity to go against him too if they should chose to or he didn't.

Otherwise one needs to elaborate an difficult thing, which is how sin of one man entered all, given that we do know its not in the genetics?

I guess this is another issue we'd have to disagree on.

Many religions have rites and rituals to try and cleanse themselves. I know I'm sinful and obviously so. And I see sin rampant in civilisation. I'm not sure I see how it follows that having "free will" to obey/disobey results necessitates imperfection.

I'm also not here debating original sin... I'm not sure why genetics are being introduced so a little confused. Yet, do you think morality is found in the physical world? What about numbers? These cannot be found somewhere and yet we believe they exist. Sin is about morality and in particular for Christians our inability to meet or keep God's righteousness standards.

Given the immaterial nature of sin, I'd question the logic of any physicalist reductionist position that attempts to reduce sin to the physical world like genetics -- though I'm open to hearing arguments for such a position.

I mentioned genetics because apparently that is what is mostly thought of when we draw parallels from the bible, like "from the sin of one man...". As we all are then children of the fallen adam we sin too.

I think we are saying something similar. I am not advocating for sin via genetics, rather the opposite. My question was how you do you think the sin of one man transferred to all? How does that happen?

Neo wrote:
I think we are saying something similar. I am not advocating for sin via genetics, rather the opposite. My question was how you do you think the sin of one man transferred to all? How does that happen?

Jac had a good answer on this subject a while back. I wish I knew which thread.

Maybe Jac will chime in...

I think this is a crucial subject.

Kurieuo wrote:The Framework interpretation is one I'd put forward to TEs here such as neo-x and PaulS.

It at least provides some start to accept Genesis in a serious theological manner -- without which the NT Gospel is rather void of meaning (since there is no schism caused between us and God due to our sin). To believe nothing in Genesis is true for me in my Christianity would be akin to watching the end of the movie that has no beginning and builds no real plot. Christ could have existed, died and resurrected... but unless there is some sort of schism and separation due to our sin between humanity and God, such that we are at odds with God, then what Gospel ("good news") is there? There's nothing that needs fixing. So the Gospel is meaningless without that beginning...

Reject YEC, reject Day-Age/PC, but the Framework at least provides something more substantial for TEs to embrace, and I'd encourage those here to at least give it some consideration.

Interesting interpretation.
To me as a TE, the issue of sin and man's fall from grace was never really an issue since, to me, the whole point of Genesis is not a creation story per say but a story how the fall happened and why and the consequences of it.

IMO, the original sin "birth defect" is not a material one ( genetic) but a spiritual one.
We are all born with with it and so where the angels, hence why some rebelled.
IMO, angels are not perfect nor does the bible suggest such and I think that what we are going through ( sin needed to be saved by Christ) happened in somewhat similar fashion before, to the angels.
That some angels rebelled shows that their free will can/did cause them to sin, just as we sin.
I do NOT think that in our resurrected bodies which will be "like the angels", that we will be "immune" from sin either ( just as the angels are not immune from sin).
Only God is perfect.

Neo can correct me if I am wrong but it appears that Neo is expressing the Original Sin question as understood by the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC).

Basically, the EOC explains that we inherit the experiences of suffering and death from Adam Eve. Death is what is passed on to us along with damaged passion and weakened human nature which is now under the control of the evil one. EOC does not believe that the actual sin of Adam was “transmitted” to us but rather, for a lack of better words, a diseased state was. Sin is viewed as ancestral passed on and not the original sin of Adam as Augustine postulated.

In the Western Churches Adam's guilt was passed on that needed a legal transaction to remedy. In the EOC, it was a diseased state that was passed on which mares the image of God in man resulting in death and disunion with God. The west - it is all the legalese involved in payment for sin by the cross sparing man from eternal wrath. In the east, it is about curing the disease state of man by the cross, restoring union with God, thus avoiding eternal wrath. But for those who so chose to remain diseased that eternal wrath awaits.

The article linked here conveys the EOC on this matter better than I can:

Ancestral versus Original Sin

One last note, the EOC has a rich diverse history but also has just as much wackiness in it as the Western Churches do! The EOC does hold true to the earliest belief system on sin passed on from the early church fathers before the east west split. Included in the EOC or eastern churches needs to be added the Messianic Jewish movement as well.

On an interesting note, the NLT bible captures the Hebrew thought contained in Isaiah 59:19 very well: The West Respect's the name of the Lord and the East seeks to Glorify Him. I find that amazing because it was written by Isaiah centuries times centuries ago. You have these philosophic positions contained in both West and East churches, today.

Maybe there is something to be said about making one new man from the two??

Here Isaiah from the NLT

Isaiah 59:19 NLT
-
-
-