Evidence for God from Science

Hi I am new to the board - looks awesome!

I did have a quick question for anyone who might be able to help me out.
I have heard Hugh Ross mention several times that the bible commands us to
study the book of nature. I haven't had a chance to read any of his books
and can't seem to find it on the Reasons to Believe website.

Can anyone give me an idea what those exact scriptures are?
Thanks for any assist in this area!

Libikid

Hi Libikid

Welcome to the board.

Just to let you know that if you post does not appear straight away it is because your first 10 posts need to be approved - after that it is plain sailing.

In answer to your question

www.reasons.org

is Hugh Ross's website and it has a ton of resources.

Silvertusk.

Libikid wrote:Hi I am new to the board - looks awesome!

I did have a quick question for anyone who might be able to help me out.
I have heard Hugh Ross mention several times that the bible commands us to
study the book of nature. I haven't had a chance to read any of his books
and can't seem to find it on the Reasons to Believe website.

Can anyone give me an idea what those exact scriptures are?
Thanks for any assist in this area!

Libikid

Hi LIb

I wonder what you might do, how you would go about studying the book of nature?

Audie wrote:I wonder what you might do, how you would go about studying the book of nature?

The ''book of nature'' isn't in the Bible but seems to be someone's poetic extrapolation of Ps 19:1. I don't like such license but people of an artsy bent might.

FL

The Bible tells us we can learn some things about God by studying his creation. As the previous post points out Psalm 19 says this. Here is another passage on this subject:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Romans 1:18-20 ESV)

Perhaps this is what Hugh Ross was talking about.

We can learn some things about God from nature but we can also get some false ideas about him because sin has brought about changes in it. When the world was first created there was no death but Adam's sin brought death into the world.

The Bible is the only inerrant source of information about God. You should study it first and then evaluate what you observe in nature in the light of what it teaches.

Libikid wrote:Hi I am new to the board - looks awesome!

I did have a quick question for anyone who might be able to help me out.
I have heard Hugh Ross mention several times that the bible commands us to
study the book of nature. I haven't had a chance to read any of his books
and can't seem to find it on the Reasons to Believe website.

Can anyone give me an idea what those exact scriptures are?
Thanks for any assist in this area!

Libikid

Hi Libikid,

I've read a few books by Ross, and I can't recall ever seeing him saying that. He has said that nature is like the 67th book of the bible. What he means by that, is that what we see in God's creation, will always line up with scripture. At least as long as our interpretation of scripture is correct, and our interpretation of what we see in nature.

In other words, God inspired scripture, and God created nature. So the two should not contradict each other.

Theophilus wrote:
We can learn some things about God from nature but we can also get some false ideas about him because sin has brought about changes in it. When the world was first created there was no death but Adam's sin brought death into the world.

Theophilus,

Libikid is trying to find out what Ross, who is an OEC was meaning. Your quote above is from a typical YEC perspective. OECs and YECs differ in their beliefs about the effects that Adam's sin has had on the world. The most obvious difference being that OECs, including Ross, don't believe the bible says that Adam's sin brought death into the world. Adam's sin brought human death. And also, Ross doesn't believe that Adam's sin has affected creation to the point that we get an unreliable result from studying creation. According to Ross, creation was never perfect, in the same sense that YECs interpret perfect.

The Bible is the only inerrant source of information about God. You should study it first and then evaluate what you observe in nature in the light of what it teaches.

Again,
Ross believes nature is a reliable "source" we can use to study God.

I only point these out because Libikid was looking specifically for what Ross believes. Libikid's post wasn't indicating he was looking for a YEC interpretation.

The most obvious difference being that OECs, including Ross, don't believe the bible says that Adam's sin brought death into the world.

So, the thinking of death only coming subsequent to Adam's sin is that it is 1) a consequence of the sin; 2) IT was applied to ALL of creation - and not JUST to man but also to animals; 3), that this is not natural, as animals were never meant to die; And so this (animal deaths) are seen as a terrible and negative thing. But how can this be, if, in the animal kingdom, healthy species and individual animals are absolutely dependent upon the death of other animals. What were all those carnivores eating, if not meat of other animals? Were they eating some kind of Alpo Manna? Why is the fossil record so blood-soaked (yeah, I know, I know, it's only THOUSANDS of years old and Noah's kids had a pet T-Rex)? And then we have the Jewish, OT sacrificial system - totally dependent upon the mass slaughter of animal sacrifices. And God saw such mass shedding of animals as being "pleasing" to Him. So if the death of animals is a terrible, brutal, disgusting and unloving thing - why would God institutionalize and perpetuate it and why would He find it pleasing? Of course, it ultimately pleased Him becuase of what it meant. But nonetheless ...

RickD wrote:

The most obvious difference being that OECs, including Ross, don't believe the bible says that Adam's sin brought death into the world. Adam's sin brought human death.

The Bible says sin brought death into the world. There is no adjective before the word that limits it to human death.

And also, Ross doesn't believe that Adam's sin has affected creation to the point that we get an unreliable result from studying creation. According to Ross, creation was never perfect, in the same sense that YECs interpret perfect.

When God finished creating the earth he said that it was very good.

The Bible is the only inerrant source of information about God. You should study it first and then evaluate what you observe in nature in the light of what it teaches.

Again,
Ross believes nature is a reliable "source" we can use to study God.

Nature is a reliable source of information about God as long as we understand the Bible teaching that it has been affected by sin and is no longer in the state that God meant it to be.

I only point these out because Libikid was looking specifically for what Ross believes.

And I was specifically pointing out that some of the things Ross believes are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Here is a review of his latest book:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... thout-map/

theophilus wrote:

RickD wrote:

The most obvious difference being that OECs, including Ross, don't believe the bible says that Adam's sin brought death into the world. Adam's sin brought human death.

The Bible says sin brought death into the world. There is no adjective before the word that limits it to human death.

And also, Ross doesn't believe that Adam's sin has affected creation to the point that we get an unreliable result from studying creation. According to Ross, creation was never perfect, in the same sense that YECs interpret perfect.

When God finished creating the earth he said that it was very good.

The Bible is the only inerrant source of information about God. You should study it first and then evaluate what you observe in nature in the light of what it teaches.

Again,
Ross believes nature is a reliable "source" we can use to study God.

Nature is a reliable source of information about God as long as we understand the Bible teaching that it has been affected by sin and is no longer in the state that God meant it to be.

I only point these out because Libikid was looking specifically for what Ross believes.

And I was specifically pointing out that some of the things Ross believes are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Here is a review of his latest book:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... thout-map/

Theo, a book review by a hostile website is not evidence the author of the article is correct. Just shows me more of the vitriol from the extremist YEC mindset.

Could you please tone it down a bit as YEC article like that can rile folks up a bit.

We need to face it, OEC and YEC will not agree on the age of the earth. They both agree God created. The age of the earth is not dependent upon ones salvation or favor with God.

I would like to refocus this discussion to this:

Does believing in YEC incur more favor with God than not holding to YEC?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

theophilus wrote:

RickD wrote:

The most obvious difference being that OECs, including Ross, don't believe the bible says that Adam's sin brought death into the world. Adam's sin brought human death.

The Bible says sin brought death into the world. There is no adjective before the word that limits it to human death.

And also, Ross doesn't believe that Adam's sin has affected creation to the point that we get an unreliable result from studying creation. According to Ross, creation was never perfect, in the same sense that YECs interpret perfect.

When God finished creating the earth he said that it was very good.

The Bible is the only inerrant source of information about God. You should study it first and then evaluate what you observe in nature in the light of what it teaches.

Again,
Ross believes nature is a reliable "source" we can use to study God.

Nature is a reliable source of information about God as long as we understand the Bible teaching that it has been affected by sin and is no longer in the state that God meant it to be.

I only point these out because Libikid was looking specifically for what Ross believes.

And I was specifically pointing out that some of the things Ross believes are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Here is a review of his latest book:

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... thout-map/

Theo, a book review by a hostile website is not evidence the author of the article is correct. Just shows me more of the vitriol from the extremist YEC mindset.

Could you please tone it down a bit as YEC article like that can rile folks up a bit.

We need to face it, OEC and YEC will not agree on the age of the earth. They both agree God created. The age of the earth is not dependent upon ones salvation or favor with God.

I would like to refocus this discussion to this:

Does believing in YEC incur more favor with God than not holding to YEC?
-
-
-

Do you feel that making outlandish and demonstrably false claims about the actions of God would be acceptable to Him?

B. W. wrote:Does believing in YEC incur more favor with God than not holding to YEC?

No. Ditto for reading the KJV only, or going to church on Saturday as opposed to Sunday, or making sure to donate exactly 10% of your pre-tax income, or attending the Pope's Church, ad infinitum. These are the rules of man, not of God.

Perhaps those of a legalistic bent are seduced by rules...perhaps.

FL

Audie wrote:Does believing in YEC incur more favor with God than not holding to YEC?

Only God knows the answer to this question. We believe in YEC simply because that is what the Bible teaches. Old Earth creationist correctly point out that the word "day" can mean many different things. We examine what the Bible says to find out what it does mean in the context of the creation account.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:3-5 ESV)

Here is God's description of the first day. It consisted of an evening and a morning and included a period of light and one of darkness. There are many meaning of day but only one meaning that fits this description.

theophilus wrote:

Audie wrote:Does believing in YEC incur more favor with God than not holding to YEC?

Only God knows the answer to this question. We believe in YEC simply because that is what the Bible teaches. .

No, you believe in it because you THINK that is what the Bible teaches.

Others, as sincere and as connected to any guidance God may offer, see it quite differently.

SOME people think to cross check their reading with outside sources.

Bible seems to say there is a place called Egypt. Check, yep, that is what is really says.

Bible seems to say the value of Pi is 3. Hmm, when I check, that is not right. Oh, maybe the Bible doesnt say Pi is 3.

You are trying to use science to prove that your "gap" story is true, when every bit of science you try to use says its wrong.

A little reality check might be in order. I

theophilus wrote:
Only God knows the answer to this question. We believe in YEC simply because that is what the Bible teaches. Old Earth creationist correctly point out that the word "day" can mean many different things. We examine what the Bible says to find out what it does mean in the context of the creation account.