Evidence for God from Science

Here, (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html) Rich Deem refers to Psalm 104:9 in asserting that it would appear to negate a global flood, and he also appeals to other parts of Scripture as he examines the issue. I've still not heard anyone directly comment upon that Psalm or that specific linked page.

So what do you guys think? How do you parse it - DOES this SCRIPTURALLY refute the notion of a global flood? I'm just surprised that this specific G&S linked page hasn't generated more forum discussion???!!!

Philip wrote:Here, (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html) Rich Deem refers to Psalm 104:9 in asserting that it would appear to negate a global flood, and he also appeals to other parts of Scripture as he examines the issue. I've still not heard anyone directly comment upon that Psalm or that specif linked page.

So what do you guys think? How do you parse it - DOES this SCRIPTURALLY refute the notion of a global flood? I'm just surprised that this specific G&S linked page hasn't generated more forum discussion???!!!

It seems to me that Rich Deem is very close to understanding what the bible reveals to us,but he's not quite there yet. I will say this if you look at things like Rich Deem does I think he would be correct but I don't think he's got the complete view yet,but he is very close.He is a lot more close than other interpretations I've seen. I think first off we must have the correct view of creation first and if we don't we will be off. Now I do like how Rich Deem acknowledges that the earth is flooded and covered with waters in Genesis 1:2 and that 2nd Peter 3:5-6 refers us to there and not Noah's flood. This is good,but I think he has overlooked why the earth is covered in waters in Genesis 1:2.The bible tells us,why. And if he knew why,he would have a much better view of creation.

Rich Deem seems to be looking at things from a Big Bang Theory view point and I think this is good and I think there are many ways the Big bang confirms the bible true,although I'm not convinced all of the verses that talk about God stretching out the heavens applies to the Big Bang,some do,but not all. Some apply to Genesis 1 when God made all three heavens and placed the vaulted dome above them,this dome separates us from God and is the crystal sea John sees in the book of Revelation.

But there is something that happened that has been overlooked by science and a lot of Christians,which means it can be hard to believe at first because science has not realized it and it has been overlooked by many. But I don't want to get into it yet,instead I would like to see if others respond and what they think. For now,I will say this,if you only know of one flood in the bible? Then Rich Deem is right,but not if there were two floods.One flood everybody knows about but one has been overlooked.

I don't have a strong position on this topic but have been learning from the discussions on this forum.

Genesis has been problematic and perplexing for me and these discussions are helpful even if the posters don't agree amongst themselves.

Click this and then this. Also see a brief comment on it here and here. And for fun, you can go back over ten years and see my comment here using different language.

Jac: Click this and then this. Also see a brief comment on it here and here. And for fun, you can go back over ten years and see my comment here using different language.

Why does it not shock me that you have redundantly covered this issue, Jac? But I'm going to read back thru - maybe posts I've not seen. I'd never looked through Rich's take on this issue before - so I was surprised to not see it debated - specifically the key passage in Psalm 104.

I've read through the links Jac gave and I think I understand why Jac interprets the bible like he does. It has to do with hermeneutics.He has this idea that books written after the former book cannot apply to earlier books to help understand it,etc. I totally reject this kind of an approach to the bible,yet Jac accepts it and interprets the bible this way and so he claims Psalm 104 is not a creation Psalm and cannot apply to or change what Genesis says.

I think this kind of hermeneutics is bad and goes against what the bible teaches us like in Isaiah 28:9-14. It makes me think that YEC's are so dogmatic about their interpretation that they tell us how we can and cannot read the bible. When I believe ALL scripture was inspired by God and is like a big jigsaw puzzle and the more pieces of the puzzle we have the better we can see what God's word is telling us. I mean there are many examples where scriptures all throughout both the OT and NT apply to the same thing and when we put them all together give us more understanding than if we only had one verse or a few. So it comes down to how we choose to interpret and read the bible that will determine how we understand it and interpret it. I don't see how Jac can accept hermeunetics like he does,but I can't.

However I will say this,when you have the correct interpretation of Genesis? Psalm 104 fits perfectly,does not contradict or change anything Moses said. It lines up perfectly and does apply to creation. But if a person has the wrong interpretation of Genesis it will cause problems unless you ignore it in order to believe your interpretation. Psalm 104 fits in so well with what Genesis reveals the way I interpret Genesis and Psalm 104 is a creation Psalm and if I really tried to or wanted to I could add even more scriptures to it from other books of the bible and it will all fit together and align perfectly with Genesis,creation and Psalm 104.

One thing that really bugs me about the YEC camp, is they typically so easily dismiss the mountain of data that strongly suggests that the earth is very old, as is the universe. I've seen Jac so often say something to the effect that he's not a scientist and doesn't have the time or expertise to delve to deeply into it. And this really bugs me, as the Creation is ANOTHER testimony to the glory of the Lord. And so to so easily dismiss such substantial study in so many disciplines, in which the data all overwhelmingly correlate with a very ancient earth - well, is that not ignoring this addition testimony of the Creation? So, during the Creation, either the typical time lengths for the many studied processes were bypassed, so that things LOOK very old but are not - OR they actually are very old. But if the Creation is another testimony, why would God not want us to correctly grasp that - especially for people whom take evidences very seriously. And so many reject the Bible because they think it ONLY teaches a very young Creation. Again, these exhaustive studies in so many fields are not just a matter of people determined to make the data fit an old earth or to match up with evolutionary thinking, but the data is being sifted by well-known methodologies that the scientific method has shown to be reliable. And if it was just a matter of one or two simple studies or variables that suggest a very old Creation - but is an overwhelming mountain of data, searched by scientists truly trying to find the truth.

Why would God want us to so diligently study the Creation and then NOT read THAT testimony of His with some degree of accuracy? So, when YECs simply dismiss such comprehensive data showing the same general conclusion - often under the guise of "well, that's because people are looking for validation for their old earth beliefs" - really, that's not cutting it, because it's not true. Yes, the theology can be parsed a few different ways. But the theology is open to interpretation - we can't go back and examine the events that it speaks of. But the data of the Creation is still all around us. Starlight alone would appear to overwhelmingly deny the YEC stance. Are we to believe that the same scientific method that has proved so reliable could fail us so terribly in this issue? And why would God want things to look far older than they are, to us - IF the Creation is also part of His TESTIMONY? Would He not want so many studies of His Creation/His testimony to reveal the truth of this issue - ESPECIALLY as it impacts how so many view Scripture?

Again, the issue of sifting the evidences God left behind would seem very significant. I could see where the odd scientific discipline and methodology might seem to validate an old Creation. But what are the odds that so many methodologies, countless studies data, in so many different scientific fields/disciplines real the very same conclusion: The universe and earth are in the billions of years old! My conclusion is that if we are THAT wrong, that God doesn't want us to think that studying His Creation can lead to an accurate understanding of an issue that can cause so many to doubt the truth of Scripture? Especially in a scientific age, God certainly knows that many will struggle with believing a Bible they THINK contradicts Scripture. But why would He want anyone to think THAT? Even is Scripture, Jesus tells us that some need MORE than just being told something by Him or His followers - thus the miracles. Even when it comes to Scripture, many cannot just ignore science - as the information it discovers is made possible by God. Its very methodology is possible because of the incredible consistency with which He operates the universe. So God knows that modern, thinking people cannot simply ignore what so many scientific studies reveal about the age of our planet and universe. And what they reveal, are we not to trust them? Are we to conclude that ALL of the various methodologies correlating upon an old universe and earth are simply wrong?

One thing that really bugs me about the OEC camp, is they typically so easily dismiss the mountain of data that strongly suggests that the earth is very young, as is the universe. I've seen Phil so often say something to the effect that he's not a Hebrew scholar and doesn't have the time or expertise to delve to deeply into it. And this really bugs me, as the Genesis is THE testimony to the glory of the Lord. And so to so easily dismiss such substantial study in so many disciplines, in which the data all overwhelmingly correlate with a very young earth - well, is that not ignoring this addition testimony of the Genesis? So, in Genesis, either the typical time lengths for the many studied processes were bypassed, so that things LOOK very young but are not - OR they actually are very young. But if the Geneis is the testimony, why would God not want us to correctly grasp that - especially for people whom take evidences very seriously. And so many reject the science because they think it ONLY teaches a very old Creation. Again, these exhaustive biblical studies are not just a matter of people determined to make the data fit a young earth or to match up with creationist thinking, but the data is being sifted by well-known methodologies that the historical-grammatical method has shown to be reliable. And if it was just a matter of one or two simple questionable verses that suggest a very old young - but is an overwhelming mountain of data, searched by biblicla scholars truly trying to find the truth.

Why would God not want us to so diligently study the scriptures and then NOT read THAT testimony of His with some degree of accuracy? So, when OECs simply dismiss such comprehensive data showing the same general conclusion - often under the guise of "well, that's because people are looking for validation for their young earth beliefs" - really, that's not cutting it, because it's not true. Yes, the science can be parsed a few different ways. But the science is open to interpretation - we can't go back and examine the events that it speaks of. But the data of the scripture is still there in black and white. Starlight alone would appear to overwhelmingly deny the OEC stance. Are we to believe that the same hermeneutical method that has proved so reliable could fail us so terribly in this issue? And why would God want us to believe that things are younger than they are - IF the Scripture is the testimony? Would He not want so many studies of His Word/His testimony to reveal the truth of this issue - ESPECIALLY as it impacts how so many view science?

Why can't we all just get along?

For crying out loud! Jews and Palestinians can get along, mailmen and dogs get along, so why can't OECs and YECs get along?

This may be a silly question, or so blindingly obvious that I have missed it, but what evidence in the bible points to the age of the universe, and does it really matter?

RickD wrote:Why can't we all just get along?

For crying out loud! Jews and Palestinians can get along, mailmen and dogs get along, so why can't OECs and YECs get along?

Dogs and postmen get on?

Storyteller wrote:

RickD wrote:Why can't we all just get along?

For crying out loud! Jews and Palestinians can get along, mailmen and dogs get along, so why can't OECs and YECs get along?

Dogs and postmen get on?

Is this one of those cultural differences? Cause dogs and postmen getting along is far different from gettin' it on, at least on this side of the pond.

Annette, this isn't a matter of not getting along, but a difference of opinion. Jac is asserting the Scripture is THE testimony. But, clearly, it's not the ONLY testimony. Again, it cannot be an accident that the overwhelming consensus is, in study after study, field after field, that they all point to the same thing: an old earth! Yes, God wants us to take Scripture as our guiding map. But He also gave us MORE than just His world, just like Jesus and His apostles gave people more than just their words, as He knew some needed more. So does God WANT studying His Creation to reveal something so inaccurate - does He want us to simply ignore so many powerful and evidence driven conclusions, when diligently studying HIS Creation? The HUGE message I am getting from the YEC camp is that science is untrustworthy and often should just be ignored.

Ah, but Annette asked the BIGGER question: Does it really matter how long the Days of Creation were? Absolutely NOT! Do you have to believe in a YEC view of time to take Scripture very seriously? Of course NOT! Though some would assert differently!

Storyteller wrote:This may be a silly question, or so blindingly obvious that I have missed it, but what evidence in the bible points to the age of the universe, and does it really matter?

None whatsoever. The bible makes no claim to the age of the earth. It must be found elsewhere.

Storyteller wrote:This may be a silly question, or so blindingly obvious that I have missed it, but what evidence in the bible points to the age of the universe

Tis a short question with a long answer that certainly goes well beyond a discussion on Ps 104

and does it really matter?

OECs say no. I say yes, quite a bit. We reportassert, you decide. *shrug*