All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Science and the evolution of Christianity - scope for understanding?
The Scopes Trial—formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial—was a landmark American legal case in 1925 in which high school science teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach evolution.[1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Science v Christianity - Certainly seemed to be the case (literally) in the above mentioned Scopes trial - which effectively was about the doctrine of human origin and evolution. Indeed there were two opposing sides - the scientific and Christian communities, at least that was the public view. The Christian community rejected scientists account of evolution claiming it was unbiblical. Science was wrong!
Is science wrong though? I do not believe it is.
It is some of the scientists who are wrong in their speculations. But I also believe that some in the Christian community should not discount evolution - as a process used by God. I've heard many Christians say "I don't believe in evolution", but there are valid scientific claims in Darwin's theory of evolution; some aspects of his theory were/are obviously speculative.
The creation is another issue that seemingly separates science and Christianity - how old is the universe? Is there a designer? Who created God? etc etc
It is not a case of science v Christianity - rather isn't it a case of science for Christianity? There should be scope for understanding between both communities I believe.
After all - science is only revealing what God has created.
Any thoughts on this?
Views: 2627
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda on
-
To believe that creation week was anything other than 6 literal days of 24 hour periods according to time that God made for man, is to need to throw out parts of Scripture that use that week as an example for man’s time of 24 hour periods of day that include an evening and a morning.
It is important to believe the whole Bible.
In John 5:45–47, Jesus says,
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?We should believe the things that Moses wrote about Christ, shouldn’t we--that they are true and not lies?
In Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
This is the basis for the Israelites seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. It was meant to be taken literally, wasn’t it?
Is it not speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest?
In Luke 13:14, after Jesus heals a person on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue, who knew the law of Moses, obviously referred to this passage when he reprimanded the act of healing on the Sabbath: “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.”
Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female."
It does not say God made man asexual from the beginning, who finally turned into a male, but man was definitely an anatomically correct male from the beginning.
Adam and Eve existed together “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.
Dean, I was taken aback by the asexual remark. I believe God's Word over any man's or woman's even if it is a word of a Hebrew scholar's.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedienceWhy is it so hard to believe the Genesis account is 6 days with an evening and a morning that equals 24 hours?
The sun and the moon or daylight and moonlight do not cause a 24 hour period. God made time and established it. God is the cause.
You defend the word evolution with so much zeal. Why not concentrate all of that zeal on the Creator?-- not that He needs any defense. Creationism. That word sounds so much better to my ears. But words always fail me anyway and it is difficult for me to communicate what I feel the need to convey.
But God does it beautifully!
Revelation 22:13. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Dean,
To dismiss an errant teaching has nothing to do with arrogance. Error is error no matter who presents it.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Permalink Reply by The evidence based Stig on
-
Dave
made scripture say something it didn't?
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure - Psalm 93:1
Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity - Psalm 96:10
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved - 1 Chronicles 16:30
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved - Psalm 104:5
The sun rises and the sun sets and hurries back to where it rises - Ecclesiastes 1:5
Seems fairly clear to me what Scripture is saying there at a face value reading which you seem to advocate so strongly. It's interesting that it was the findings of scientists who brought about a change in interpretation. How incredibly ironic.
As for "doubting my interpretation is my interpretation" and I "would understand without a shadow of a doubt, that God created everything in 24 hour days", science may well be wrong on the age of the earth but there is more than enough in scripture to suggest there is more going on in Genesis than a mere 6 day creation timeline.
The Old Testament scholar that John Lennox cites is David Gooding, I notice you went after his conclusion not the fact that the Hebrew definite article "ha" is not used to describe the first 5 days. Augustine had an interesting perspective: "As for these days [Genesis days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to think let alone explain in words what they mean. But at least we know that it is different from the ordinary day we are familiar with"
Origens objection still stands and since the concept of day time is mentioned in the Genesis account before the sun even existed, how can there be day light without the sun? Our measurement of a day is based on the rotation of the earth of which the sun and moon are markers but they didn't exist til day 4. The moon is not a light, it's a reflector. Geology (completely separate from biology) largely concludes the earth is very old, or at least older than 6000 years but I'm sure there is a conspiracy for that as well.
"The fact that some early church fathers had difficulties interpreting the text should give us some comfort, make us more humble, and, in addition, show us that the difficulties are not all generated by modern science but arise from a serious attempt to understand the text itself" (taken from 7 days that divide the world)
I really couldn't care less whether God did it in 6 days, 6 seconds or however long it took him, it really doesn't matter to me nor does it affect my relationship with Christ. You want to dismiss me as a liberal Christian too you go right ahead. I've been called worse on here. The appeal to emotion, that to believe anything other than Genesis being interpreted literally is the only correct interpretation and the only one that handles scripture correctly, is not a new trick by young earth proponents. I see no need to pitch evolution and Genesis against each other, this is a tactic of Dawkins and atheists. Christians don’t need to make matters worse by agreeing with them. It frightens me greatly that people have the perception that they have to choose between these 2, in fact it petrifies me and I will do everything in my power to help people understand that it is not a choice that needs to be made or indeed you have to believe in 6 day creation to be handling scripture correctly.
I will leave with the words of Pope John Paul II:
“The Bible speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God. And in order to teach these truths, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book, likewise, wishes to tell man that the world was created for the service of man and the glory of God.”
-
Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on
-
Grazer
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure - Psalm 93:1
This has nothing to do with the Earth being fixed in place as the center of the universe or that the earth does not rotate. The psalmist was simply stating that the assurance we have is based on the FACT (not that the earth is unmovable) that God, the King, has created and maintains the world. The forces of evil (verses 3 and 4) will not overwhelmed the world. The floods spoken about in verses 3 and 4 were an ancient symbol of the forces of evil and chaos, see psalm 18:4,15-16. The people reading this verse would not have immediately thought about the cosmic implications of the verse, but the assurance that God has a firm grip on the earth. I know I never thought about those implications from the verses. I was blessed by the assurance that God is in control.
Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity - Psalm 96:10
God created the world and He will hold the forces of evil and chaos in check. He will burn the elements and give us a new earth and a new heaven, but it is firmly established by His hand for now and forever. This is obviously talking about God’s reign and not any cosmological implications.
The Bible does not teach geocentricity or that the earth does not move of an axis anywhere. Scripture describes the movements of the heavens from the perspective of someone standing on earth: the sun moves across the sky, rising in the east and setting in the west. We use that same language today. The theologians of the time, a time of reformation, had determined some wrong conclusions from the above verses and other verses. They thought that because the Bible uses this kind of descriptive language, it was therefore teaching something about the relationship between the sun and the earth, but it was a case of wrong interpretation.
>>Seems fairly clear to me what Scripture is saying there at a face value reading which you seem to advocate so strongly.
At face value reading no one would get that the earth does not move or that is the center of the universe or solar system. At face value we get the assurance of a God who Reigns and has firmly established his decrees upon the earth, which cannot be moved.
>>It's interesting that it was the findings of scientists who brought about a change in interpretation. How incredibly ironic
We do not know what the persecuted church believed those verses to mean. The Church in power at that time in history was mistaken. God always has a remnant. Even within the church in power, at that time of reformation, God was using his remnant to change many wrong interpretations of scripture. But the persecuted church did not have a voice in those days, they were busy surviving.
Copernicus was a Christian Scientist bro. He was facing excommunication, can’t remember if he was or not excommunicated, but he was a Christian scientist. It was an in house debate. We don’t know if every believer thought those verses to mean that the earth was unmovable in space. I certainly didn’t. I got great comfort from them with the interpretation that I already gave about those verses above. So there is nothing ironic about the incident. The bible discloses many scientific facts wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy before any scientist discovered them as well, so where is the irony in that.
>>As for "doubting my interpretation is my interpretation"
And that is the problem knuckle head. I don’t care about your interpretation. Tell me what the bible is saying by interpreting scripture with scripture. You can keep your own interpretation, for all I care hahaha Dude J/K man. Don’t get all work up hahaha hehe. Just cracking me self up lad. Hahaha
>>Augustine had an interesting perspective: "As for these days [Genesis days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to think let alone explain in words what they mean. But at least we know that it is different from the ordinary day we are familiar with"
In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.
Teske, Roland J. (1999). "Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus, De". In Allan D. Fitzgerald (ed.). Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 377–378. ISBN 9780802838438.
At the same time, however, Augustine did not hold to an age of the earth of millions or more years, as the quotation below from The City of God indicates. I have this book among my collection.
Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
— Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to..., The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [419].
So Augustine was arguing that it took God but a spoken word to create all that is created and then He gave us a literal account of 6 days, just so we can have a logical procession of the creation. So according to Augustine it took less than six, 24 hour days. I have ponder about that myself, but I will go with the 6, 24 hour, days, for that is back up by scripture.
>>Origens objection still stands and since the concept of day time is mentioned in the Genesis account before the sun even existed, how can there be day light without the sun?
There can easily be days before the sun if God wants it so. God is in control of time, not the sun. :)
>>"The fact that some early church fathers had difficulties interpreting the text should give us some comfort,
The saints of old (the Church fathers were the apostles) believed in a literal 6 days creation or as Augustine, in an instantaneous one.
>>You want to dismiss me as a liberal Christian too you go right ahead.
I never said such a thing about you. Are you suffering from persecution paranoida, hahaha or have you been to too many rave parties lately dude. I never even allude to you being liberal. If you were, I would have no problem telling you so, but I said you are reading the works of very liberal Christian scientists. So chilax man. I do believe you are heading down the liberal slop though, so be careful with that.
>>It frightens me greatly that people have the perception that they have to choose between these 2, in fact it petrifies me and I will do everything in my power to help people understand that it is not a choice that needs to be made or indeed you have to believe in 6 day creation to be handling scripture correctly.
As long as leadership feels that the discussions are not getting into unhealthy realms you will be permitted to bring your case forth. This stuff is lots of fun for me. I am just as passionate to show that evolution in macro form is not compatible with Christianity.
I will leave with the words of a very wise man hahaha David Velasquez hahaha relax dude. These are to be very joyous exchanges and not exchanges that work us all up. So take a chill pill and enjoy the discussions. I tell you man, I be sitting here laughing so much that my wife comes over to ask me: what’s so funny? I tell her, my family hahaha Our family in Christ is awesome, funny (in a good way), and a huge Blessing, so let’s enjoy one another.
-
-
Thankyou for clarifying that. The problem is unless properly clarified it gets back to something I ran into early in my Christian walk. I was being told that meditation was of the enemy and I shouldn't do in any way be involved . The day I read in scripture to meditate on the word I felt I had to throw that copy of the bible out as someone had injected that evil activity.
We must be constantly aware of the new Christians and hopefully none Christians reading these posts.
-
-
Amanda - does it not also say But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8) Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? (John 11:9) Which scripture would you have me believe? A mans time of 24 hours and it's mirroring of it is not an argument for a literal interpretation, I'd say it's the opposite and strengthens Pope John Paul II view.
I am not defending evolution as such, I am defending the notion that evolution must be atheistic and that Genesis must be interpreted literally in order to be faithful to the text. I have shown that the church held certain views that the discoveries of scientists disagreed with, no one believes the earth is fixed any longer despite what a face value reading of the text says. There are many instances of metaphor and allegory used throughout the Bible, the creation account might be one of those. There is sufficient evidence within the scriptures themselves to suggest this could be the case. I'm keeping an open mind on that. My main issue is the first part of this post; that evolution is atheistic and that Genesis can only be interpreted literally. Many scientists, including Christian scientists, have no issue with the evolution theory or concluding the earth is old. Many Old Testament scholars do not believe Genesis is literal. There are many who disagree with this view. There have been many down history who have not held to a literal interpretation, many who have. This alone tells me the issue is not as simple as being made out.
-
-
John 11:9 refers to 12 hours of daylight.
2 Peter 3:8 in context reveals that time is irrelevant to God, but not to man. God speaks to man in terms he can understand. A day to man is a day, not a thousand years.
Do not confuse literal interpretation with face value. They are nto the same.
-
Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on
-
LT can I ask for your thoughts: Are most of us in error when we use the phrase "God will do it in His time"? when referring to "unanswered" prayers for example? Is it that God may be using our time to govern us or could it be that He is using His time to govern us? If even Jesus does not know the time and date of his return - whose time is being used to set that?
I'm wondering if time is somehow relevant to God?
-
-
Time is relevant in that He has placed man in time and operates with man according to the constructs of the time in which He has placed them. God designed that Israel would be in captivity for 70 years due to their rebellion. This dating affected the Israelites as they were told by Jeremiah to make the best of their Babylonian captivity, because it will be extended, but it will come to an end. To God 70 years is not of value outside of His interaction with man. Prophecies are given and are set in the construct of time, but this does not limit God or make Him subject to time, for He is the creator of time and its scale. Time is a marker.
God has established many things to come into existence and then chooses to operate within the construct, but is not confined by them. Two examples are as follows:
- Natural laws of nature: He established them and often works within them, but is not bound by them. Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine.
- Flesh: Jesus lived in the flesh, but is not bound by it as man is bound by it, for He is God.
Time is subjected to God, but God is not subjected to time. (Note: Joshua 10:3)
-
-
so we could say that God has a sense of timing?
Btw - is Joshua 10:3 the right reference - perhaps you meant Joshua 10:13 (the sun standing still)?
-
-
Yes, God has a sense of timing as the designer of it.
Yes, it should have been verse 13 :-)
-
-
Grazer, it seems that those who oppose the 6 literal days of creation always end up falling back on that one single Scripture. I already addressed this elsewhere in this discussion but will repeat it:
My personal belief is that we must take the Bible the way God meant it and intended it and in order to do that we must pray for the wisdom that only He can give us--the spiritual eyes and ears and knowledge. As we walk in His light, He will shine more light for us and we will see and know more.
I firmly believe in the six literal days of creation as being 24 hour periods of time relevant to human days such as we have today with an evening and a morning.
Many read 2 Peter 3:8 and reckon it must be God's time reckoning. Does the Bible even say that God has a different time reckoning from man's time scale? Time was made for man and not man for time.
What did Peter mean? He said "one day is ... as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". I do not see a mathematical formula here of 1 day = 1000 years.
In context what was he discussing? It's definitely not the 6 days of Creation.
It's about the faithfulness of God for which we can all be very thankful.
What God has said will come to pass and every promise has a time of fulfillment. God is not slack concerning what He has promised. We might think He is taking a long time but everything is still right on schedule.
How fast is the twinkling of an eye? That is how fast some people will be changed from mortal to immortal. If many, many people can be changed that fast, why is so difficult to believe that God created one man and one woman in a 24 hour period of time on the 6th day?
God will be faithful and keep His promises. http://www.gotquestions.org/Day-Age-Theory.html
One scriptural passage in particular often looked upon in support of this theory is 2 Peter 3:8 where it says “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” However, as with all biblical interpretation, one must look at the context of the entire passage. In 2 Peter 3:3-10 we see that Peter is talking about scoffers in the last days as they question the second coming of Christ. This passage simply reminds us that God stands outside of time and we should not doubt the occurrence of a future biblical event simply because it seems to be taking a long time from our limited human perspective. Accordingly, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the length of the creation week, nor was it meant to turn “day” into a mathematical formula.
I love you, Grazer, but I cannot agree with you on this.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
