Paradise Café Discussions A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Just kidding

But I did it to make a serious point.

God's Word in Genesis 1 says that God's spirit was involved in the creation.

Yet what do scientists tell us about God's spirit, and how God's spirit was involved?

Absolutely nothing.

So let me ask you a serious question:

Do you believe scientists version of how the Earth was formed?

Or God's version?

Can they be reconciled, given that scientists know nothing of God's spirit, and don't even include it in their equations?

That is why I take what they tell me about the age, nature and formation of the Universe with some large tablets of salt.

Do you?

If not, why not?

Discuss.

Can of worms you have opened here isn't it!

I don`t think science can or should take the holy spirit into the equation. It would be like telling God to pop into the test tube on order. He tends to not obey in a predictable manner.

I believe sciences version of creation, but I wouldn't use the term believe. I accept it as the best explanation so far because it fits the facts and experiments the best. Belief is not really involved. However I do believe God is responsible for the way creation has unfolded due to his setting the initial mode for existence. There is too much evidence to show, for instance that this cosmos and planet earth is much older than the creationists six thousand years or so.

I do however believe in the resurrection of Jesus, not because science demonstrates its possible. Indeed science doesn't, it cannot prove or disprove it happened. Its outside of its remit of dealing only with physical natural events which correspond to a theory. It can replicate the affects of aerodynamics with clockwork precision because it understands its rules, but not a miracle which is a one off. Its outside of science. Saying this though, the resurrection of Jesus doesn't have a body of evidence against it. There is no scientific or historical body of evidence that contradicts it. Unlike of course the creationists history of the physical universe which actually shows great age, through a variety of demonstrable evidences. One simply cannot demonstrate why the resurrection did not, or could not happen. Its not amenable to such scientific quantification. The age of the universe is amenable to such quantification! It can be demonstrated through many demonstrable techniques as to why this is so. The evidence is showed to be against the idea of a six thousand year old cosmos or earth, unlike the resurrection, or miracles where no such evidence can be shown, or demonstrated. Miracles are also not known to provide false evidence of natural origin. If they did they would defeat their very purpose. However some either deny the demonstrable evidence of known science as to the age of the universe, or if they do except the evidence, they claim it was placed as such by the miracle of a young universe. In doing so they actually undermine the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus and miracles in general because it would mean all things are anomalies, or even worse, miracles falsify evidence for themselves. That of course is absurd.

Just like scientists cannot replicate the creation of the laws of psychics, nor do they have an explanation for the laws formation in the first place, doesn't make them conclude they have, or it is evidence it doesn't exist or didn't ever happen. The same is true for miracles. Science cant say they do or don`t happen. All they know is that they are anomalies of some sort, outside prediction! In this respect miracles are just like peoples ability to choose to do something unexpected. That is also outside of prediction and science. Not a surprise that the holy spirit and Gods personality along with human personality cannot be placed into the test tube or incorporated into a theory and thus should not be part of science. Fortunately for these reasons they aren't. Imagine the state of science if it mixed the understandable with the inexplicable! No theory would ever be possible.

This is why I go with the science. To not do so undermines reasonableness and also faith, for faith is built on reasonableness!

I think there are more accurate ways to interpret Interpretum the creation account, other than completely and exclusively literally.

Well God created laws and forces so that we could understand them and make use of them. The same also made us possible. So the miracle comes from their initial formation. Non law to law and non force to force. God could have made everything by direct miraculous creation including our children, houses, planes, clothes ect. He didn't. He made us to be like him so we have to do these things ourselves and learn to be more like him in the process. So you are correct Beau in that science isn't supposed to be about the non law and non force part, their initial moment of creation. Science deals with what and how they operate after their formation. God could have made it all a short time ago as we see it today, but unless God also falsified the evidence that he didn't do it that way, we must take it that he did it along time ago.

Another thing to consider is that although creation falls outside of science because its the stage of supernatural to natural, it should be noted that the natural part after its supernatural creation also goes on to do its own creating by automatic process. For instance gas created stars, that created extra elements, that created planets and new different type stars, ect . So science can explain creation on one level, the level of natural, but not on the other, the level of the supernatural. Creation itself spans across the divide between the two it seems.

More simply put, Blah, bablah, bablah, blah blah blah

Scientific revelations come and go... each generation has their "infallible" sources who go on to contradict those who had it all explained behind them. Why, even Einstein's Law of Relativity is in question today. And the only reason why people believe that the current thinking is right, is because it is current.
"Don't put your trust in nobles..."

I know that Genesis was written to explain things in simple terms to a simple society, and I trust that the basic concepts are correct.

Oh, Interpretum, you silly. Now you're turning into a "yellow journalism" headline seeker.

You know. "Commandeer attention and readership by whatever means necessary."

tsk, tsk.

I think to characterize scientists as seen as infallible is to do science a disservice. Science is about understanding facts that can be seen and observed within a coherent demonstrative framework. When facts become apparent that don`t fit the current theory they revise or add to them. Science is all about fallibility not infallibility. Newtons understanding of gravity has not been chucked away as yesterdays truth because special relativity is more accurate. Einstein was certainly fallible and many scientists disagreed with him about quantum mechanics. His theory wasn't excepted as more accurate than Newtons until actual data accumulated which confirmed the predictions of his theory which they did of course. Newtons theory is still just as accurate as it ever was. the difference now is that we have accumulated more observations it doesn't account for. Einsteins theory simply explains a greater variety of such observations not known at the time of Newton. Just like Newtons theory didn't explain everything nor did special relativity. All specific truths are provisional and science is all about provisional truth. This is even true in theology to a large extent. Logic is only as good as the brain and knowledge of the person using it. Since there are probably an infinite amount of actual facts then all specific conclusions must be provisional if all facts are linked. I think this is why the bible verse about not putting trust in so called nobles is talking about ultimate salvation, not relative truth. Some may have put that kind of faith in scientists but most scientists would be appalled by such worship of themselves.

I think Genesis is completely true but only in terms of the correct interpretation. Often that cannot be literal.

Sorry to have slandered "science." Now, how about that Bible?

I didn't know it was possible to slander a concept or a book for that matter.

Anyhow I did say this:

"I think Genesis is completely true but only in terms of the correct interpretation. Often that cannot be literal. "

Hi Seraphim,

So, how far do we go with this...???

Who decides what should be taken literally and what should be taken figuratively?

Or, God forbid! Allegorically. (Ya listenin' Jesh! )

Yea, yea, I know God knows; but He seems to have left that guide out of the appendix to the Scriptures.


Perhaps, none of it should be interpreted literally.

Many will counter that Jesus and Paul made reference to the first pair; but how do we know conclusively that they weren't doing so because of their upbringing as Jews, because of their intended audiences (for the most part), and in maintaining the continuity of the scriptures?


"two lepta", from a 's advocate.
LTA,
John

How far do we go with this is an excellent question 1 OF MINI.

I know this is an answer that runs short of satisfaction but I think we decide in prayer and holy spirit in communion with God rather that let someone else decide for us. Certain things were reveled to the apostles via direct holy spirit.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

There is a view out there that the creation account in Genesis was a vision that was given via the holy spirit. With this view the creation account can be taken a bit like the book of Revelation. The two certainly have allot in common, and it seems obvious that it would have to have been transmitted to man way after the events anyhow through a vision or dream as most such things were. So it could be that we are supposed to take it in a similar way. It allows for allot of scope for interpretation without having to be dogmatic. We see through a glass darkly.

How much of this should be interpreted literally?...

Luke 3:23...

"And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Where does one start to interpret any of these individuals as figurative or even fictitious?

Hi ITPT! Good topic!
Actually, quantum physics does put God's spirit into the equation.
Quantum physicists have discovered a "thing" that is the smallest of all things. They call it the God Particle, or a waveical.
A waveical can be thought of as an electromagnetic wave, like a micro wave, but with some very strange properties.
Firstly, they can behave like an energy wave, or as a physical particle.
They can be either.
Second, and this is very strange, they seem to have a concious intelligence, being able to make choices on their own.
This has been proved time and again in the famous double slit experiment.
This should not sound foreign to a Bible student. We know that angles, who are non physical beings, can transform themselves into physical beings. Thats possible because they are made of waveicals, and they have control over them.
Here's the cool thing.
Physical things, like our Universe, and our bodies, are also made of waveicals. Our bodies, at this time, are locked into the physical mode, so we can't switch into energy beings now, but the potential is there. Perhaps when we are perfected.
YHWH's Holy Spirit is basically, mass waveicals.
The physical creation was a conversion of His waveicals into physical particles, which formed sub-atomic particles, which formed into electrons, neutrons and protons, which make up the known atomic elements, which combine into molecules and there you have it.
Everything, physical and non physical, is made of YHWH's Holy Spirit!
We and the Universe exists only because HE wants it to. In an instant, it could all return to the energy state.
Science is only scratching the surface, but eventually, science, and the belief in God, will be one and the same. We have along way to go.
Enjoy the journey!

I think the clue here might be the "(as was supposed)".