Posted on 09/10/2023 1:36:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
'Nuff said.
That was interesting. Thanks.
Which is why I dispute it. The books of the Bible were written for their times and reflect the understanding of that era. The Bible was not written as a science text, and the modern scientific account of Genesis would have been incomprehensible to the author and audience of Genesis. Yet, with the advantage of science, we can recognize today the fundamental truth of Genesis, not as science, but as a figurative and morally accurate account of the universe and man as created by God.
First, in contradiction to chance, the hard rules of physics are closely tuned to make life possible. This makes a Divine Creator not just scientifically plausible, but perhaps even required.
Second, as reflected in the most recent Noble Prize award in physics, the reality of quantum entanglement gives consciousness a grounding distinct from matter. In other words, not only is consciousness real, but Max Planck's surmise that matter comes from consciousness may well be correct and provable by physics.
With that in mind, to me, Genesis is true but not to be taken literally.
If God is not capable of creating in six days then the other miracles of the Bible get called into question as being real or just fables.
In my experience, the Biblical inerrancy argument for Genesis soon falls into a hopeless swamp by trying to dispute science with various rhetorical evasions and references to oddball websites that claim the science is wrong.
It seems to me that, taken in full, modern science demolishes Genesis on the details but endorses its essential point. This seems to me an extraordinary result. Call Genesis a fable if you wish, but it is a fable that conveys the truth of Creation.
It’s a parable to explain how we came to be
Correct.
To the contrary science supports Genesis vs Evolutionary development.
Science and the Bible are not in opposition but, properly understood, are complementary. As for “science supports Genesis,” just how does science support the universe and man being created in six days?
never said they were.
but, properly understood, are complementary. As for “science supports Genesis,” just how does science support the universe and man being created in six days
The order of creation for starters.
We also have the account of the Flood which science does confirm.
Now, I will say from a science perspective you cannot explain the creation of everything in six days. This is where the trust in God comes into play.
If God cannot create all things in six 24 hour days, or six minutes, or seconds...then, the other miracles in the Bible are called into question as I previously noted.
A lack of faith in God's ability to create undermines His ability to bring the dead back to life....that is Christ.
Just how does science confirm The Flood? And why should God limit himself to six days of creation instead of the immense span of time that science says was necessary? And if your account is true, why would God have Creation rife with objective measures of time like radioactive decay and astronomical observations that refute the six days stated in Genesis?
We continue to find fossils of sea life on mountain ranges.
The science we think is absolute on these issues continues to change.
And why should God limit himself to six days of creation instead of the immense span of time that science says was necessary?
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11
(2) The Bible, including Genesis, is not a science text. The six days of creation are figurative, not literal. The point of Genesis is to explain the universe and man as God's Creation, not to provide a scientific account. That being so, modern science provides a different explanation of how the universe came into existence.
For reasons that I explained earlier, modern science points toward the universe as created to sustain life and as existing in conjunction with a realm of consciousness. The bottom line is that, properly understood, modern science supports the existence of God but on its own terms, not in a Biblical idiom.
True the Bible is not a science book. It never makes that claim. Yet on matters of science it is accurate.
As noted earlier, if God cannot create the world, and everything else, in six 24 hour days, then the rest of the miracles in the Bible, including the resurrection of Christ, have to be called into question.
ah
you choose to Trust the Science
More than that, I choose to know the science and to know the Bible and the Christian faith, looking to harmonize them.
Why should the Bible not be read so as to reconcile science and faith? Why do you insist in a literal reading of the Bible and require that scientific absurdities like Creation in six days be embraced?
Already answered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.