[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! I'm pinging _Jim also in case he is interested.

You say: "Truth always trumps facts." Fine. But if reading Genesis, even in the original Hebrew, produces any apparent conflicts with what science has learned, then ... what shall we do? That's always the issue for some folks in these threads. How do we resolve scripture/science conflicts, without burning either bibles or scientists?

When a believer perceives a conflict between Genesis and science – since God is author of both – the believer must conclude that either (a) he doesn’t understand either the Scriptures or the science or (b) that he must accept the Scripture on faith.

At bottom, there is no scientific argument against the declaration that God created “all that there is” last Thursday.

Personally, I see perfect harmony between Genesis and science because:

a) Genesis 1-3 refer to things happening both in heaven and on earth. (Gen 1:1, location of the tree of life Gen 2 v Rev 2)

b) The perspective of time (space/time) passing changes from the inception of “all that there is” in Genesis 1-3 to earth in Genesis 4 when Adam is banished to mortality.

c) Relativity and inflationary theory tell us that time is relative. Six days from the space/time coordinates of the inception of this universe is equal to roughly 14 billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth.

Lurkers can figure it out themselves:

Schroeder: Age of the Universe

In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.

This is easy for me to see, but of course a lot of other Christians do not agree – some because they haven’t yet investigated relativity/inflationary theory and some because their theology requires that Adam be the first mortal man, i.e. the Young Earth Creationists.

The theological difference hinges on the interpretation of Scriptures, particularly Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48. A large segment of Christians (including Roman Catholics) view Adam as the first ensouled man, a smaller segment view Adam as the first mortal man.

My musings are squarely in the middle, i.e. 6000 years since Adam at earth’s space/time coordinates plus 6 days from the inception space/time coordinates and Adam as the first mortal man with the breath of God (neshama – Genesis 2). All other creatures in Genesis 1 have a soul, a nephesh, but not a neshama.

It is a waste of time to argue a theological point such as YEC using science. It is doctrine and must be argued with Scripture, lexicons and ancient manuscripts. If one is unable to make such a theological argument, I suggest it is better just to ignore the YEC post altogether.

But before I deal with the cosmic issues, let me comment on your metaphor about the "two different levels," the Constitution (presumably analogous to scripture) v. the Internal Revenue Code (a really ghastly metaphor for science). Happily, there is no need to resort to metaphor. We have scripture, which -- although divinely inspired -- is the physical work of numerous men over many centuries, and which is also the work of various committees who have decided what stays in and what gets removed.

I agree that it was a lousy metaphor. I was just trying to put the idea in perspective.

Among Christians are those of us whose vision of the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1 and Rev 19) – that the Word of God is alive and speaks to us by the indwelling Spirit (I Cor 2, Romans 8, John 15-17) to lead us into Truth. To us, the Scriptures are inerrant but do not substitute for His Person.

There are other Christians who put Scriptures on par with Tradition of the Church. The interpretation is made by the Church leader, or Pope, who is to be received as the vicar of Christ on earth.

And there are other Christians who put the emphasis on the Scriptures themselves. These will more often refer to the Scriptures as the Word of God.

And then there are the Christians who are cavalier about all of this.

Thus, when you ask:

So to return to your statement that: "Truth always trumps facts," we need to figure out, between observations of physical reality on the one hand, and our personal understanding of scripture on the other hand, which has the higher rank?

the answer will depend entirely on the correspondent’s theology.

[PatrickHenry]

Your post is articulate and thoughtful, as always. I have a small quibble with one thing. You say:

When a believer perceives a conflict between Genesis and science – since God is author of both – the believer must conclude that either (a) he doesn’t understand either the Scriptures or the science or (b) that he must accept the Scripture on faith.

I think you have a supurfluous alternative there, specifically your (b). I believe that your alternative (a) says it all. There's an error in his understanding of science or scripture which results in an apparent conflict.

However, as you said later on, if the believer is unable to resolve the meaning of scripture and science, then he will rely on scripture -- if that is the imperative of his theology. That, alas, may put the believer who knows no science, and who may mis-interpret scripture, in the position of (pardon the expression) a "flat earther."