Bro: I look at science I see God’s purpose, regardless of how “random” science claims it all is.
Likewise, when I read Genesis, I see metaphors made inevitable by the fact that those who first wrote and read it could not possibly have understood what was really going on, in scientific terms.
Spirited: In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus Christ spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). The name He used when He spoke to Moses is “I AM.”
According to the inner illogic of BroJoeK’s claims, Jesus Christ must have been a really stupid, inept God to not have known that Moses, let alone the Prophets, early Church Fathers and all of today’s faithful Christians could not possibly understand “in scientific” terms.
No, true understanding is only knowable, only possible, for ‘scientifically enlightened’ modern Gnostikoi like BroJoeK.
As BroJoeK has admitted elsewhere, ‘natural science’ is not a search for truth. What is left unsaid is that it is a search for personal power. Knowledge is power, and this is what ‘science’ is for BroJoeK whose ‘science’ is the perversion described by CS Lewis as magic science.
Magic science and the Wizard of Oz are twins animated by maestros of pompous pretense speaking presumptuously and with great authority about things which cannot possibly be known. Hiding behind both the curtain and magic science are mere mortals pretending to be what they are not.
First of all, the Old Testament itself insists that YHWH spoke to Moses, so why would an alleged "biblical literalist" tell us it was somebody else?
Wouldn't a "strict interpretation" require us to use His actual words, and not some later theological interpretation of them?
spirited irish: "According to the inner illogic of BroJoeK’s claims, Jesus Christ must have been a really stupid, inept God to not have known that Moses, let alone the Prophets, early Church Fathers and all of today’s faithful Christians could not possibly understand “in scientific” terms."
So, FRiend spirited irish, why are you changing the subject from Genesis to Exodus?
God's conversation from a burning bush with Moses said nothing about Creation, or Intelligent Design, or Young Earth.
Why then are you injecting it into this discussion?
Clearly YHWH's identification of Himself as "I am who I am", is a theological Truth, easily understood by any human soul, and having nothing directly to do with natural-sciences, isn't it?
spirited irish: "No, true understanding is only knowable, only possible, for ‘scientifically enlightened’ modern Gnostikoi like BroJoeK."
In fact, FRiend, I've said the opposite: theological Truth is knowable by any human soul, while natural-science deals only in "observations" and "confirmed theories".
So science is neither Truth nor truth, but basically a metaphor (based on what works) of natural explanations for natural processes.
spirited irish: "As BroJoeK has admitted elsewhere, ‘natural science’ is not a search for truth.
What is left unsaid is that it is a search for personal power.
Knowledge is power, and this is what ‘science’ is for BroJoeK whose ‘science’ is the perversion described by CS Lewis as magic science."
Sorry, but you are way, way off base here.
"Truth" by definition is a higher level of knowledge that mere science.
Science itself is only concerned with explanations that can be confirmed to work -- so "what works" is its basic standard.
As for my alleged "search for personal power", that is beyond ridiculous, since I am long since retired and have barely enough "personal power" to keep body and soul together.
So, what science provides me is only the same things it provides spirited irish and anybody else: enough know-how to make things work.
So, perhaps you can point to chapter & verse in the Bible where "know-how" is condemned as immoral or illegal?
spirited irish: "Magic science and the Wizard of Oz are twins animated by maestros of pompous pretense speaking presumptuously and with great authority about things which cannot possibly be known.
Hiding behind both the curtain and magic science are mere mortals pretending to be what they are not."
Sorry, but I cannot make sense of those words.
Who & what, after all, might you be speaking of, specifically?
So I would only remind you that natural-science is what it is, and you are not required to believe a word of it.
But just don't pretend that whatever it is you do believe is somehow "scientific", because it's not.