quote:I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.
Many Christians do believe this. they are typically called "theistic evolutionists." For example, see the writings of our new NIH director, Francis Collins, or of Simon Conway Morris.
quote:Church teachings have changed over time as the Magesterium have reinterpreted the Bible and as such I feel it would be possible that the Bible is the Truth written in a manner suited for the people it was intended to be read by: not the scientific Man of today but the spiritual Man of the past. It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.
I (and most Christians) would agree with you that the Bible was primarily intended for the immediate audience, and was not intended to teach science. Most (even YECs) would agree that the Bible is not a science textbook (but then the YECs inconsistently try to find modern science in it).
quote:I think your opinion is very much in the minority, and it is threatening to really muck up this topic (and others?).
Please abstain from doing further messages in this topic. Perhaps you can resume doing such later.
You may be correct that ICANT's view on this is a minority position, but if so it is a very strong minority. His view that the Bible does not teach a 6000 year old creation is shared by essentially all "old earth creationists" (OECs) and some "theistic evolutionists" (TEs). His particular views are similar to the "Gap Theory" which was the majority position in American fundamentalism from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s. We should not assume that YECs interpret the Bible correctly; their view has been dominant only since the mid-1900s.
I find it strange that you are trying to squelch ICANT's views on this. To do so is a de facto surrender of biblical interpretation to the YECs. This would be a grave error and would further polarize the issues.
On the other hand, the "6000 year" comment in the OP was not his main point, and I agree with you that such a discussion here would probably derail the thread.
quote:Previous to lyell and darwin YEC "interpretations" of the bible was the main view throughout Israelite and Christian history!
Sorry, but this is false (even though it is a common YEC claim). From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s the main view was not YEC, but an OEC view known as the Gap Theory. Scofield, Spurgeon, and most other conservative Bible scholars of the period held to this OEC view.
From the early church to the mid-1800s a form of YEC was popular, but it was certainly not the only popular view (an eternal universe was also popular due to the influence of Greek philosophy), and this older YEC was not the modern form of YEC. (When I wrote that "their view has been dominant only since the mid-1900s" I was referring to the modern YEC view, which was hopefully clear from the context.)
The modern YEC view has a number of aspects: 1) the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour periods in a literal week 2) the days are days of creation, not of re-creation as the Gap Theory claims or of revelation as some other views claim 3) Genesis 1:1 is either a heading or occurs as part of Day 1; there is no appreciable time gap between v.1 and v.3 as the Gap Theory claims 4) geologic evidence for an old earth (the geologic column) is largely the result of a world-wide flood
it is true that aspect 1 has been a common view since the early church, but the other aspects have been less common. In particular, the flood geology of aspect 4 did not exist in its present form until the 20th century. (Surface fossils were seen as flood evidence much earlier, but viewing the geologic column as flood evidence was uncommon before the 20th century.) Hence my claim that the modern YEC view has been dominant only since the mid-1900s (mid-20th century).
quote:Yes it does polarize the issue because as themasterdebator and modulous have already pointed out your view is inconsistent with the bible as well as evolutionary theory. (to themasterdebator and modulous, hope i'm not misquoting you guys, just post if you think I am putting words in your mouth, so to speak).
You may not be putting words in their mouths, but you seem to be making unjustified assumptions about my views. I strongly disagree that my views are inconsistent with the Bible itself, though they are indeed inconsistent with some interpretations of the Bible.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous to lyell and darwin YEC "interpretations" of the bible was the main view throughout Israelite and Christian history! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, but this is false (even though it is a common YEC claim). From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s the main view was not YEC, but an OEC view known as the Gap Theory. Scofield, Spurgeon, and most other conservative Bible scholars of the period held to this OEC view.
Hence why I said previous to lyell and darwin
Sorry, I read this a bit too quickly. I may partially agree with you. OEC views started to gain popularity with James Hutton, a century before Lyell. There were strong Christian advocates for OEC prior to and contemporary with Lyell (e.g. Thomas Chalmers, Hugh Miller). I understand that OEC views had displaced YEC by the time Darwin wrote. But you may be correct that they did not do so before Lyell?
quote:In Matthew 19:4-5 it says, “And He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female.”(NKJ) Jesus says here that he made Adam and Eve in the beginning, not millions of years later. The word beginning in the Greek is arche, strong’s # G746, which speaks of origin and the extremity of a thing.
Your argument repeats a fairly recent but common YEC misinterpretation.
The question is, "What did Jesus mean by the beginning? Beginning of what?" This is answered by the context.
The context is a discussion of marriage and divorce. Jesus is explaining that God's original plan was for marriage, not divorce. In this context, "made them at the beginning" is referring to the beginning of mankind, and looks back to Adam and Eve. From the very first man and woman, marriage was God's intention.
Jesus is saying nothing here about when man was created in respect to everything else. That is not in view in the context, and to introduce this concept is an exegetically unsound addition to the Word of God.
quote:Also in Genesis, which is written in a narrative form, states six times God calling his creation Good. Death is not good to a loving and righteous God, that is why God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17).
Note that the text uses the word "good," not "perfect." Hebrew has a word for "perfect" and this was pointedly not used.
quote:Plus 1 Cor 15:21-22 states, “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”(NKJ) So death came by Adam’s sin, not millions of years before.
Another misinterpretation that is easily answered by context. In context, what does the "all" refer to, the "all" who die and are made alive? It clearly refers to mankind, not animals. Animals are not in view in the context at all. Paul is saying only that Adam's sin brought death to man; he is making no comment on animals. If you wanted to interpret this as Adam bringing death to animals, then you'd be forced to claim that Jesus' sacrifice also brings eternal life to animals.
quote:You are applying one particular religious belief (out of tens of thousands of differing religious beliefs) to a scientific question.
BTW, it was not "Apologetics" but "Blissful" in the OP who specifically directed this thread toward this "one particular religious belief":
Church teachings have changed over time as the Magesterium have reinterpreted the Bible and as such I feel it would be possible that the Bible is the Truth written in a manner suited for the people it was intended to be read by: not the scientific Man of today but the spiritual Man of the past. It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.
quote:Consider Mark 10:6 as a cross reference, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female”. Here it states beginning of the creation.
This is a parallel passage to Mt 19:4-5. My comments of Re: God using evolution (Message 28) apply just as well to this passage. In context, then, Mk 10:6 means "the beginning of the creation of mankind."
quote:You cannot change the scripture to meet your worldview. If Mark wanted to speak of the creation of mankind he would have said that. Instead he said "But from the beginning of creation...". The first step in Hermeneutics (study of scripture) is to allow scripture to interpret scripture.
I would say that the first step in hermeneutics is to understand the passage in context. But I agree that the "analogy of Scripture" is also very important.
quote:As a literal interpretation this passage fits with the rest of scripture, but with your interpretation you must reinterpret other verses like the first chapter of Genesis.
I don't see that this requires or implies any specific interpretation of Genesis 1. Jesus is telling us that from the time mankind was first created, God intended for mankind to marry and not divorce. This puts no constraints or implications on the interpretation of Genesis 1.
quote:I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for proof that these laws exist? Are you asking how these laws would come to exist in the first place? I'm guessing you mean the second, in which case, they're simply properties of the universe.
I assume you realize that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one? The founders of modern science had a very different philosophical position, of course. They believed that the regularity of nature was due to the consistency of God. They coined the phrase "natural law" as an analogy to God's moral law; natural law was God's decree as to how He would normally run His creation. Both philosophical positions are consistent with modern science.
To relate this to the thread topic: From a biblical perspective, if evolution is a law of nature, then an evolved universe is no less the work of God and is no less glorifying to Him than a fiat creation.
quote:I agree. Apologetics, however, seemed to be saying that natural laws couldn't happen without God, meaning the natural laws were themselves inconsistent with science.
Perhaps I misunderstood him? I though he was simply speaking from a biblical worldview where natural law is not a "property of the universe" (your words) but is simply our description of God's normal activity in His creation. In a biblical worldview, the universe and its natural laws cannot function and cannot even continue to exist without God. Natural laws cause nothing; they are merely descriptive of God's normal activity.