Could not have said it better.
Consider WHEN the Bible was written.
No-one at the time could have understood anything more complicated. The Bible contains parables, which are not lies, they help people understand the bigger picture. This may have been the case with the story of creation.
I guess the Apostle Paul wasn’t a Christian: he lived before the Bible (well, the NT) was written, so he couldn’t “believe in” it, could he?
I guess Martin Luther wasn’t a Christian: he called the Epistle of James an “epistle of straw” and excluded it from his version of Scripture, along with Revelation and a few others.
Guess it doesn’t really matter if you believe God created the world in 6 days or if you think it was longer. I happen to believe in the 6 day creation but if you guys think different that’s fine. The fact remains that God did the creating. I don’t believe things just came into existence on their own.
It depends how you look at it. Some Native American cultures have stories about the creation of horses (which began to be told after the Spaniards reintroduced them).
Actually, while Luther objected to James because it was such an abrupt confrontation to his personal beliefs, Revelation because it was too weird for his stodgy Germanic temperament, and Jude because he misunderstood that it was taken from Peter rather than recognizing that it was actually the source, his associates prevailed upon him to leave all of the New Testament intact. No books were removed from the NT by Luther (although he clenched his teeth a lot while including them).
Well, the reason why scientists can’t always agree on things is that are constrained in what they can believe by certain messy things like facts and evidence. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible operate under no such constraints.
While one can quibble about whether the universe is 8 or 12 billion years old, one cannot quibble about whether it is about 10 billion years old or 10 thousand years old. Oodles of independent evidence from three completely different fields…biology, geology, and astrophysics/cosmology…substantiate the on-order-of 10 billion years number. You would essentially have to overturn all of modern science to get the 10 thousand year old number (or anything remotely close to it) and it would be impossible to explain how lots of modern technology such as particle accelerators, based on the same physics that gives you the astrophysical understanding of our universe, actually do what the calculations predict them to do.
It would also be a bit difficult to explain all the objects which are further than 10,000 light years away from us, since we are seeing them as they were more than 10,000 years ago!
Well, a day is an anthrocentric concept. Did they mean an earth-day (the time it takes the earth to rotate about its axis)? Why would God operate in earth-days, especially even before he had made the earth?
The Big Bang? Well I’m wondering how big a bang was it if all this time , say 12 billion years or so the expansion of the universe has been accelerating. The rate of expansion at present cannot exceed the speed of light, so extrapolating backwards for such a long period does not suggest an explosive event in the beginning of time. Of course I can’t presume to have all the answers but I am amused with the faith that seems to be displayed by many people with the validity of the Big Bang concept. As Lib pointed out there are quite a few problems with the theory.
It seems to me that science has come al long way in understanding how God created life , but I think we’ve got a lot longer to wait until science figures out how God created the universe. There might be something to the big bang, but what about before. What ignited it? Or ignited what? Could it be God the omni everything Who will reveal all to us when it is time?
Yet I lament how much of Christendom is hung up on the biblical creation myth. To take it literally allows for many valid atheistic potshots. Note that no one challenges other creation myths, because as far as I know no one is shoving it down other peoples throats. It is such a shame when the message is that to believe in Christ you must believe in the biblical creation story. Christ never said that did he?
UDS–
I was once naive, too…
Don’t take that as a personal snipe-- just as a concerned warning to be on guard.
Many of them do, indeed, hold to the views you’ve presented. But the rule, as I have encountered it, is that any flavor of fundamentalist will assert that only those who believe almost exactly as they do are “saved.”
“You have to believe all of the Bible or none of it!”
“You’re going to Hell for calling God’s Word a lie!”
“Satan is the father of Big Bang / Evolution / Abiogenesis ideas, and you’ll go to Hell if you believe that!”
There seems to be no end to it.
-David
The bible states that god created the worlf and firmament it does’nt go into the HOW.
Sigh. I do get tired of the religious accusing scientists of having faith. Mencken noted this in 1930, and I do wish you’d come up with something new.
It is not faith - it is acceptance of the best theory that fits the facts. You are aware that BB theory has successfully predicted many findings, right?
If you want to put God on the other side of the singularity, fine. But please let me know why this is evidence for whatever flavor of God you believe in. It wouldn’t be hard for an omnipotent being to dictate a somewhat accurate, if not scientifically accurate, story. Eastern religions have the universe as being very old - if you think the accuracy of a creation myth is important, you might consider becoming a Hindu.
I have asked many people in several fora how they would go from a first cause argument to Christianity. I have never gotten a response.
Voyager wrote:
Ack!
There’s so much wrong with that I hardly know where to begin. But I think that rather than twist you around the maypole of that house of cards called logic, and how it is all based on faith, I’ll deal with the notion in your dependent clause.
Karl Popper would turn over in his grave. Why did he bother doing all that work if you’re going to come away like Freud, Marx, and Adler all rolled into one? The whole problem with their theories was precisely that they fit the facts. They fit every fact there is.
A Marxist cannot open a newspaper without finding on every page facts that support his theory. As it happens, a Capitalist can do the same thing with the exact same facts.
A market downturn? The Marxist: “Evidence of capitalism’s failure to grow the economy”. The Capitalist: “Evidence of the market’s natural tendency to rid itself of disequillibria”.
A shooting rampage? The Freudian: “Proves that the ego can suppress the superego”. The Adlerian: “Proves that all living beings are interconnected.”
A photo of the Grand Canyon? The Creationist: “Evidence of incredible hydraulic forces”. The Pseudoevolutionist: “Evidence of punctuated equillibrium”.
What science prizes is not the theory that can best fit the facts, but the theory that can withstand falsification.
Voyager wrote:
His4Ever, that is a gross misstatement of the big bang to say it was a “big old rock” exploding. The bang was all the stuff in the unicerse, the matter, energy and time/space exploding from a single point. The favored theory for what caused that was a quantum fluctuation. One way to put it is a totally random event just blinked the universe into existance. Nothing in my knowledge or faith cantradicts that but I draw different meaning them some. I’ve heard that Stephen Hawking uses it as evidence against a god creating the universe. I believe it was an incredibly cool way for God to have done it. I don’t believe that the full account is in Genesis is because Moses never would have been able to understand the explanation.
That said, do you believe that believing in the big bang, a ~10-15 billion year old universe makes it impossible to be a christian? As you are one of the few bible literalists on the board I think a direct answer from you is quite meaningful to the debate.
No, believing in an old universe doesn’t make it impossible to be a Christian. One becomes a Christian by accepting Jesus as Savior. Those who’ve done that and still believe in a God-created big bang and old universe are still Christians. Perhaps it is older than we think, I could be wrong about that. I tend to think it isn’t as old as some say but then I wasn’t there. Like God said to Job “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” Job 38:4. In the long run, I guess it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is our acceptance of His loving provision for our salvation. Guess we’ll know one day the truth of the age of the universe and earth.
so, let there be light, and there was light…
big bang had to have been pretty bright, right?
and the order of the 7"days" closely follows evolutionary pathways,
ie bacteria-> fish-> reptiles->birds->mammals ->man
so, like many others here, i’m gonna say that i believe in a creator God who made the earth through the big bang and evolution, and chose to tell his ill-educated people about this through an allegorical story they could comprehend more easily.
and i’m a christian.
His4ever, that’s how i see it, and you are free to disagree.
Along with the Old-Earth & Evolutionist Christians here, I agree that Scientific discovery & theory can explain how we came to be here, while the Bible explains why.
I’ll add tho that I see less harm in believing the Bible gives detailed explanation as to “How” than in relying on naturalistic
philosophy- esp Evolutionary philosophy- to explain “Why”. The two main thinkers to take the latter route- Marx & Nietzsche.
G.K. Chesterton, in The Everlasting Man, put it somewhat like this-
Unexplainable mysteries which to my mind require Deity to exist & act-
The emergence of orderly systems from chaotic energy;
The emergence of life from lifeless orderly systems;
The emergence of humanity from life;
The emergence of Jesus Christ from humanity.
So you agree that science is not faith based? By best theory that fits the facts, obviously the theory has not been falsified (unlike creationism or Marxism). Also, the best theory is one that is minimal in some sense.
I figured this was a bit subtle for someone using the hoary old scientists use as much faith argument.
Marxism has many of the symptoms of religion - a holy book, saints, and the great ability to define anything that happens as supporting your faith. So who said Marxism (or even economics) is a science?
I’ll mail the cosmologists to stop working.
Oh well, I got a response. Now, how about a good response?
I was refering to the posters not scientists. BB theory hasn’t yet achieved the conclusiveness that evolution has. In short though plausible it is by no means certain.
If you don’t have conclusive evidence, but promulgate “the best theory” as de rigueur as the OP and subsequent posting suggests, then a faith in the theory by posters is implicit.
I don’t and I didn’t. You assume in error. Therefore the remainder of your post is irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]