Bible Vs Scientism

The Bible teaches us that God created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days - and then rested on the seventh. This occurred a little over 6000 years ago. I believe this, because God's written word is my ultimate authority.

Science is a process... an investigation and collection of raw data. Science doesn't actually "say" anything - as the common idiom "science says" indicates. Science is only the collection of the data itself. Then flawed human beings interpret that data in many different ways. Those interpretations are not science itself, but conclusions based on the data which was collected via the scientific process. Those conclusions come complete with personal biases, and much conjecture and speculation.

Scientism is a blind belief in those INTERPRETATIONS/CONCLUSIONS.

For example, we know through science that there are lights in the sky that appear to move over the earth in repeated patterns. It is not science itself, but the interpretations/conclusions/speculations of flawed men which tell us that those lights are giant fireballs in a vast vacuum, that they are moving away from us, and that this movement means that they were at one time all squished together into a hot, dense ball of energy. And Scientism is the faith-based belief IN those interpretations.

So the cult of Scientism (not science itself) claims that our world began as an explosion/expansion of a singularity about 14 billion years ago. The Bible teaches that our world began as a six day creative action taken by God... about 6000 years ago.

Which of those is the truth?

Agreed. Mostly literal - especially the historic accounts. But I assert that it is NOT possible to reconcile the Biblical earth with Scientism's old earth. Give me the basic gist of the reconciliation you are talking about if you don't mind. Thanks

Hey now, watch your mouth(lol) = Enoch was a very serious man of God and the only one (before Christ) who has this record of Glory:

"Enoch walked with God and was not for the LORD took Him" - Genesis 5:24

"By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." - Hebrews 11:5

No one other then Christ has that Scriptural assessment of their walk.

Do not scoff at that which you do not yet know of...................PEACE Brother

Enoch was of higher authority then Moses as was Melchizedek.

If there was a book of Enoch, it's been lost. What is called the book of Enoch now is not the work of Enoch.

...there is no sign of vegetation between the layers, indicating that they were formed at the same time. One theory (which I believe) is that the layers were formed because of Noah's flood. Stirred up sediment will form layers when the disturbing influence stops. As an aside, there are marine fossils on the canyon's top layers.

The Bible is clear that the earth is flat and stationary with a domed vault over it like a tent, in which the sun, moon, and stars run their God-appointed circuits over the face of the earth. It's not a secret that the Bible teaches this, Dino. So I don't know why you'd try to eliminate discussion of a flat and stationary earth from a "serious" Bible discussion - when that's exactly how the Bible describes the earth God created for us.

No, it is not... What you claim here is the product of misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

If you want to argue flat earth, we can do so in the Conspiracy forum. I won't continue this conversation here if you persist

...it is possibly for God to supernaturally increase the flow of time.

Billions of years worth of happenings could have been compressed into 6 literal days.

Don't worry, science will catch up with the Bible eventually.

It already has. We just need to know where to look. Organizations like "Answers in Genesis", "Creation Ministries International", and "Institute for Creation Research" all have top-notch scientists who explain how what we observe is actually much better explained by a 6000 year old earth than a 4.5 billion year old one. 👍🙂

Neither.
Your understanding of Hebrew is at a very pre-elementary level. So is your understanding of science.

You have come to invalid conclusions on both sides of your created dichotomy and set them up to oppose each other.

Not to change the topic, but have you ever visited the Ark in Kentucky?

No, but I've read about it and seen pictures of it. It looks very cool, and I'd love to go there sometime. Have you been there?

Okay... I'm listening and willing to learn and be corrected.

Ecclesiastes 1:5... The sun comes forth, and the sun goes in, and hastens to the place from which it came forth.

Psalm 19:6... [the sun] comes forth from one end of the heaven and runs its circuit to the other...

Joshua 10:12... Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.

Isaiah 38:8... Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

I understand the scriptures above as indicating that it is the sun which moves in relation to the earth - and not the other way around. Please show me my misunderstanding and misinterpretation so I can learn. Thanks.

The basis of the pre-Adamic creation theory is in Genesis 1:2. The word "was" can be just as readily translated "became". The Hebrew word translated "was" is used also of Lot's wife, who became a pillar of salt. She did not start out like that.

So it would read, "Now the earth became formless and void..."

"Became" implies that the earth was formerly not formless and void previously.

I do not believe that the earth is anything like as old as science proclaims. For a start, the moon is escaping from earth's gravity, slowly to be sure, but steadily. There are other reasons, but I won't go into them.

However, I do not believe in a 6,000 year old earth either. I do believe that Genesis is a literal account of God's re-creation. I believe that the 6 days are literal.

I first came across this theory in Watchman Nee's "Mystery of Creation". It makes sense to me, others disagree. It's not a salvation issue so I don't care if people accept or reject.

If there was a book of Enoch, it's been lost. What is called the book of Enoch now is not the work of Enoch.

What is the perspective of the writer in each of the verses quoted above?

They were all men observing lights in the sky (or their effects) from the earth. Go on.

To an observer on the surface of the Earth, which appears to move: the Earth, or the Sun?

The sun. Go on.