Bible Vs Scientism

Why do you think it is relevant, Dino? Jesus' disciples watched him ascend into the clouds. Was their perspective relevant to whether he actually ascended?

Yes, of course their perspective was relevant. They saw Him go up from them, which is what He did. Your correlation is invalid however, because He ascended right in front of them. The sun is very far away, and that distance makes the perspective critical, because a different perspective would result in a different description of the events.

That's a high bar. Can anyone say that Pilate was unequivocally and undeniably governor of Judea in Jesus' time? Apart from the Bible, there's not a lot of evidence that he existed.

The book of Enoch was rejected by the Jews when they compiled the "Tanakh", or Old Testament. Enoch was never taken out of the Bible because it was not included in the first place. Just one very small denomination of the Ethiopian church includes it in the apocrypha. Some people find it fascinating. Fine. As long as it is not considered to be scripture, because it is not.

For more on this fascinating subject, I suggest that you read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee.

There are some questions that arise from comparing geology with the Genesis account of creation. The earth certainly appears to be more than 6,000 or so years old.

I believe that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have dual meanings. I believe that Satan is referred to in those passages. I remember reading them as a new Christian and thinking exactly that. I've since found that I'm not the only one.

We know that Satan fell like lightning. Lord Jesus said this, Luke 10:18. We also read

"How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations." Isaiah 14:12

We know what Satan did to God's creation when he corrupted Adam. I believe that he also corrupted the pre-Adamic creation. God judged that defiled creation by a world wide flood, just as He did the world that Noah lived in. However, there was no escape from the first flood.

I believe that Satan was insanely jealous of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were given authority over all of God's creation, the authority that Satan once had. Satan determined to overturn God's plan. However, Satan did not know that God planned to send Jesus after Adam blew it. Satan incited Cain to kill Abel because Abel was a seed of Eve. The devil spent thousands of years wondering who was going to crush his head! Now he knows.

None of this relates to salvation. It may help some who query the veracity of God's word based on arguments about Genesis. A lot of people struggle with this. I'm not one of them. My lack of understanding does not undermine God's word one bit. If I'm wrong about the pre-Adamic creation theory, it changes nothing for me.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" - Romans 9:20 KJV

You could ask the same questions about "Why did God form Adam from dust of the ground instead of spontaneously thinking him into existence?" The answer comes back to the sentiment in Romans 9. Who are you to ask why?

We don't necessarily know the method by which He created everything. Why would we assume He created things spontaneously? There is no reason to hold that assumption. But we need to acknowledge that God could have accelerated time to condense billions of years of happenings within 24h days. Therefore we need to leave the method of His creation as a mystery and leave no comment on it aside from that, scripturally speaking.

It is consistent with the evidence to theorize billions of years worth of happenings. That becomes more of a debate about science rather than scripture. From scripture alone we cannot verify whether billions of years of happenings took place or not. We can't rule out evolution based on scripture alone (not by necessary exclusion anyway).

It becomes a stalemate that leads to the question of why one person finds a particular interpretation of creation more compelling than another.

And really, when you think about it, why would it be so important to know the nominal age of the earth or the method of creation with certainty? Does it change anything about the truth of Christ? Does it mean that we can love our neighbour less? Evolution vs spontaneous creation and OEC vs YEC have no bearing on the core message of Christianity. Do you disagree?

How many discussions have you had with someone concerning the "relevancy" of the perspective of those who watched Jesus ascend? I can't remember ever telling someone, "Now when you read about Jesus ascending, pay very close attention to the position of the witnesses and their perspective, because it is very relevant to the event."

Maybe we're talking past each other. Here is my point. Of course Jesus went UPWARDS from the witnesses' perspective. You don't even have to give it a second thought, since nobody thinks the witnesses were standing on a cloud. It doesn't rank very high on the relevancy meter, because it is a no-brainer.

Likewise, for many thousands of years, the lights passing over the earth in the sky wasn't relevant either, because everybody knew that men stood on the earth looking up, and the lights ran circuits over the earth in the sky. You only think their perspective is relevant today because you've been told that the lights are stationary, and the earth is what's moving. Hence my question: Why do you think it is relevant? The answer is: Because men have told me that the earth rotates and orbits.

But to the men who wrote the words in the Bible, it wasn't relevant at all, since the lights only looked like they moved over us because they DID move over us. Like Jesus ascending, it was a no-brainer.

So here's what you should consider... "all scripture is God-breathed", "scripture cannot be broken", "not one jot or tittle will pass away", etc. So if your argument is that these men were just ignorant goat herders who didn't understand how the world actually worked and were only explaining things from their own perspective, just remember that God's Holy Spirit spoke through those men. So if they were wrong, then God's Spirit was wrong. Also, if these inspired men were wrong about the nature of our world and how it works, what else were they wrong about? If they were only explaining the world from their own perspective, then they were also only explaining God's laws and history and prophecy from their own perspectives too.

I will finish with one more thing, and then we don't have to speak about the shape of the earth anymore if you don't want to. It was God who gave Nebuchadnezzar the dream of the tall tree - and Daniel the interpretation of that dream. On a flat earth, it is at least possible for there to be a tree that can be seen from the entirety of the earth. On a ball, the tree could be a billion miles tall, and it still couldn't be seen from the entirety of the earth. Same goes for Satan tempting Jesus with the kingdoms of the world. On a plain, it is possible for a mountain to be sufficiently tall to see all of the kingdoms of the earth. On a ball, it wouldn't matter how tall the mountain was.

So why would God give Neb a dream and Daniel an interpretation about an event that wasn't even possible? Why would Jesus relate an event to his disciples that wasn't even possible?

Thanks for indulging me.

So the same people who rejected Jesus and had him killed also rejected the Book of Enoch as scripture? Hmm...

I find it fascinating - and consider it scripture. Jude also apparently considered it scripture when he directly quoted it. It's okay that you don't.

That's the crux of the matter. I assert that there is ZERO scientific data to even hint at the possibility that our world is older than 6000 years. After all, what would that data even look like? How could you possibly prove me wrong? Which is just another way of asking how anybody could possibly prove the deep time proponents right?

Assumptions like the "Gap Theory" and a previous earth are not the products of scripture itself. Those things are the product of trying to force Scientism into what the scriptures actually teach.

Agreed.

But no mention of this previous world in scripture? Not even when God decided to flood the world... for a second (or maybe third or fourth) time? I would expect, "Mankind has become evil again, and so I will flood the earth again... only this time I'll preserve 8 people." Why preserve them this time? Why not preserve any the last time(s)?

I suppose that when John says there will be a new heaven and a new earth because the FIRST ones passed away, you could understand that as meaning the PREVIOUS heaven and earth. And when Jesus says God created them male and female from the BEGINNING of creation, you could understand that to mean billions of years after the actual beginning of creation. And when Isaiah and Peter talk about the forthcoming new heaven and new earth, you could understand them as meaning the MOST RECENT new heaven and earth. And when God tells us that He MADE the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days, you could understand Him to mean that He REMADE the CURRENT heaven, earth, and sea in six days. And when He said let's make man in our image, you could insert a mental implied "again" into His words. And when the morning stars sang when God laid the foundations of the earth, you could again insert the mental "again". And so on and so forth.

Yep... you are certainly free to do that - as long as you don't forget that the reason you're doing it has nothing to do with scripture, and everything to do with trying to align Scientism and the Bible... as you've acknowledged above.

I think God gave man dominion over the animals, and His spirit sons dominion over man. In Ps 82, the Most High God assembles with these other gods, and passes a death sentence upon some of them for not watching over man the way He told them to. We read about a similar event in much greater detail in the Book of Enoch.

We also read in Deut 32 how the Most High divided the nations of man according to the number of the sons of God. And then we have Satan offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the world - which were given to him. He couldn't offer what wasn't his, and if he tried to, Jesus would have known that he was offering something he didn't even own. So God gave man dominion over the earth and the animals, but gave His spirit sons dominion over the affairs of man. His spirit sons were supposed to promote truth and justice, but instead sought worship for themselves, and helped the evil men who were willing to worship them persecute the decent people who wouldn't. It's happening like this still today - and Ps 82 tells us that there will eventually be justice for these actions.

Maybe not.

There's every reason to believe exactly that - because that's exactly what the Bible tells us. God said, Let there be... and there was. And it even lists the day on which He did each thing.

Yes, nothing is impossible for God. But since God specifically told us through Moses how He created, and how long it took, we don't have to even ponder this other thing you mentioned.

It is NOT "consistent with the evidence to theorize billions of years". And from scripture alone, we can indeed verify that God MADE (as in "they didn't exist before") the heaven, the earth, the sea and everything in them in six literal days. We can also rule out evolution because the fish and birds were all created during one day, the animals and man during another, the plants during another, and the sun, moon, and stars during another. And it is undeniable from the scriptures that these were all literal 24-hour days.

I disagree wholeheartedly. It is a matter of whether or not you believe scripture - which Jesus says cannot be broken, and Jesus himself, who says God created man at the BEGINNING of the creation.

That's why this is "Scientism VERSUS the Bible". The two are contradictory - and I hold the latter as my ultimate authority.

Hi Gideon. The flood of Noah's day didn't destroy light, the heaven, the sun, moon and stars, or even the fish of the sea. Why do you suppose these things had to be created again after the "pre-Adamic flood"?

The only indulgence I will give is this: Don’t put words in my mouth. As for the rest I will respond later.

Even if the apostles were standing on a cloud, Jesus still ascended. He went up. He didn't go down, or sideways. The words that establish perspective are "went" and "from them".

Or, perhaps you have an overly simplistic view of Scripture. You certainly have an overly simplistic (and incorrect) view of my position, so I suggest you stop making ignorant assertions about it.

I have found enough evidence on my own to support the idea of a roughly spherical Earth moving in relation to the Sun. That the Sun appears to move in relation to the Earth is purely a matter of perspective. It also appears that some stars move in relation to the Earth, while others don't... figure that one out.

Yes, indeed, all Scripture is God-breathed. However, did God supernaturally impart 21st-century scientific understanding to the authors? I very much doubt it, and even if He had, the message would have been incomprehensible to the readers of that day. It's not a matter of anyone being "wrong"; rather, it's a matter of God's Spirit imparting the message to and through scientifically limited people, who used their understanding and vocabulary to record that message.

Here's a key word you seem to have overlooked: dream. There is no obligation for God to give dreams that are literal. He didn't give a literal dream to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, he didn't give literal dreams to Joseph, nor to the baker and cupbearer, nor to Pharaoh. Further, have you considered the plausible range of meanings for "the whole world"? It can mean the whole middle Eastern world as known to the people of the day. Again, you need to consider context.

Do you believe that God has a throne in heaven that is surrounded by the thrones of 24 elders and four living creatures with a bunch of eyes? (Rev 4:4)

Why would you say that? These men built the tower of Babel that reached to heaven, and later the pyramids and Stonehenge - while "21st-century scientific understanding" still can't figure out HOW those things were accomplished. I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming that we today have a better understanding of our world than men like Adam, Enoch, Samuel, and Solomon did. Kids today are bombarded with globes and the teaching that we live on a spinning ball from the time they are three years old. They all seem to grow up comprehending and accepting the claim, right? But you think such things would have been "incomprehensible to the readers of that day"? Why?

Regardless, consider what you are actually saying. If God was aware that we lived on a spinning ball that orbited the sun, but told His children that the earth was affixed to foundational pillars and the sun moved over us in the sky - what exactly would that make God?

Maybe we should start at the beginning. Do you understand that light and the 24-day was created on the first day? And that heaven wasn't created until the second day? And earth on the third day? And the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day?

Do you accept these scriptural teachings from God as the truth of the matter?

And you don't see a difference between a dream that is metaphorical (like a man being a tall tree) and a dream that is completely impossible (like a tree being tall enough to be seen by everyone everywhere on a ball)?

Besides, there is no scriptural indication that Jesus' account of Satan taking him to a very tall mountain was a dream, right?

I can see that the bait is attached to a hook, and I'm not going to bite.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to defend statements I haven't made.

More silly baiting.

Maybe you should stop treating me as though I'm ignorant.

Both are metaphorical and completely impossible in reality.

Genesis 1 does not state "and these things were created spontaneously out of thin air", the creation account only states "these things were made on that day". The Genesis 1 account tells us a chronology of creation but not methodology.

Your interpretation that it was necessarily spontaneous creation is wishful thinking and an example of people like you injecting something into scripture that wasn't there to begin with. Your interpretation that creation was spontaneous is possible but not necessary.

It would be like someone arguing that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate was an apple. It could have been an apple. It is possible but not necessary.

The fact that the structure of the verses is cause and effect (God said let there be xyz, then xyx came into being) does not remove the possibility that there was a method of creation not described.

Make up your mind.

Is it possible? Or impossible?

Unless there is a passage which clearly indicates spontaneous creation (or something else mutually exclusive to evolution), it remains possible that God used evolution/natural processes in order to create. There are no passages in Genesis 1 that indicate a necessity for spontaneous creation, therefore creation via natural methodology is possible and consistent with scripture.

Nowhere in the Bible does it state these these "day" timeframes were 24 standard hours each. That's beside the point. You don't need to have a Psalms 90:4 interpretation of "days" in order for evolution to have occurred. You can in fact have a completely scripturally valid interpretation that has BOTH 24-hour literal creation days and billions of years worth of evolution.

You could maybe challenge the model of evolution. You would need to understand the models of evolution well enough to form that analysis and criticism. It would still remain a possibility that from one lifeform a different one could be formed. We see this imagery in Gen 2 with the creation of Adam from dust of the ground. It wouldn't be impossible to create a new clay form from a different clay form.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" - Eph 1:4 KJV

The process of our creation was started from before the foundation of the world, but God continues to create us even in the womb (cf. Job 31:15). We can even make the case that our creation process does not stop until we are fully purified. The moment something is "made" this just indicates a substantial state or an expression of what one has currently been made into. It comes back to the topic of emergent properties.

A potter could finish a clay vessel on a certain day but could have spent several days beforehand forming the clay into an intended vessel. The pottery really isn't finished until it is tempered and set in fire.

They aren't mutually exclusive. They aren't necessarily contradictory.

This thread should have been called Religious Cults vs Scientism.

==================================

The .................Cambrian explosion conclusion ...................scientifically proves no evolution.

God, no doubt included adaptive change features n His design, because of man's intrusion resulting in changed environments, but....not to be confused with evolution as we understand interpreted by Darwin.

I agree that macro-evolution is speculative, but it remains a possible method that God could have used to create.

If we have multiple possible interpretations, we can agree that it is a mystery. And from a mystery we can either leave it as it is or speculate to see how the pieces fit together.

We can make a case for why a certain interpretation feels more compelling than another.

It might be the case that one person feels that macroevolution is compelling and another feels the opposite. We can have good points from either side that make their case but at the end of the day because both interpretations are consistent with scripture neither can exclusively speak from the authority of scripture to rule out the other... only by a purported authority or clout of their interpretation of scripture.

I think there is a good amount of room in the conversation to explore different interpretations and I think there is great value in comparing contrasting views. I just don't find it to be a valid argument to claim that scripture necessarily excludes the possibility of macroevolution/transmutation as some users have proposed.

I'm interested in what you mean by the Cambrian explosion and no evolution. I'm not familiar with the premise.