18 Jan 12
5 edits
Here's a Science discussion on Super Volcanoes possibly causing mass extinctions started by googlefudge.
This demonstrates my point that modern science seems to me to be inching closer and closer to the understanding that someting happened to cause the earth to be waste and void in the early ages before man's creation.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Gen. 1:1,2 Recovery Version )
Ie. Gap Interpretation or Destruction / Reconstruction in Genesis chapter 1.
Ie. Modern science theories of Killer Gas from the bottom of the Ocean, maybe Killer Comets, maybe Killer Asteriods, and here in googlefudge's thread maybe Killer Volcanoes.
Anyway, Something ? Something happened to cause the earth to become waste and void.
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Volcano_caused_mass_extinction%3F&threadid=144513
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillWhat are you suggesting? That plants and animals were created, the earth was later 'waste and void' and then man was created? Does this mean 'waste and void' does not actually mean 'no life'?
This demonstrates my point that modern science seems to me to be inching closer and closer to the understanding that someting happened to cause the earth to be waste and void in the early ages before man's creation.
Or are you trying desperately to try and back up your beliefs with science by totally misinterpreting science and hoping that nobody will notice?
18 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
What are you suggesting? That plants and animals were created, the earth was later 'waste and void' and then man was created? Does this mean 'waste and void' does not actually mean 'no life'?
Or are you trying desperately to try and back up your beliefs with science by totally misinterpreting science and hoping that nobody will notice?
What are you suggesting? That plants and animals were created, the earth was later 'waste and void' and then man was created? Does this mean 'waste and void' does not actually mean 'no life'?
Destruction / Reconstruction is a very old view of Genesis. It is not new or borne out of any "desperation".
There is nothing wrong with going back to exmine carefully exactly what the original language says rather than making hasty assumptions.
Or are you trying desperately to try and back up your beliefs with science by totally misinterpreting science and hoping that nobody will notice?
Whether all life extingquished in a state of "waste and void" may be argued. Perhaps "seeds" of vegatation or something like survived. I don't know. You don't either.
But that something has happened in a catastrophic way to the earth before the advent of humanity and humanity's world, is my belief. It is not new. It predates the invention of Geology and the formulation of an Evolution theory.
Gap Theory was not invented as an accomodation to modern Geology and / or Evolution. It may be used that way. But ancient Hebrew readers had that understanding of Genesis before the scientific age.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillFirstly, I didn't start that thread, I just posted on it (Actually I was the last person to post on it).
Here's a Science discussion on Super Volcanoes possibly causing mass extinctions started by googlefudge.
This demonstrates my point that modern science seems to me to be inching closer and closer to the understanding that someting happened to cause the earth to be waste and void in the early ages before man's creation.
"In the beginning God creat ssatwork.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Volcano_caused_mass_extinction%3F&threadid=144513
Second, The earth has had a long and varied history with all kinds of extinctions and rebirths caused
by all kinds of things none of which is in any way supportive of, or evidence for, any of the nonsense
in the bible.
Modern science is gaining a better and better understanding of Earth's history.
It isn't inching closer to thinking that the bible has anything useful to say on the subject.
It may seem like it is to you, but I can assure you that it really isn't, and never will.
Genesis is a fairy tale of creation written by people who were backwards in their understanding of the
world even for their own times, and thought that the world was, among other things, flat.
The poetic accounts of creation are so vague and open to interpretation that it's possible to twist the
meanings to be almost anything (especially if you don't limit yourself to taking it literally).
Science does not in any way shape or form support the Biblical version of creation, and trying to fit
scientific discoveries into genesis is both ridiculous and a bit pathetic.
To be meaningful, your biblical description of the formation of the earth would have to be precise, detailed,
unequivocal, and indisputable in it's interpretation. The biblical description is none of these things.
18 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Firstly, I didn't start that thread, I just posted on it (Actually I was the last person to post on it).
Second, The earth has had a long and varied history with all kinds of extinctions and rebirths caused
by all kinds of things none of which is in any way supportive of, or evidence for, any of the nonsense
in the bible.
Modern science is ga nd indisputable in it's interpretation. The biblical description is none of these things.
Firstly, I didn't start that thread, I just posted on it (Actually I was the last person to post on it).
Sorry then. I thought I noticed you as the starter.
Second, The earth has had a long and varied history with all kinds of extinctions and rebirths caused by all kinds of things none of which is in any way supportive of, or evidence for, any of the nonsense in the bible.
If you have a scientific FACT which you know which renders this statement as nonsense, tell us what it is.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Gen. 1:1)
What scientific FACT do you know such as it proves those two sentences are "nonsense" ?
And if I want to ask about FSM or IVU I'll ask about that. I am not interested that neither can you scientifically contradict the FSM or the IPU.
Modern science is gaining a better and better understanding of Earth's history.
That's great. That's what their paid to do.
My point was simple. The entrance of a number of catatrophic theories seems to move closer to the statements in Genesis about an apparent catastrophy which rendered the orderly world as we know it today, once waste and empty.
It isn't inching closer to thinking that the bible has anything useful to say on the subject. It may seem like it is to you, but I can assure you that it really isn't, and never will.
Grandiose pronouncements don't cut it. Neither does a unbeliever's wishful thinking.
You cannot "assure" me of any such thing. I can assure you, based on the track record of history, long after you're dead , billions of people on earth will still be reaping the benefits of truth, meaning and spiritual sustenance from the Bible.
Genesis is a fairy tale of creation written by people who were backwards in their understanding of the world even for their own times, and thought that the world was, among other things, flat.
If they did think it was flat they must of thought that it was flat and hung on nothing in space.
Job 26:7 - He [God] stretches ont the north over the void; He hangs the earth upon nothing."
The poetic accounts of creation are so vague and open to interpretation that it's possible to twist the
meanings to be almost anything (especially if you don't limit yourself to taking it literally).
Poetic accounts may be non-exhaustive in terms of detailed mechanical particulars. That does not mean they are not true. Nor does it mean they are nonsense.
They are especially not nonsense if they are breathed out in inspiration by God, albeit in common language of culture. His task it to communicate truth to the most number of the world's people.
I do not take simplicity to necessarily mean naivete.
I just don't think God intended to tell us by revelation a detailed scientific explanation of HOW He did everything in creation. If that were the case then maybe there would be 66 volumes just on the matter of a water molecule and how it works.
What God told us is simple and in relation to His eternal purpose and ,man's need for reconciliation to God and salvation from God. That is the central important matter. How He made a hydrogen molecule He feels not that pertinant to His communication.
He doesn't forbid us to try to find out on our own.
Science does not in any way shape or form support the Biblical version of creation, and trying to fit
I have not seen your reply yet. But again , I await your submission of a known scientific FACT that technically refutes Genesis1:1,2.
scientific discoveries into genesis is both ridiculous and a bit pathetic.
You assume erroneously that the Bible reader has to father ALL of his information about creation from Genesis alone. The creation of the world is mentioned in quite a few other places in the divine revelation besides JUST Genesis.
Gathering all the statements up together from their varied places, we are told quite a lot. But it is told, again, mainly in relation to God's plan and purpose.
Truth does not wait for the separation of church and state.
By this statement I know something your science seems unsure and more and more hesitant to tell us. That is that man is not an accident. But that the heavens and the earth are created with man in view.
Zechariah 12:1 - "The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him."
1.) The heavens are for the earth.
2.) The earth is for man.
3.) Man has a spirit created within him.
From other parts of the Bible we learn that the human spirit is meant to touch God and be one with God -
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
We have learned quite a lot in these two passages. Your science seems in the dark about it. Many regard man as some kind of accident. And to many it would be absurd to think that the universe was made with man in view.
Of course some more thoughtul scientists, fortunately, detect that this does not seem to be the case.
To be meaningful, your biblical description of the formation of the earth would have to be precise, detailed,
unequivocal, and indisputable in it's interpretation. The biblical description is none of these things.
Not true. You define "meaningful" only in terms of what satisfies you technical curiosity.
Meaningful also can legitimately mean, for example, how are human beings unique among all these other creatures and among all other things in existence.
So it is exeedingly meaningful that the Bible tells us that man was made in the image of God and according to God's likeness - Gen. 1:26,27.
That is very meaningful to a lot of us even though details were not provided on how a wasp stinger was made or how a hydrogen molecule was made in exhaustive detail.
18 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's a deal.
Please, do. Just don't call it science.
But I think I agree with some who say "All truth is God's truth."
I can't say "God couldn't have created the universe and life because that would endanger the separation of church and state." Truth doesn't care about that separation.
But that the language of the Bible, say in Genesis, is scientifically imprecise according to moderns standards, I completely agree.
That is not the same saying it is unscientific.
And it is not the same as saying that it cannot be true and is nonsense.
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywill"But that the language of the Bible, say in Genesis, is scientifically imprecise according to moderns standards, I completely agree."
But that the language of the Bible, say in Genesis, is scientifically imprecise according to moderns standards, I completely agree.
That is not the same saying it is unscientific.
And it is not the same as saying that it cannot be true and is nonsense.
That's a good start.
Now, where is the science?
18 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI said the language is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards.
[b]"But that the language of the Bible, say in Genesis, is scientifically imprecise according to moderns standards, I completely agree."
That's a good start.
Now, where is the science?[/b]
Like the following sentence might be imprecise -
"When the sun came up this morning I was jogging."
Well, precisely according to modern science language we might insist that we were jogging when the earth rotated towards the sunlight this morning.
" Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind ..."
The language is imprecise according to modern standards. Details of cell miotosis, protein synthesis, DNA replication are lacking.
18 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSo you say that genesis is unscientific? Yes, I agree.
I said the language is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards.
Like the following sentence might be imprecise -
"When the sun came up this morning I was jogging" .
Well, precisely according to modern science language we might insist that we were jogging when the earth rotated towards the sunlight this morning.
" Let modern standards. Details of cell miotosis, protein synthesis, DNA replication are lacking.
Does it even claim to be scientific? No, it doesn't.
It's just part of the mythology of that time.
18 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think the term would be "pre-scientific".
So you say that genesis is unscientific? Yes, I agree.
Does it even claim to be scientific? No, it doesn't.
It's just part of the mythology of that time.
The language of the Bible is often imprecise according to modern standards.
Ie. In Revelation there is something about the stars falling from heaven to the earth. Obviously, according to modern scientific language we would not hold that a "star" would fall to the earth.
Now 2,000 years ago a meteor shower might be viewed as "stars" falling to the earth.
Do you agree ?
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillIf you define pre-scientific in this way, then, okay. But not scientific.
I think the term would be "pre-scientific".
The language of the Bible is often imprecise according to modern standards.
Ie. In Revelation there is something about the stars falling from heaven to the earth. Obviously, according to modern scientific language we would not hold that a "star" would fall to the earth.
Now 2,000 years ago a meteor shower might be viewed as "stars" falling to the earth.
Do you agree ?
We don't want to be sloppy about definitions, do we?
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillActually, I do. The mass extinction we are talking about included a large number of known species that went extinct, and a large number that didn't. It is quite well known which major groups of animals and plants survived.
Whether all life extingquished in a state of "waste and void" may be argued. Perhaps "seeds" of vegatation or something like survived. I don't know. You don't either.
If you claim I do not know this, then you are talking about a completely different event from the one the scientists are talking about and should stop trying to associate your ideas with theirs.
But that something has happened in a catastrophic way to the earth before the advent of humanity and humanity's world, is my belief. It is not new. It predates the invention of Geology and the formulation of an Evolution theory.
So whats so exiting about the volcanoes? According to science, the earth started off as a flaming ball of lava. Surely that is catastrophic enough?
Geology wasn't invented. It is a branch of study.
Gap Theory was not invented as an accomodation to modern Geology and / or Evolution. It may be used that way. But ancient Hebrew readers had that understanding of Genesis before the scientific age.
What I don't understand is why you want to associate any of your beliefs with science when you don't accept the science. I am not claiming science pre-dates your claims, I am saying that you want to associate your beliefs with scientific findings in the hope of legitimizing them.
18 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs a discipline Geology was invented just like any other "ology" was invented.
Actually, I do. The mass extinction we are talking about included a large number of known species that went extinct, and a large number that didn't. It is quite well known which major groups of animals and plants survived.
If you claim I do not know this, then you are talking about a completely different event from the one the scientists are talking abou u want to associate your beliefs with scientific findings in the hope of legitimizing them.
What do you lose by saying Geology or Astronomy or Pyschology are inventions of people ?