Science AND Genesis

[DaveD49]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Slowly forming Earth

Now the earth was formless and void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water. God said 'Let there be light', and their was light.

(Gen1:2-3)

Imagine for a minute that you were sitting on the planet at the time it was first developing from slowly settling dust, moisture and stone. You would be able to see nothing, because the dust and moisture in the sky would block out all to sun's rays. Over a loooong period of time eventually as more dust settled the light of the sun could be seen even though you still could not see the sun itself. I have read where scientists have said that during this period of time it rained for over 10,000 years. We are in what the Bible calls the first day. The sun and the moon do not become visible until the fourth day. (BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.)

Super-Continents

God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens come together in a single mass and let dry land appear'. And so it was. God called the dry land 'earth' the the mass of waters 'seas'

(Gen1:9-10)

As more dust settled, dry land appeared starting in one place with one land mass.

Abiogenesis

This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.

God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees...

(Gen 1:11)

God said, Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly about the earth within the vault of heaven.

(Gen 1:20)

God said, Let the earth produce every kind of living creature: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast.

Gen 1:24

Note that in each case it does not say that God "zapped" them into being, but rather caused the EARTH or the WATERS to produce them. Note also the Bible also states

Evolution

Note please that in general the order of appearance of various living things corresponds to an evolutionary line-up. Simple plants, sea life, "great sea monsters", reptiles, mammals and man.

[Diogenes]

So man's ideas about God most certainly are a human invention, but the true nature of God lies far beyond our capabilities of finding out.

True, man's ideas of God are all we have and IF there were a God it would be beyond our ability to define. As Paul Tillich wrote, God is not a being, it is the 'very ground of being.' Tillich goes on in his 3 volumes of 'Systematic Theology' to try to define God as something between the personal and a god that merges with the universe. He fails, in my not so humble opinion.

....
I am truly sorry that you have not been able to sense Him.

I was an evangelical Christian from age 7 to 30 something. I was a missionary. I 'preached the gospel.' Then I studied, prepared for seminary, and read and asked "If God exists, then what?"

No, I do not sense 'god' or 'gods' or 'God.' I see the fantasy. I understand the illusion. Perhaps there is something beyond our ability to define or understand. I hope so. But it certainly is not that buffoon, that caricature of a 'god' presented in the Bible. All an honest man can do is be open to truth and not pretend he has captured it.

[DaveD49]

So man's ideas about God most certainly are a human invention, but the true nature of God lies far beyond our capabilities of finding out.

True, man's ideas of God are all we have and IF there were a God it would be beyond our ability to define. As Paul Tillich wrote, God is not a being, it is the 'very ground of being.' Tillich goes on in his 3 volumes of 'Systematic Theology' to try to define God as something between the personal and a god that merges with the universe. He fails, in my not so humble opinion.

....
I am truly sorry that you have not been able to sense Him.

I was an evangelical Christian from age 7 to 30 something. I was a missionary. I 'preached the gospel.' Then I studied, prepared for seminary, and read and asked "If God exists, then what?"

No, I do not sense 'god' or 'gods' or 'God.' I see the fantasy. I understand the illusion. Perhaps there is something beyond our ability to define or understand. I hope so. But it certainly is not that buffoon, that caricature of a 'god' presented in the Bible. All an honest man can do is be open to truth and not pretend he has captured it.

Of course the concept of God presented in the Bible, especially the early Old Testament is a caricature of Him. What else could it be? And there are many different caricatures presented. What is unique about the Old Testament is that essentially it is the story of one people's search for God over a period of thousands of years. At each stage in their history there was a marked period of greater understanding. There are, if I remember correctly, 27 different names for God used the the Old Testament, such as Yahweh, Yahweh Sabaoth, El Shaddai, Elohim, and Adonai. Each name describes a different aspect of God. Anyone who just reads about the concept of God as presented by Noah through Moses ls getting an extremely primitive view of what the people of those times thought God was like. I think that it is unfortunate that they did not put the books of the Bible in order of the age of the story being told. As it is there are numerous jumps between a primitive view and a greater understanding that make it seem as if the same view is prevalent throughout the entire Bible. God as presented in say the Psalms is very different that the idea of God held in Moses' time. Some of the books deleted from Protestant text I think add significantly to a deeper understanding of God. But the cumulation of the Old Testament is the New Testament and it is on that that Christianity is built. I accepted Jesus' message of love long before I accepted Him. And it is that message of love and forgiveness that we should never lose track of, but often have over time. I have yet find anyone whose soul was still alive that objected to that message. I am certain that you have already embraced that message to a degree yourself. But I think that it is only when you make it the driving force of you life that I believe that people can sense the presence of Him. "If God exists, then what?" We discover and live in perfect and all embracing love.

[otseng]

Hmm. It seems that with over 100 responses that other people had no problem seeing a question for debate. I am still fairly new here so I have to ask if there a specific format that must be followed and if so where can that format be found?

Refer to Tips on starting a debate topic.