Where Does It Say That In THE BIBLE

[jordanriver]

In the "How is it so?" thread, I inquired:
Originally posted by jordanriver
How is it so? (good title for this thread)
How is it so that science has disproven YEC unless YEC is science (and can be falsified)

Is 'God-did-it' science ?

and Biologos101 replied:

Originally posted by Biologos101
It has falsified it by proving the earth is more the 10,000 years old. It has falsified it by proving that everything came from a common ancestor. It does not have to be science for science to falsify it. Geocentric model is not real science, but has been falsified by proving the sun is the center of our solar system.

I've read the Bible through and I can't find where it says the earth is more than 10,000 years old and I cannot find where it says that everything came from a common ancestor. I kinow a little about science and I haven't been able to find any proofs that a 'creating' God does not exist.

And what do you mean the geocentric model (the Ptolemaic system) is not 'real' science. How do you determine that. If its falsified, do you just say, oh well, then it wasn't really science. ?

FYI, Claudius Ptolemy (AD 100?-170?) the first to use latitude and longitude to tell position on a map, studied previous studies and with the observations of Hipparchus , "Ptolemy's model allowed the prediction of the position of stars and planets to the necessary accuracy required by sailors. Without this Columbus would less probably started the voyage to “India”"
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Geography.htm

JR

[KBertsche]

In the "How is it so?" thread, I inquired:
Originally posted by jordanriver
How is it so? (good title for this thread)
How is it so that science has disproven YEC unless YEC is science (and can be falsified)

Is 'God-did-it' science ?

and Biologos101 replied:

Originally posted by Biologos101
It has falsified it by proving the earth is more the 10,000 years old. It has falsified it by proving that everything came from a common ancestor. It does not have to be science for science to falsify it. Geocentric model is not real science, but has been falsified by proving the sun is the center of our solar system.

I've read the Bible through and I can't find where it says the earth is more than 10,000 years old and I cannot find where it says that everything came from a common ancestor. I kinow a little about science and I haven't been able to find any proofs that a 'creating' God does not exist.

And what do you mean the geocentric model (the Ptolemaic system) is not 'real' science. How do you determine that. If its falsified, do you just say, oh well, then it wasn't really science. ?

FYI, Claudius Ptolemy (AD 100?-170?) the first to use latitude and longitude to tell position on a map, studied previous studies and with the observations of Hipparchus , "Ptolemy's model allowed the prediction of the position of stars and planets to the necessary accuracy required by sailors. Without this Columbus would less probably started the voyage to “India”"
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Geography.htm

JR

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but this is what the YEC interpretation of the Bible concludes. They get this by treating all of the genealogies as literal, with no (or few) gaps, and by treating the creation as seven literal 24-hour days, with nothing before Day One.

But back to your original question: it seems to me that YEC wants to both claim to be scientific, and to fall back on an untestable "God-did-it" when necessary. As I've mentioned here, their approach seems to be philosophically schizophrenic.

[jordanriver]

But back to your original question: it seems to me that YEC wants to both claim to be scientific, and to fall back on an untestable "God-did-it" when necessary. As I've mentioned here, their approach seems to be philosophically schizophrenic.

Hence my advice not to rely on the unreliable here .

Always read the expiration date on a "scientific theory"

Better yet, when it comes to 'origins', I'll stick with the Word of God.

If I want a cure for Adrenocortical carcinoma then I'll call one of the useful scientists doing research at St Jude.


If I want to see what some of the current progress for treating Parkinson's Disease, then I'll ask one of the useful scientists researching at the Department of Neurology at the Kansas University Medical Center.

If I need a solution to the energy crisis, say, a high-capacity battery material that could lead to super-efficient hybrid cars and electric vehicles, then I'll call a useful research scientist from MIT.

If I am worried about feeding 6.5 to 7 billion people on Earth, then I'll inquire about better crop yields from one of the useful research scientists at Kansas State University.

but then, , you already know my position on this.

JR

[Biologos101]

In the "How is it so?" thread, I inquired:
Originally posted by jordanriver
How is it so? (good title for this thread)
How is it so that science has disproven YEC unless YEC is science (and can be falsified)

Is 'God-did-it' science ?

and Biologos101 replied:

Originally posted by Biologos101
It has falsified it by proving the earth is more the 10,000 years old. It has falsified it by proving that everything came from a common ancestor. It does not have to be science for science to falsify it. Geocentric model is not real science, but has been falsified by proving the sun is the center of our solar system.

I've read the Bible through and I can't find where it says the earth is more than 10,000 years old and I cannot find where it says that everything came from a common ancestor. I kinow a little about science and I haven't been able to find any proofs that a 'creating' God does not exist.

And what do you mean the geocentric model (the Ptolemaic system) is not 'real' science. How do you determine that. If its falsified, do you just say, oh well, then it wasn't really science. ?

FYI, Claudius Ptolemy (AD 100?-170?) the first to use latitude and longitude to tell position on a map, studied previous studies and with the observations of Hipparchus , "Ptolemy's model allowed the prediction of the position of stars and planets to the necessary accuracy required by sailors. Without this Columbus would less probably started the voyage to “India”"
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Geography.htm

JR

That Bible does not say the earth is more then 10,000 years old, but it also DOES NOT say that the earth is younger then 10,000 years old. YEC have interpreted that from the lineage of Adam to other characters we can put an actual date on. But you see, you get myths like the yec hypothesis when you do not read the bible as it was meant to be read. There are different genres written for different reasons. You cannot read poetry for history and get an accurate interpretation.

[Messor Mortis]

That Bible does not say the earth is more then 10,000 years old, but it also DOES NOT say that the earth is younger then 10,000 years old. YEC have interpreted that from the lineage of Adam to other characters we can put an actual date on. But you see, you get myths like the yec hypothesis when you do not read the bible as it was meant to be read. There are different genres written for different reasons. You cannot read poetry for history and get an accurate interpretation.

you also cannot read history as poetry and get an accurate interpretation either

[Biologos101]

you also cannot read history as poetry and get an accurate interpretation either

You are right. No argument there. But it seems if you understand the bible you would understand Gen. 1 cannot be history, because the bible is not a science text book (hence it saying the earth is in a fixed location and has four corners). So if you read Gen. 1 as history, which it is clearly not, then you get inaccurate interpretations and the denial of the scientific laws that God put into place.

[Adrift]

You are right. No argument there. But it seems if you understand the bible you would understand Gen. 1 cannot be history, because the bible is not a science text book

While I agree with you that the Bible is not a science text book and probably shouldn't be treated as such, I think its a bit much to say it "cannot be history". Why can't it be history?

(hence it saying the earth is in a fixed location and has four corners).

This is only slightly figurative language meant to convey a broader point. The "four corners" of the earth is simply the 4 points of a compass. North, South, East, West. Heck the same book of the Bible that mentions the 4 corners (or borders or extremities, or however you want to translate it to make better sense of it) reads both:

Isaiah 11:11

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.
12He will raise a signal for the nations
and will assemble the banished of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

And as for the fixed location, the earth is fixed. It's fixed in orbit around the sun. The earth doesn't float around in the galaxy like a comet. Just because the Bible is ancient and the writers sometimes wrote in figures of speech, doesn't mean that the writers were idiots.
I think when we take portions of scripture that were meant to convey historical events, we can rely on these events to be factual.

That said, I don't personally believe the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Truth be told, I don't know how old the earth really is. I sort of side with the gap theory on this that there may have been an unknown period of history between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but its simply a theory. I do know that the Bible has proven itself again and again to be reliable, both evidentially and experientially.

So if you read Gen. 1 as history, which it is clearly not, then you get inaccurate interpretations and the denial of the scientific laws that God put into place.

I don't think that's true. I think it's perfectly fine and consistent to be both a Bible believing Christian and agree with modern scientific laws.

[oxmixmudd]

While I agree with you that the Bible is not a science text book and probably shouldn't be treated as such, I think its a bit much to say it "cannot be history". Why can't it be history?

It can be - but only to the extent such a conclusion is consistent with reality. If we find a text that appears to be history but is provably NOT historical, what then? I think one must, if one believes the Bible to be inerrant and inspired by God, assume God had something else in mind, but didn't put a big fat label on the text saying, for example: "parable here->"

This is only slightly figurative language meant to convey a broader point. The "four corners" of the earth is simply the 4 points of a compass. North, South, East, West. Heck the same book of the Bible that mentions the 4 corners (or borders or extremities, or however you want to translate it to make better sense of it) reads both:

I think to be fair 'four corners' is consistent with a flat earth, but does not have to imply a flat earth. Couple that with other texts that are clearly flat earth, you would need clear evidence they did not understand the Earth as being flat and square to be able to conclude the original intent of the text was figurative. You may have that - but you can't just dismiss flat earth because it could mean something else ...

Isaiah 11:11

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.
12He will raise a signal for the nations
and will assemble the banished of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

And there you go! Yes, this does seem to indicate the Hebrews did not understand the shape of the flat earth to be square, hence lending credence to the idea the four corners was a figurative reference to the four points of the compass. However, a circle is a two dimensional surface - and this text is more consistent with the (circular) flat earth/domed sky ANE cosmology than the modern view. Considering it is very likely that is what the writer's understood to be the structure of the Earth and Cosmos, It makes sense to assume that is the literal meaning of the text. However, believing God inspired the text, we can look for more beneath the surface ...

And as for the fixed location, the earth is fixed. It's fixed in orbit around the sun.

That is not the same as unmoving. The ancients had no knowledge of an orbiting Earth, or a Sun orbiting a galaxy, or a galaxy moving through space to a monstrous galactic cluster. When we look at all the texts of the Bible that describe the earth and the heavens, only by making almost all of them figurative (motivated primarily by eisegetically importing our modern knowledge of the cosmos into the text) can one not derive the ANE cosmology: a flat surface surrounded by waters, a firm, domed sky resting on pillars with waters above and in which is placed the sun, moon, and stars.

The earth doesn't float around in the galaxy like a comet.

Actually - it does. Exactly like a comet. It orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the central core of the galaxy, just like a comet does.

Just because the Bible is ancient and the writers sometimes wrote in figures of speech, doesn't mean that the writers were idiots.

No - they were not idiots. They were faithful and intelligent men. But they were absolutely ignorant of 99.9% of what we know about the cosmos and the Earth. This was not their fault by any stretch of the imagination. The Earth was not discovered to be a sphere till 300BC, and the earth to orbit the sun till the early 1600's AD.

I think when we take portions of scripture that were meant to convey historical events, we can rely on these events to be factual.

Within the context of the culture in which is was written. But to expect God to have supernaturally superseded that knowledge in every case, or even in most cases is contrary to the evidence.

That said, I don't personally believe the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Truth be told, I don't know how old the earth really is. I sort of side with the gap theory on this that there may have been an unknown period of history between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but its simply a theory. I do know that the Bible has proven itself again and again to be reliable, both evidentially and experientially.

This is true, as long as you do not impose an invalid interpretive paradigm upon it. In this it is critical we be measured and intelligent as we study and read. God does not always tell us when He is speaking symbolically, at least not right away. Jesus often spoke to people in ways that they took literally yet he meant symbolically. And he did so without explanation and often in a way as almost to be deliberately misleading.

Many of the OT prophesies of Messiah have other contexts in which they are written that have NOTHING to do with Messiah. I think one thing we can learn from this is that God is not always clear, because He wants us listening in our spirit, not just with or minds. He wants us to think deeper than the surface, and, I think, He wants to make sure we remember what He tells us. That which is easily learned is often also easily forgotten. But that which requires effort and time, struggle and thought to learn often stays with us quite some time.

I don't think that's true. I think it's perfectly fine and consistent to be both a Bible believing Christian and agree with modern scientific laws.

I don't think the point was not to be Bible believing, but rather to understand the proper purpose of the text. How can one properly believe the Bible unless one understands properly what is being said? So what biologos is saying is that if it was not God's intent to provide a chronological and technically accurate historical description of how God made the Earth and the Universe, and you read it as if it is, you end up with ... well, you end up with your Biblical interpretation being at odds with the witness of God's creation. And since that is what we are up against, it seems to me a pretty good clue that is not likely to be an accurate view of God's purpose for the text.


Jim

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What do you expect the Bible to say on page 1?

Dear Reader: The date is 4034 B.C. As you read, God is beginning to create. Please enjoy the creation narrative. Moses is recording this knowing full well the calendar will change in 4064 years....

Um. No.

The Bible simply records the creation. I do not believe it is meant to be dogmatic on how long creation took. It's only point is "God was the one behind it and only one God."

[JonLanceBarker]

The Bible simply records the creation. I do not believe it is meant to be dogmatic on how long creation took.

Or the exact processes involved.