Poll concerning Creation(ism)

Apparrantly not if believers here are discussing their differences of opinion, all the while saved by Jesus.

 

It's not for us to know. We can believe and have faith but we can't know for certain. Creation is not an observable act. There is an significant faith element. But faith isn't knowledge. There is a HUGE epistemological difference.

Just like God doesn't completely reveal many things. As Paul says we look through a mirror dimly, we don't understand all the mystery of God's ways and that should be okay with us. Creation is one of those things. We shouldn't condemn people who hold a different view. It isn't something we can know for certain, but we can have faith in how God has revealed Himself.

Frankly the language of the Hebrew is not a crystal clear as others have said and the Bible isn't a science textbook. You want some crazy unclear langauge look at the first book of Bible and the last book fo the Bible. Revelation is written in some of the most confusing Greek out there, it is actually mightily different in form and function than the rest of the NT.

I think it's okay for God to not reveal everything. We have lots of stuff we are to believing in faith and not know in knowledge. I'm okay with that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't believe God does lie to anyone, I just believe this is one of those things that, metaphysically and epistemologically speaking, is beyond "provability."

Why can't we stop saying, that just because a good brother in Christ has a serious question about the nature of creation (but doesn't deny that God created) is denying God's Word. When we do this we take the Bible and add it as a divine figure in the Trinity (usually after we remove the Holy Spirit.) Why must we constantly be telling people if you don't read it the same way I do than you're wrong?

Creation is not a knowledge thing, it is a faith thing. I weep when someone questions another Christian's faith and salvation when they have serious, and legitimate, questions about a confusing set of passages.

 

The resurrection is not observable by us either.

 

Science is a method. An aproach to understanding something. It can not be authoritative in its own right. In science what is authoritative is observable data. Not the method in of itself. I think I understand your statement about we cannot understand scripture in light of science. If Theology is a science than we cannot understand the bible theologically either. Your definition will leave out systematic theologians.

What do you use to interpret scripture?

Archeologist found the city of Jericho? Is this faulty? Or is science only faulty when it doesn't agree with the bible. More to the point. Is science only faulty if it disagrees with what you believe about the bible?

For instance Mormons (I puposely picked a heretical group) believe that Jesus apeared to a civilization in the america's that came from Isreal. There is no evidecnce of this no data. Science evidence says this is not true. Is science evidence wrong?

You and I beleive God's word is reliable. But you and I differ on what that may mean.

There is a danger in what you state. Science can and does promote the scriptures such as the qumran find. Does scripture have to be translated in such a way that agrees with what you believe? I mean look at the multitudes of christian churchs agreeing disagreeing on about every issue. Surely the Holy Spirit is not the author of all this discord is it? Can Science lead us to the truth. I believe so. Can it be used to understand scripture. Sure. Will it lead me away from Jesus. No.

Now scientist can be wrong in the conclusions they draw or they can hinder true science but thats not the methods fault. It's the scientist and their biasis that make the error. It then is not based on fact and build upon a wrong premise. What if issues were built on the right premise? What would the conclusions be?

 

Oh, but it is... no where in the plan of salvation does it say a person has to believe in a literal 6 day creation...

Therefore it makes it a secondary issue...
Only issues that deal directly with Salvation is primary issues.

And BTW, I believe in a literal 6 day creation...

Those 6 days does not establish the Gospel.. The perfection of Adam, the fall of Adam.. is the closest we can come to injecting the Gospel into Genesis 1.

And one does not need to believe that God created it in 6 literal days to believe that through Adam all sin came.

 

True but what is observable (unless you're James Cameron) is that the tomb is empty. You won't find Jesus' bones anywhere. Creation has left it's mark on the universe. And God's hand is in it.

 

But is was observed by trustworthy sources...
The same way Creation was observed by a Trustworthy source, then wrote a book to explain it to finite man.

 

Fair enough. Let me make myself more clear. The conclusions that is reached by the secular scientists is faulty regarding scripture because they start out with the premise that there is no God. This is the premise of evolution. The sad part is Christians are grabbing hold of these conclusions based on this ungodly (therefore faulty)premise and trying to mix God into to it. Which is like trying to put an elevator in an outhouse. What I meant was that the conclusions of these faulty premises are not to be used to interpret scripture

 

Yea I said that a number of posts back. I was making a point.

 

What about Christians who are in science, begin with a Creator God in mind and come to a different conclusion?

I can think of several off hand, some who I know personally, who are fine Christian people but believe differently about the nature and role of creation. In reaching this conclusion they began at faith and used that faith to understand their reasons for belief.

Fides quaerens intellectum

 

Sorry but some want to take the fall of Adam literally but not Genesis 1? We need to be careful of chapter divisions and using them to separate scripture. These divisions were not in the original manuscripts but were added later. I think this sets up all kinds of faulty views namely that Genesis 1 in poetry and 2 & 3 are a different kind of language.

 

Tim, let's get real here. We STILL say there are four corners to the globe. Why? Because of the there ARE 4 corners - N, S, E, and W.

The Jews didn't write the bible so it lines up with their current understanding. God moved via the Holy Ghost/Spirit upon Godly men to write it. God said there are 4 corners not man, even though it was a sphere. As I stated also we today still make the statement of there being four corners or points. Do we still believe in a flat earth? No, we understand the language to refer to the 4 points of the compass.

 

Then you need to understand when we say the bible needs to be taken literally that simply means we take it literally where it needs to be and take it literally as symbolism where it needs to be.

Literally simply means we take it as the context directs us to. We take it for what it is literally (or truly) saying it is to be.

 

I believe in the literal 6-day creation, young universe. If it isn't true in the Genesis account, how would I know what to believe? I take it as it is in the Bible. I know B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodges didn't and Scofield went with the gap to go along with the old earth, but I disagree with these smart men. Darwin, Huxley , Lyell and others from their camp aren't go to cause me to twist the Scriptures.

 

Revmitchell: //Mans science is faulty and ever changing//

IMHO you understand neither 'man', 'science', nor 'faulty'.

Here are the Axioms whereby 'science' was logically formed:

In the beginning God created the Universe(s) [i.e.heavens and the earth.
God is not arbitrary but predictable & unchanging - so what you observe is how His Universe works.

Obviously, if one's science then says "There ain't no God" - that 'science' is logically faulty - you just cannot logically contradict your axiom(s).

 

Actually, no. Science (and evolutionary theory) don't presuppose or deny the existence of God. They are...well...agnostic to the issue. Science is done to test and explain how nature operates. The supernatural is beyond the capability of science to test. Therefore science is silent on the supernatural, and limits itself to the study of natural events.

 

If that makes you more comfortable to believe that then go right ahead. There is nothing natural about the creation of this Universe.

 

I agree with MP on this one...Which is why one of my Science profs said that it can never be proven that God does not exist.

Science is a tool to understand the the natural.
Faith is the tool to understand the supernatural.

If Faith is involved in Science, it is no longer Science..
And if Science is required for faith, it is no longer faith.

Science cannot disprove the existence of God because in order to set up a controlled experiment one would have to have somewhere that God is not present... which is incompatible with the very meaning of God.

At the same time, and for the same reasons, Science can never prove there is a God.

When a "scientist" says there is no God, they are basing that statement on faith, and not science.... and is not really upholding their dogma of only making conclusions on observable facts.

So a true scientist will never say there is no God... it can't be proved.. it can't be observed.. There is no way to even conduct the experiment...

 

Dawkins would disagree with you.

 

To my knowledge no one has even brought up the crazyman Richard Dawkins (a man whom most scientists of any stripe have walked away from.) The major subject here is how faithful Christians can disagree over this issue and remain faithful to God. To paint those who disagree with you as Dawkins' lovers is a wrongheaded argument completely. :)