Science and religion - are they compatible?

[abelisle]

According to the Church of England, they are:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iE-PStDWRHLP5KyA9GU8AOsySdQQ

What do you think?

I'll chime in later. Gotta get ready to teach my Sabbath School class (goodness).

Nothing like paralysis by analysis, I say!

Alex

[Gerr]

It seems to me the scientist who believes in the Creator would be doubly blessed. So, yes, they are not only compatible but complementary.

[Cosmin M.]

They are compatibly incompatible.

[Bravus]

Our small group will soon be studying the Test of Faith materials on the relationship of science and religion. You can get a sense of their perspective at http://www.testoffaith.com

My own belief is that they are compatible but likely not commensurable.

[SivartM]

Of course. Science is just observing what God did and does.

[abelisle]

Okay, I'm home from church and 4 things came up that can become serious issues:

1) They can coexist but can they be compatible?

2) Should the Bible be used as a scientific text?

3) Can the scientific method be applicable to religious issues?

4) How does a Christian reconcile the geological record with the "young Earth" (Biblical) belief that the Earth was created in 6 literal days and the presence of dinosaurs?

Alex (let's see if someone will try to sneak "socialism" into this thread? )

P.S. I didn't look at the link to the video as to allow me to make unbiased statements.

[WayneV]

Okay, I'm home from church and 4 things came up that can become serious issues:

1) They can coexist but can they be compatible?

2) Should the Bible be used as a scientific text?

3) Can the scientific method be applicable to religious issues?

4) How does a Christian reconcile the geological record with the "young Earth" (Biblical) belief that the Earth was created in 6 literal days and the presence of dinosaurs?

Alex (let's see if someone will try to sneak "socialism" into this thread? )

P.S. I didn't look at the link to the video as to allow me to make unbiased statements.

1) Yes

2) No, but it can give us a base for scientifically examining issues that are raised therein.

3) Yes

4) Prayerfully, honestly, and begin by asking, "Must these be reconciled, and will it affect my faith if they are not reconciled?

Agape`

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: abelisle

Okay, I'm home from church and 4 things came up that can become serious issues:

1) They can coexist but can they be compatible?

2) Should the Bible be used as a scientific text?

3) Can the scientific method be applicable to religious issues?

4) How does a Christian reconcile the geological record with the "young Earth" (Biblical) belief that the Earth was created in 6 literal days and the presence of dinosaurs?

Alex (let's see if someone will try to sneak "socialism" into this thread? )

P.S. I didn't look at the link to the video as to allow me to make unbiased statements.

1) Yes

2) No, but it can give us a base for scientifically examining issues that are raised therein.

3) Yes

4) Prayerfully, honestly, and begin by asking, "Must these be reconciled, and will it affect my faith if they are not reconciled?

Agape`

Wayne I think you make some very good points and I agree with each of your answers as well.

pk

[Gerr]

Okay, I'm home from church and 4 things came up that can become serious issues:

1) They can coexist but can they be compatible?

Why not? Isn't science about the pursuit of truth?

Quote:

2) Should the Bible be used as a scientific text?

I don't think it was meant to be a physical science book. But it was meant to be a text in the science of salvation.

Quote:

3) Can the scientific method be applicable to religious issues?

Only up to a point because they are dealing with different issues, that's why I said in my original response that they are complementary.

Quote:

4) How does a Christian reconcile the geological record with the "young Earth" (Biblical) belief that the Earth was created in 6 literal days and the presence of dinosaurs?

Their theories are not provable or reproducible, so they are dealing with theories and not facts.

[Dr. Shane]

When we talk about science, what are we talking about? I am a contractor. Every day I deal with engineering which is a science. I must build buildings that will not fall down when the Earth moves or the wind blows. Medical doctors and nurses deal with science every day. Technicians working in telecommunications, water & sewer treatment, power generation & distribution, aviation and manufacturing are immersed in science. Geologists looking for oil and gas reserves do nothing but science. Farmers breeding animals, growing and harvesting crops are practicing science. The weather man or woman on the local news is a scientist. Religion is completely compatible with all of these science-based careers.

So what do we mean by using the word "science"? Are we just talking about evolution?

1) They can coexist but can they be compatible?

[karl]

Quote:

3) Can the scientific method be applicable to religious issues?

Well, one scientific principle is that everything must have a natural explanation. So science places limits on itself. Science excludes the consideration of the supernatural. So obviously many things in the religious world are outside the scope of science.

Quote:

4) How does a Christian reconcile the geological record with the "young Earth" (Biblical) belief that the Earth was created in 6 literal days and the presence of dinosaurs?

There are several working models that various Christian groups have. Science is not written in stone like God's Ten Commandments are. Scientists quickly admit they don't have all the answers and don't understand everything. New science often replaces old science.

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method concerning the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge about the physical world. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

All of us use science every day. Christians and non-christians alike.

Religion and science are very compatible except in the theory of evolution. This is where science so-called leaves the field of observation and enters the realm of faith. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a Creator. For one thing, there just isn't enough time even if all those happy accidents happened one right after another in the development of the human genome. 3.4 billion bases in the human genome. For each of these point mutations to happen, be expressed in offspring, and then experience natural selection pressures to select for them would have taken FAR MORE TIME than big bang theory allows. Impossible.

Reverse incompatibility is where religion gains political power and tries to dictate science (ie Galileo vs the papacy.) Fortunately, we, as Adventists have been opposed to religion having political power.

Some very brilliant scientists throughout history have been religious.

[The Searcher]

Dear Friends,

As a geologist, I am faced with these issues daily.

1. Yes, they co-exist. It is only sinful man who tries to make it otherwise. This is because they have limited science to only material explanations without any divine input. Creation cannot be totally defined by material explanations. There is a point where God spoke, and it became so. He formed man from the dust of the earth which explains our molecular make-up, but it doesn't give us a method to determine how He created us.

Most sciences have an ability to put probes to a problem and obtain data. Thus a geologist or a geophysicists can apply science to finding oil and gas or ores in their present locations. In the areas where we can test a phenomena physically, science does very well. But other sciences are forensic and historical in nature. We were not there when the events took place which formed our present earth and the solar system or the universe. This requires obtaining evidence based upon certain assumptions, some good and some bad. And the assumptions color the results.

2. Should the Bible be used as a scientific text? No, it was never a discussion about science. But the Bible is a history of God's interaction with sinful man. Therefore, when it comes to historical information, then it overrides the so-called forensic historical approaches such as those areas in Geology, Geophysics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Astronomy, and Archeology. Let us remember that these sciences are dealing with historical events using forensic scientific methodologies. We need to understand that these sciences are trying to reconstruct a history of physical events which culminated in the universe we see today. They work quite well with very recent events, but do more poorly as they go back in time. It is the assumptions which cause the problems. Make sure you understand the difference between those sciences which deal with current physical phenomena, and those which try to reconstruct past physical phenomena. God was there from the beginning; He can be trusted to give the true historical account. And part of the Biblical historic accounts is a description of past physical phenomena such as creation and the flood. The Bible is God's revelation to man about His interaction with the earth. He is the creator, and He knows how He did it, and He has revealed it to us in a historical account. And it is interesting that when the historical account given in the Bible is challenged, it turns out to be correct. But that is not the case for the forensic sciences. They usually change their scenarios. Never get confused. Forensic is a stab at trying to piece together the history of the universe assuming that no-one was present, but the Bible declares that God is eternal, and He was there. He was the prime mover in the physical phenomena in the creation and development of the universe. I think He can be trusted to give us the correct historical understanding. Do not confuse historical science with present physical science; one is historic reconstruction based upon sinful man's concepts, and the other is working with current on-going physical phenomena. One is direct science; the other is inferential science.

3. Can the scientific method be applied to the study of the Bible. Not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Sinful man is incapable of understanding the things of God. In fact, I believe the reason that the forensic sciences have been so wrong is because they do not include the Holy Spirit in their studies. I believe that all thought which is unguided by the Holy Spirit will eventually come to a wrong conclusion. Let us not be so caught up by the success of the scientific method that we forget there is a spirit working behind the scenes trying to improve the lot of man. God has not stopped working to ease the suffering of man. He works through men of all callings to bring relief to a sin-sick world. God is as much at work with the science community as He is with all other lines of human endeavor. There is also another being who works to use the skills of men to obfuscate the issues. Only as God works through the thought processes of man can truth be obtained. I believe some of the great breakthroughs came as a result of the Holy Spirit guiding men and women to certain conclusions.

4. How does one reconcile a science which claims millions and billions of years with the Biblical account. You don't. Again, which is more easy to believe, a scientist using forensic methodologies based upon the assumptions of sinful man to determine historical phenomena when no human was present, or allow God to tell us what we need to know about the history of this earth and the universe. This is not to denigrate the work done in many of these forensic fields. I am in the midst of this work myself. But when the history is contrary to the Biblical account, then it is a no brainer. I trust God to give me the correct history. He was there; I wasn't. Again, do not confuse forensic science which deals with phenomena outside of the observable, and the physical science which deals with current observable phenomena.

In conclusion, the forensic sciences is a stab at recreating the universe's history, whereas, the Bible is God giving to us the history of the universe. As a historical document, it has an authority which surpasses all other historical approaches when it comes to God's interaction with man including His creative activities and subsequent actions in the work of salvation. When it does make scientific observations, it is correct such as when Job declares the earth was hung on nothing.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[karl]

....But when the history is contrary to the Biblical account, then it is a no brainer. .... the forensic sciences is a stab at recreating the universe's history, whereas, the Bible is God giving to us the history of the universe. As a historical document, it has an authority which surpasses all other historical approaches when it comes to God's interaction with man including His creative activities and subsequent actions in the work of salvation. When it does make scientific observations, it is correct such as when Job declares the earth was hung on nothing.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

I really appreciate your post, searcher. And I second your nomination of God as the Supreme Historian.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: The Searcher

....But when the history is contrary to the Biblical account, then it is a no brainer. .... the forensic sciences is a stab at recreating the universe's history, whereas, the Bible is God giving to us the history of the universe. As a historical document, it has an authority which surpasses all other historical approaches when it comes to God's interaction with man including His creative activities and subsequent actions in the work of salvation. When it does make scientific observations, it is correct such as when Job declares the earth was hung on nothing.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

I really appreciate your post, searcher. And I second your nomination of God as the Supreme Historian.

Question.

[jasd]

>>But when the history is contrary to the Biblical account, then it is a no brainer.<<

I’m responding to the above quote not so much with the intent of contrariness, but moreso, in the manner that one utilizes a segue...

Holy Writ speaks to the many in various manner; ipso facto, the more than 30,000 .orgs who, it may be taken, have prayerfully sought the HS’s guidance. (okay, I suppose the peculiar, the remnant, the parochial, the iconologists take exception – and, at this point, interject with the assertion that the HS speaks only to them and/or their .Org) :-(

Only St John stood at the cross, yet the other disciples provided conflicting views of what, exactly, occurred.

Personally, I question why Galaxies are observed to be colliding..., as Writ speaks to order, as some see it. Others recognize –

Galaxies colliding.

It is the same with so much that is forwarded as – absolute truths.

The OT is written, in large part, stylisticly, as metaphor, as poetry, etc. Hard to reconcile that with an absolutely

this or that – meaning.

I sometimes think that, given the difficulties in parsing the OT, its adherents may be confusing it with their descriptives of science-so-called.

[The Searcher]

Dear Jasd,

Have you ever translated? Or is this an opinion which you heard from someone else?

I translate Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and I have never found any of them to be confusing. I suspect the confusion comes if what I translate doesn't agree with what I believe. For myself, I accept it as it reads. Which means I have to change my understanding at times. What a concept; let the Bible be its own interpreter and accept it as it reads.

The Bible does not use large words nor does it try to confuse. I find it to be pretty straight forward. For instance, Jehu calls for the servants of Jezebel's household to "drop her down. So they dropped her down and from her blood spattered upon the wall and the horses, and they ran her over." I would say it is straight forward and not hard to see in the mind's eye. Or when it says, "I will not leave even one who pisses against the wall", I believe the word picture is cogent.

"In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth", seems pretty straight forward. "And evening and morning were the first day" doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand. But if you believe that finite, sinful man can, through forensic methods, come up with a better understanding even though they were not there, then these simple statements create a problem.

I accept the Bible as it reads when it comes to its historical content, and I accept the Biblical content as it reads knowing that truth is found when I do a thorough study of a topic. But it requires that I come to the Bible without an agenda and a willingness to leave behind my preconceived ideas. It is the unwillingness of the arrogant, sinful mind of man which causes the confusion. When I try to make the Bible meet my concepts of truth, I create chaos. But when I accept it as it reads as a child, then God opens before me a whole new panorama of truth. Forensic Science can only guess based upon a very fragmented record, whereas, God leaves a very concise, precise historical record with all its deepest darkest sins of its heroes laid bare before all. It is a picture of the depravity and unwholesomeness of men, but it is also a picture of a God who, despite of the failings of its heroes, continues towards the cross in order to save a lost race. Then He offers us forgiveness, compassion, and cleanness. And He tells us He is our creator, and He tells us it only took a week to create, and it took a year to destroy with water. It doesn't mince its words; it tell us the truth.

But sinful man wants a way to continue in sin and degradation, so he is open to a story which makes his depravity acceptable. Death no longer is the enemy, and suffering and pain are part of a process to make things better. I am no longer a sinner, but the result of billions of years of evolution, pain, suffering, and death. My lusts and desires are the result of the fight to fill a niche in order that my specie might survive. My sexual lusts are just a normal part of preserving my gene pool for the future. The more females I impregnate, the greater the opportunity for my genes to persist. War and famine are all part of the forward process in the evolutionary saga. My sole purpose in life is to pass on my gene pool to following generations. But in the end, it is all futile because the earth, the solar system, and the universe will end in the coldness of space when the entropy of the universe becomes infinite. So lets us feast and make merry because there is nothing more to life.

But God declares that after death there is a judgment in which all which is done in this life will have its revelation and will receive the just consequence for creating an environment of pain, sorrow, heartache, and death. Sinful man does not desire to accept the responsibility for its sin nor the consequence. So if I can silence the testimony of the Word of God, then I can live as I choose without regard to its affect upon others. I am just part of the evolutionary process. If the history of the Bible is incorrect, then I do not have to accept its moral precepts because they are false. But if the Bible is historically correct, then its concepts of truth and morality makes me responsible for my actions. I will one day stand before the great judge of the universe, and I will have nothing to acquit me of the wrong which I did and the resulting harm which was inflicted upon others as I lived my life without regard to the effects upon others. I will stand naked and exposed before the great judge who died in order that I might come to a saving knowledge of Him. I will have no excuse.

We obfuscate the words of God in order to persist in our sin. But in the day when all is revealed nothing will be hidden or obfuscated, and the words of God will be very clear to all. I would suggest that we walk with head down when we come to God's word and try to make it appear to be hidden; we need to hide our shame. God has spoken, and it is very clear. Even a child understands, "In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth", Genesis 1.1 Hebrew translation. "Because in this way God loved the world. In that He gave a very unique and only son that whoever might trust in him might be saved. God did not send His son in order to condemn the world, but in order to save the world." John 3.16, 17 Koine Greek translation.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[olger]

Oh Bravus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-organised.html

g

[John317]

"Because in this way God loved the world. In that He gave a very unique and only son that whoever might trust in him might be saved. God did not send His son in order to condemn the world, but in order to save the world." John 3.16, 17 Koine Greek translation.

Hi Searcher,

Please check out my comments below:

On John 3: 16---

Why do you translate it as "a very unique and only son" when the Greek takes the definite article "ton"?

The complete phrase is, ton whyos autou ton monogenh [his one and only son]. Does your Greek text omit the definite article? That would be very strange. I'm positive that all of the ancient Greek manuscripts have the definite article there.

By far the vast majority of Greek manuscripts contain the personal pronoun, autou [of him], but the critical Greek text omits it. If it's omitted in translation, the text would then read, "the one and only son."

"Unique" and "only" are redundant translations of the same word. If you are going to use "unique," you don't need "only." It is either "his unique son," or "his one and only son." The translation, "his only begotten" is acceptable but it can give the wrong view of what is being said here. The best translation is "his one and only Son," referring to "one of a kind, or unique."

Would you explain why you translated pas ho pisteuon as "whoever might trust"? You have translated a participle present active nominative singular masculine as if it were a subjunctive verb. It should be translated, "whoever believes in Him..." It is a continuous present belief, not an aorist belief. If you are going to translate the verb as "trust," it would read, "whoever is trusting [or trusts] in Him..."

Your second clause is not even a complete sentence, and to my knowledge, there is no Greek text that reads that way, beginning with the words, "In that He gave..." Instead it should be "... in this way God loved the world, so that whoever believes [or is believing] in Him ..." It is explaining for what purpose and goal God loved the world.

Also please show why you altogether neglected to translate the important words, mh apolhtai all exh aionion zoohn [shall not (or might not) perish but have eternal life].

What Greek text are you using for your translation? I have over 15 different printed texts and I can't find a single one that reads the way you've translated it.

You've translated it as "saved" but "saved" is a translation of the Greek word, sozo, as in John 3: 17. However, the word in 3: 16 is not sozo, a verb, but rather zoee, a noun. Why is this?

You've translated John 3: 16 as, "Because in this way God loved the world. In that He gave a very unique and only son that whoever might trust in him might be saved."

When all the Greek words are translated, it reads, "Because in this way God loved the world, that He gave the One and Only Son, in order that whoever is believing in Him might not perish but have eternal life."

On John 3: 17--

I notice you did not translate the Greek words, gar...eis ton kosmon [For...into the world], and then again, you neglected to translate the words di' autou [through him]. Why?

You've translated John 3: 17 as, "God did not send His son in order to condemn the world, but in order to save the world."

When all the Greek words of the verse are translated, it reads, "Because God did not send the Son into the world in order to condemn the world, but in order to save the world through Him."

I don't know of a single Greek text that reads the way you've translated it. Are you giving a loose paraphrase? Or maybe from an unusual Greek printed text?

I was thinking earlier that you might be translating from a modern Greek text, but then I remembered that you say it's a translation from the Koine Greek. So I'm kinda puzzled.

In any case, Searcher, I'm very happy you've come to the Forum and can take part in discussions about the biblical languages, particularly the Koine Greek. :-)

[abelisle]

This sounds like the exegetical argument centering around the linguistic analysis of:

M&#465;N&#465;G&#282;N&#274;S (Monogenes) The only, unique, one of a kind.

I like to remember this word like this: mono (meaning one) & gene (as in our genetic make-up). He is the only one who carries the same ‘gene’ as His Father.

PR&#332;T&#465;T&#465;K&#465;S (Prototokos) The first (born or, begotten), first of a kind, pre-eminent.

I like to remember this word also by an English derivative – prototype.

and

To round off this particular aspect of our theme I’d just like to briefly mention one other Greek word for us to consider. This word is only used once in the entire New Testament:

CHARAKT&#274;R (Charakter) (Strong’s 5481)

This is what the Online Bible Greek Lexicon says:

“ the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile.”

And this is how the Hebrews writer uses this word in respect of Jesus Christ:

“Who (Jesus) being the brightness of his (God’s) glory, and the express image of his person.” (Heb 1:3)

At this point, I step off since I am not a Greek scholar or a scholar of any sort. But it is very clear that NT study is weak unless one examines the original autographs and is facile with both koine Greek and classical Greek.

I defer to the experts.

Alex (still learning the Gk. alphabet )

[Bravus]

In reply to the claims in the Daily Mail article olger linked...

(oops, time to take wife to work and kids to school - back later to continue)

[jasd]

>>I translate Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and I have never found any of them to be confusing.<<

I reiterate: more than 30,000 .orgs – and those are only the Protesting .orgs! That number does not include the various schisms within the Catholic community.

>>I suspect the confusion comes if what I translate doesn't agree with what I believe. For myself, I accept it as it reads. Which means I have to change my understanding at times. What a concept; let the Bible be its own interpreter and accept it as it reads.<<

Have you noticed the number of major differences in translation between the KJV and the NIV?—thousands!

>>The Bible does not use large words nor does it try to confuse.<<

I don’t think “try” is the operative term re Writ and confusion. The operative term re Writ is 'understanding' – and I give you again, 30,000-plus .orgs.

>>I find it to be pretty straight forward. For instance, Jehu calls for the servants of Jezebel's household to "drop her down. So they dropped her down and from her blood spattered upon the wall and the horses, and they ran her over." I would say it is straight forward and not hard to see in the mind's eye.<<

But what of that which followed...? Were the 'dogs' that consumed her flesh literal or metaphoric? Many what sez that Jezebel was high priestess of a ‘religion’ which practiced temple prostitution – including male prostitution ("dogs", in that they wore canine masks when obliging) – who literally took away and partook of Jezebel’s flesh: a cannibalistic ritual that had its 'religious' beginnings – way back when...

>>Or when it says, "I will not leave even one who pisses against the wall", I believe the word picture is cogent.<<

Crude, but yeah, kinda graphic, huh?—still leaving the tangential...

>>"In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth", seems pretty straight forward.<<

Which “beginning”?

>>"And evening and morning were the first day" doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand.<<

How about how the text literally reads?—that is, “...day one”, the cardinal use – as opposed to the ordinal use?

>>But if you believe that finite, sinful man can, through forensic methods, come up with a better understanding even though they were not there, then these simple statements create a problem.<<

Confusion or problematic, just how different are the terms? Moreover, what if forensics provide better answers? Mighn’t that be Bereanesque?

>>I accept the Bible as it reads when it comes to its historical content, and I accept the Biblical content as it reads knowing that truth is found when I do a thorough study of a topic.<<

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

May I ask if you take the above text as it reads?—or do you proselytize with a fantasist’s power points - developed centuries ago?

>>But it requires that I come to the Bible without an agenda and a willingness to leave behind my preconceived ideas.<<

I approach Holy Writ with the agenda of seeking truths and with the preconceived idea of finding them therein, at least in large part.

>>It is the unwillingness of the arrogant, sinful mind of man which causes the confusion.<<

You mean like those who profess that “they alone have the truth”?

>>Forensic Science can only guess based upon a very fragmented record, whereas, God leaves a very concise, precise historical record...<<

Whereas, I believe that the record of Gd leads to an ’origins’ moiety of a kind.

>>And He tells us He is our creator, and He tells us it only took a week to create, and it took a year to destroy with water. It doesn't mince its words; it tell us the truth.<<

The forensics of linguistics fail to bear this out, but rather suggest temporal periods of unknown lengths not found in a straight “read” of Writ.

>>But sinful man wants a way to continue in sin and degradation, so he is open to a story which makes his depravity acceptable.<<

Non sequitur. Were it Adam and Eve who developed evolutionary theories?

>>Death no longer is the enemy, and suffering and pain are part of a process to make things better.<<

I believe all three of the above were present at the cross – and, made it possible that “things” would be better – ultimately.

>>I am no longer a sinner, but the result of billions of years of evolution, pain, suffering, and death. My lusts and desires are the result of the fight to fill a niche in order that my specie might survive.<<

Evolution by Intelligent Design is occurring right now, right under our very noses. Billions of years being nowhere in view. Rather it is a matter, in some instances, of the passing of one generation introducing in the next – such genetic modifications as to constitute new species.

Might there have been (for who knows how long?) universal beings who may have been able to intelligently design and modify genetic codes?—was it Gd who created T-Rex?—if so, when?

>>...will receive the just consequence for creating an environment of pain, sorrow, heartache, and death. Sinful man does not desire to accept the responsibility for its sin nor the consequence.<<

Practically the final act in King David's life was to order the commission of murder. But he is declared blameless...

Wha’s dat? Calvinism?

>>So if I can silence the testimony of the Word of God, then I can live as I choose without regard to its affect upon others.<<

Not so... Hammurabi (18th century BC) established codes of law, which included moral laws. His codes predated Moses; yet codes of law predated even Hammurabi...

>>But if the Bible is historically correct, then its concepts of truth and morality makes me responsible for my actions.<<

I think the same might be said for the individual in most civilizations, past and present.

>>I will stand naked and exposed before the great judge who died in order that I might come to a saving knowledge of Him. I will have no excuse.<<

What of those who’ve never had a “saving knowledge of Him”?

>>We obfuscate the words of God in order to persist in our sin.<<

That’s a pretty general statement, yes?

>>I would suggest that we walk with head down when we come to God's word and try to make it appear to be hidden; we need to hide our shame.<<

Writ requires that men approach Gd with head uncovered and with women covering theirs. Per shame: the Xtian is a son of Gd, needing not to approach Him in shame – else Gd has an awfully unusual notion of sonship.

>>Even a child understands, "In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth", Genesis 1.1<<

Indeed, else how was it that Gd began His Creative work with an already existing earth together with its waters? Genesis 1 & 2 seems to speak to a recreation...

>>Hebrew translation. "Because in this way God loved the world. In that He gave a very unique and only son that whoever might trust in him might be saved. God did not send His son in order to condemn the world, but in order to save the world." John 3.16, 17 Koine Greek translation.<<

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Did Abraham have sons other than Isaac?—might Isaac’s ‘begottenness’ be in regards to inheritance?

[Dr. Shane]

(oops, time to take wife to work and kids to school - back later to continue)

Something more important that C/A?

[Bravus]

Indeed!

Actually, someone else has already done the job for me:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/did_phil_jones_admit_that_theres_no_global_warming/

[The Searcher]

Dear Jasd,

Have some issues do we? I am sorry. But I do find your arguments illogical. But I am not you, and I do not know how you have arrived at your conclusions. And if we had time, I could come to understand how you came to your positions. But I would never accept them.

I find nothing original in your thought; I have heard every one of your thoughts before in many forums and from many people; many much smarter than me. But I have also seen the result of such thought, I personally do not want to go there.

There is a reason that I go by either the searcher or the seeker. I have this belief that if truth is truth, then it will stand up under the closest scrutiny. Everything which I believe is subject to re-visitation. But it is based upon a return to the Biblical texts and a re-study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I happen to believe that EGW was correct when she said, "Let no-one believe that we have all truth and that all our understanding of truth is correct. We have much to learn ..." I do not have the corner on truth, I am a seeker and searcher.

But there are some things which are settled for me. 1. The Bible is God's word, and I accept it as it reads, and I allow it to interpret itself. 2. Sinful man does not accept God's word because it either disagrees with his morality or it disagrees with his intellectual arrogance. 3. I do not believe the scientific method necessarily arrives at truth. 4. Rather, I believe that truth can only be sorted out through the Holy Spirit. 5. Yes, I have a mind, and I have thought processes, but I believe that we have lost the ability to think properly when it comes to spiritual truth. 6. Only God can renew our minds so that we can properly use the intellectual gifts which God has given us. 7. I also believe there are angels who are more than willing to guide our thoughts in the wrong direction.

I have come to distrust myself when it comes to God's truth. And I am constantly asking for God to show me the right way. I have come to trust His guidance instead of my thought processes when it comes to scientific, historical, and salvatory truth. But that is my own personal belief; each person must be fully persuaded in their own mind, as Paul reminds us in Romans 14. You must wrestle with your understanding of truth in your own way. I pray that God will guide in the direction you take. I believe you are an intelligent person, and truth will have its way in you. I can only walk in my path and allow you to walk in yours.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[The Searcher]

Dear John317

I am sorry, but I was doing that from memory so I missed some points. So forgive me for my lapses of memory.

I also try to include the latest textual scholarship in my translation work. Here is my translation of the section not done from memory. The genitive, autou, is not found in the early texts. But if you desire to keep it, it does no damage to the text. God gave His only and very unique Son.

"And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so it is necessary for the son of man to be lifted up in order that each one who trusts in him might have life eternal because God in this manner loved the world. For this reason He gave the only and very unique son in order that each one who trusts in him might not perish, but might have life eternal. Because God did not send the son into the world in order to condemn the world, but in order that He might save the world through him."

John 3.14-17 as translated from the Koine Greek.

First of all, I do not use the text divisions because these were incorporated much later. These were letters sent to the churches. I have found that some of these divisions are quite artificial. This is especially true when you come to the salutations of Paul in the introductory part of his letters.

Notice that I have included the clause, because God in this manner loved the world, as part of the previous sentence. In this manner is an adverb modifying the verb to love. Also, in other places, the gift of God is His giving up of His Son as seen in Romans 4 unto death in order to save us. His grace requires this as indicated in Romans 3.

For this reason, is used as an introduction to an independent clause indicating purpose. The previous sentence declares that in this way God revealed His love for us: He gave up His son to be lifted up in order to die. God could have walked away and allowed us to die. There was no requirement but one that declared that He must send a son to die in our place. That one requirement was from out of his love for us. The next sentence further defines how this was to be accomplished. Since someone must die in our place in order for us to be saved, He sent a very unique son in whom we can trust. And that trust in that gift will give us entrance to eternal life.

He finishes this section by declaring what the purpose of the Son was and was not. He did not come to condemn but to save.

Why do I use the redundant term, unique and only? Monogenes essentially means to be the only one of a kind. I want to emphasize this profound truth. Christ was not just the only one; He was the unique one. God, the Father, and God, the Holy Spirit, are gods: Theos. Human beings are homo sapiens; they are Anthropos. But Christ is the only totally unique one of His kind; He is Theos-Anthropos. He is the God-man. He is fully God; He is fully man. There is no other like Him in the whole of the universe. At some time in the future we will be like Him, but we will not be gods. And the Father and the Holy Spirit will always be gods. But throughout the rest of history and eternity there will be no other like Christ; He will be the monogenes for eternity: The only and very unique one. He became the bridge between God and man. But in order to do so, He gave up the benefits of being God (Philippians 2) and took up the frailties of men. Now He is a combination of God and Man's future being. Thus it is important to me to remind and to indicate this very important uniqueness. There will be nothing like Him in all of creation except for Him: He is the monogenes Son of God and of Men.

Sincerely,

The Seeker