Voidspace

There are many Christians who belief that a belief in the truth of the bible need not contradict an acceptance of modern science.

Part of the problem is understanding what kind of truth we expect to find in the bible.

Once one accepts the existence of an omnipotent God and his role as creator it is perfectly legitimate to believe that he chose to create the world in six periods of twenty four hours and that evidence that he did it any other way has an alternative explanation. However where the evidence indicates that the biblical ordering is true but partly allegorical, this seems a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. The only position it is not legitimate to take is one insisting that in order to be a 'true believer' you have to believe in one particular version of these beliefs !

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/voidspace/bible_truth.shtml

Looks at biblical truth and also one possible reconciliation of Genesis and modern science.

Fuzzyman

Secular Pinoy

Instead of spamming our board, why not join the discussions? Post whatever you want to assert concerning creation and modern science and we'll see how it fares.

Monkey

No reconciliation is necessary, the Bible isn't a book of science. Never has been, never will be.

Oolon Colluphid

Interesting....

Please suggest an “alternative explanation” to evolution to account for the form of the human coccyx.

Or for the presence in birds of genes for making teeth.

Or for the presence in some whales of pieces of bone, buried deep in their bodies, that just happen to look like pieces of pelvis.

Or for the presence in baleen whale embryos of teeth that are absorbed before birth.

Or for the presence in bats of an inferior lung ventilation system to that found in birds.

And please tell us what ‘kind’ this is:



Over to you...

TTFN, Oolon

Voidspace

You obviously didn`t read my actual article

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/voidspace/bible_truth.shtml

Its not very long. What it actually says is that I have no *problem* with people believing in a literal interpretation of genesis (creationism) *but* I personally accept evolution............... and I gave one way of reconciling the two........


Here is the critical passage below..........

What I would like to show is that based on spiritual principle there is at least one interpretation of Genesis that can fit in with a scientific timetable of creation. This is not to say that the following sequence of events is 'the right one' or even the only possible one, but that it is entirely possible to be a bible believing Christian who also has no argument with the findings of science. (This is an alternative version of the `gap theory` that theologians may be familiar with).

This version particularly revolves around the timing of `the fall`. The order of the creation of the earth, plants, animals and then man already fits the pattern proposed by the 'theory of evolution'. But, a traditional reading of genesis says that creatures must have been herbivores before the fall; living in harmony with each other until death and destruction entered when man ate the forbidden fruit. If evolution is true then creatures have developed, adapted to kill and feed off each other. This is reflected in the fossils of long extinct creatures and the creatures around us today. So we have an apparent conflict.

What that reading fails to take into account is that creation and created life includes the angelic realms and hierarchies. This obviously includes the angels themselves as God created them too. *2

Talking of Jesus, Paul says (Col 1 : 16)
16 Everything was created by him, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by God's Son, and everything was made for him.

The following passage is lifted straight from 'Lectures in Systematic Theology by Henry C. Thiessen' (p133 The Origin of the Angels).

'The time of their creation is nowhere definitely indicated, but it is most probable that it occurred before the creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), for according to Job 38:4-7, "the sons of God shouted for joy" when God laid the foundations of the earth. Clearly, they were in existence by Gen 3:1 when Satan, an angelic being, made his appearance.'

Obviously the fall of the angels happened before the fall of man - since it was a fallen Satan who tempted Eve. Therefore 'creation', looked at as a whole, had already fallen before the fall of man.

One thing I have always wondered is why was Adam placed in a garden in the first place - a secluded paradise ? If the whole of the earth was a perfect paradise then why restrict Adam to a small part of the earth. If imperfection was already woven into the fabric of creation that would explain why. In support of that is that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God they were thrown out of the garden - implying that outside the garden was already a worse place to be.

Gen 3 : 23 (Contemporary English Version)
23 So the LORD God sent them out of the Garden of Eden, where they would have to work the ground from which the man had been made.
(He threw them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat of the tree of life).

Some pundits hold that the use of the word 'void' in Genesis 1 : 2 - 'the earth was void and formless' - indicates this initial chaos and fallen state. I don't really hold with that reading - just look at my website title to get some sense of the meaning I might ascribe to 'void' ! I see it as more meaning unformed and potential, but the position that creation had already fallen (carried this imperfection) before the arrival of man is not necessarily an unorthodox Christian view. The earth as it grew and developed already could have carried that curse of sin and death that we see all around us (and we see evidence of in the pre-human fossil record).

Voidspace

No, but on a prima facie reading there are parts that seem palpably untrue... so some measure of reconcilaition is helpful - particularly as many Christians take such a dogmatic and unreasonable position............

Oolon Colluphid

Okay, it’s symbolic. A few questions:

1) What and when were Adam and Eve?

2) If it comes down to interpretation, how do you know -- how is it possible to know -- that your own pet interpretation is correct? Perhaps while you’re thinking on how to answer that, you could tell me how many angels are dancing on this ’ere pinhead.

3) Where is the evidence for all the rest of this proposed stuff: angels and co. How would the world be different if they did not exist? What should we expect to find if they do that we wouldn’t find if they do not? In other words, how is this stuff testable and hence verifiable. If it is unverifiable, then why should we believe it?

TTFN, Oolon

Albion

Looks like a pizza box "kind" to me. Am I having Mac problems again?

Doubting Didymus

Whenever I read any theology, I'm reminded of what an utterly pointless and useless endeavor it is. If anything can be called empty, purposeless pontification, it's this.

Congratulations, voidspace, for making up a clever alternative interpretation of genesis that lets christians believe in evolution. Now all you need to do is prove it. ANY of it. Until then, why should I, or anyone else here, or even any of the christians you are actually trying to reach, take it seriously? Why shouldn't we all say to you in chorus: "nice story, but we think you're talking out of your ear"?

Radcliffe Emerson

The bible is a superstitious book of myths, written in an age when people thought hurricanes, lightning, etc were called down upon them by angry gods, nothing more.
The more we learn about the universe through science, the more obvious that becomes.
The bible does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as science, there is no science there, just make-believe.