1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
I am not saying that because of this single argument, that the infallibility of the Bible is undermined. All I am arguing, is that if this were God's book; God's infallible word. Could he not have done a better job of getting the facts and the science straight?
7 comments:
That's one of the reasons I've doubted the bible. As I understand it, the Bible was written a hundred (maybe more?) years post the death of Christ, and way after the start of the universe described. Have you ever played a game of telephone? Okay, try playing a game of telephone where instead of just saying a single word a simple phrase, you tell a LONG, rich, mystical story, and you play that game for hundreds of years, spanning your generation, into your kids, their kids and maybe even their kids. What's the end result? Something completely different then the way it started.
You asked the question, I don't doubt it was rhetorical, about whether or not you were getting hung up on technicalities. I think you are. And I think that your preconceived agenda of disproving the legitimacy of the biblical narrative has clouded your vision here quite a bit. I'm not sure if you read this on your own in Genesis or if you picked this argument up from somewhere else, but it's pretty weak.
You're misunderstanding two things about this account in Genesis.
1) No part of Scripture has ever presumed to be a science textbook. It's not written for that purpose. So to grab onto the order of these verses and think it's an affront to science is pretty uninformed to say the least. YET: it is not contradicting science either—and that leads to #2:
2) I don't see how the order of God's creative activity in these verses contradict Botany. God created seed-bearing plants and vegetation "according to their kind." Nothing in these verses in English (or in Hebrew for that matter) implies that God had to use the process of photosynthesis to bring these plants to their full-grown status as "plants that bear seed according to their kind." As the context shows, God can create things full-grown while bypassing their normal embryonic phases. For example, look at the end of the chapter as well as chapter 2 of Genesis--where God creates mankind, full-grown, from the dust of the earth. He didn't make him a baby, he didn't form an embryo using the sperm/egg fusion to germinate the first man. He took dirt, formed it together and breathed into it. You don't question this, but you grab onto the fact that he created plants full-grown that have the ability to produce seed (that phrase is defining what kind of plants they are--not the fact that they went through photosynthesis recently) as evidence to prove that God is either nonexistent, stupid, or simply illegitimate?
When looking at Scripture—take into account the context—and critically think through that context before you jump to unfounded presuppositions.
I'd love to hear your response--
Critical thought and the Bible should never be used in the same sentence or in accordance of one another. Obviously the Bible is not a science textbook, however, I find it very odd that you find little science and mathematics, or basically a general understanding of the universe in the Bible. Things that are so pertinent to mankind are never mentioned... and it is quite obvious to me, though it may not be to you: It is because these are quite simply not the words of God and only those of incredibly stupid people, thousands of years before you were born, about highly implausible events in which happened many years before they were ever written about.
Critical thought and the Bible shouldn't be mentioned together?? Are you kidding me? You're betraying an extremely rudimentary knowledge about the history of humanity with comments like that. Are you aware that the critical thinking of some of the greatest scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and intellects of all time was developed by and through continual study of Scripture?
Do you realize what the Bible is, or why it was written? It purports to be the narrative of the Creator of the world and his story of how he redeemed humanity--who although he created--turned its back on him. That's what the Bible is--and that being the case, why in the world would it waste time focusing on expounding scientific nuances or mathematical equations?
And your theories about when the Bible was written need some work--please let me know your research for the late-dating of authorship for the Scriptural narrative--because I've been studying it for over a decade, including 8 years of biblical language study, and the whole "not the words of God and only those of incredibly stupid people, thousands of years before you were born...which happend many years before they were ever written about." argument is pretty tired. For real--let me know your sources or research on the dates of different aspects of the Bible and we can compare them with the 2000+ years of respected research and analysis that gives us the actual dating of the books.
This is a great conversation--I invite you to continue it...
How did scripture contribute to the work of the 'scientists and mathematician's you speak of? But the case you are making for your Christian religion is the same argument that a Muslim, Mormon, Zuesist could make? It is no more valid and plausible than any of the others religions in the world today. You are believing the stories of the Bible only through massive doses of faith. There is no reason or logic to believe the claims of the Bible... other than because it says it is the infallible word of God.
How did Scripture contribute to their work? My point wasn't that Newton or Pascal or others like them gained scientific or mathematical knowledge from their critical study of Scripture, my point was a rebuttal of the statement that "the Bible and critical thought" can't survive in the same sentence.
And in terms of believing everything on faith--with no reason involved, I don't know Mike... I'm not a scientist--and you've probably studied more science than me and you're barely into your undergrad studies--yet--it takes a ton of faith to look at the complexity of DNA and the way in which our world operates and think that this is all a product of chance... doesn't that take faith?? I'm not trying to make the classic ID argument--I'm just saying as a person looks at the universe--doesn't it take as much faith to believe the explanations of those who are scientifically trying to explain away creation as a myth--rather than reasoning that there can be something beyond us that started all this?
I don't know?? What do you think?
Oh okay, I see what you are saying. Yeah, there have been many great intellects who have had faith yet done great things for science and mankind in general. I was definitely in the wrong to say that faith and critical thinking couldn't exist--that was kind of silly of me to say.
I see where you're getting it, I guess most of the assumptions we make, big and small, take a little bit of faith. I am sure we share some of the same faiths in different aspects of life, and probably some that differ. I guess there are some things that are incredibly inexplicable and hard for us to really grasp. But I don't necessarily think that the faith that a person has in God is the same type of faith that one may have in science. Good scientific theory is supported by overwhelming factual evidence that has been tested through and through. It is made up of testable propositions that can be reproduced, within reason. Religious claims usually cannot be supported by evidence or be reproduced in a quantitative or qualitative manner. I know that religion is essentially something that is validated through faith based reasoning and if we were given all the answers, religion would have no purpose and we wouldn't be having this discussion--I just don't believe that religion is something that creates happiness or meaning in my life, nor helps me understand the incomprehensibility and vast mystery of life and the cosmos.
I just think life is more about making meaning than seeking meaning.
ps. It's nice to be able to discuss religion and debate with someone who seems incredibly intelligent and really knows what he's talking about and doesn't just say that I'm going to go to hell for what I believe as a comeback.
Post a Comment