It doesn't conflict, because God can not lie...He made all, the natural laws (which are fixed) and creation. By studying them we can learn more about God. If the natural evidence appears to conflict then perhaps you should consider why it does, because nature and creation was put here for our enjoyment and life support, and was meant to be observed by man (which is also biblical). Why can't you say to yourself that maybe your interpretation is wrong?
Genesis 2:23 -pa`am (Strongs H6471)
- Thread starter Bookends
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Just what do we mead when we speak of what we regard as "law"?
John Barrow set forth five possible views of how we should understand the relationship between the universe and natural laws. I will not take the time to go into each of these points individually. I only want to use them as a point of reference to offer us an opportunity to rethink our concept of "natural law."
In his first possibility, Barrow suggested that law is preexistent and stands outside the natural universe. His second possibility says that the universe is preexistent and law exists only as a product of rational human invention. This means that the concept of law is man's attempt to explain a set of observable regularities and answer the question of causation. His third possibility is that law and the universe are contiguous regularities in time and space. In other words, both law and the universe have always co-existed in an eternal relationship. His fourth possibility suggests that the universe is all there is and that law is nonexistent. His fifth possibility (and the most absurd) suggests that law is all there is and that the universe is actually nonexistent.
If revelation is true concerning the nature of the universe, then all things on the natural side of reality owes its existence exclusively to the presence, power, and reality of God. Matter has no power to exist in and of its self, nor does the universe have within it the power to establish laws to govern its behavior. Law is an abstract and by its very nature requires the presence of a dependent entity upon which to act, something outside of itself that is dependent upon its power to govern. Without something upon which to act, would not law then cease to be law? If such a law existed before and outside of the universe it would, of necessity, exist in a vacuum. I maintain this is not possible. I would have to insist that, apart from the existence of God there can be no law. Law can only exist as a means to establish order and organization for something that is concrete. Law requires the function of an administrator to enforce it. Since law has no power to create something beyond itself, there must be a power beyond law that is causative. Since the universe and universal law cannot exist apart from one another, neither can be causative of the other. This means that natural law must be subordinate to powers beyond itself. Law is neither self-existing nor self-sustaining. What man generally considers as “laws of nature” exist not as laws but rather as a set of determined relations that allow man to function within the confines of the natural world. It is a mistake to think that man can come to an accurate understanding of the universe on his own terms through a rational observation of his experiences within it.
Rationality depends upon the consistency of observable regularities. For example, I know that every time I throw a rock into the air it will inevitably come down because it always has. It has never just stopped in mid-air. Any expectation that these “laws” can be overturned is generally regarded as irrational and not to be given serious consideration. Yet, scripture is replete with examples of the “irrational.” It is not rational to believe that three men can be thrown into a furnace of fire for an extended period and emerge unharmed and with not even so much as the smell of smoke on them, Daniel 3:24-27. It is patently absurd to believe that the earth can suddenly and instantaneously cease its rotational pattern for several hours without dramatically disturbing gravitational forces, Joshua 10:12-14. There is nothing in our experience within the field of human biology to suggest that a virgin can conceive a child or that someone who had been dead and entombed for four days can be raised simply by verbal command to rejoin the living. All of these examples are certainly inconsistent with our experience in observable regularities. These things cannot be rationalized based upon natural processes. What these things serve to demonstrate is that God is not constrained by natural process. Nor is the universe governed by such. We live in a non-linear reality because our world does not exist as a closed system. Reality is made up of the natural world that surrounds us and the world of the unseen that is hidden from us. Our world is governed and controlled by powers that are outside of our normal field of observation. If man is to properly context his world of\ experience, he must learn to link what he can see to the reality and the power of God whom he cannot see. We can only understand this relationship when we learn to revere scripture as the surface form of absolute intelligence. Scripture exists as a that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. As a linguistic representation, the inspired text reveals a mind that is not accessible to us by any other means. Properly understanding our world is completely contingent upon our first, recognizing the supreme intelligence of God, and secondly honoring scripture as the surface form of that intelligence.
When we approach the text of scripture in just this way, we find that certain conclusions about Barrow’s five possibilities must be recognized.
1. All of his possibilities are dependent upon natural process.
2. He places causation strictly within the natural realm.
3. In Barrow's mind, absolute intelligence, which is demonstrated in the power to govern control and organize, is somehow the product of material reality.
4. He divorces causation from any external source of intelligence.
When we attempt to rationalize creation based on our own understand of the natural world, no matter how educated one's analysis may be, we will invariably come to the wrong conclusions about creation. If we want to understand the point of causation, we must defer to the one who framed creation and then provided us a written record of that event.
By Glen Rogers
No, I'm saying that the bible says when can observe nature and gleam insight about Him, and that He instructs to learn about these things. I used to hold to your view as strongly as you do now. I understand your argument, but now I understand I can learn more about our God and His attributes by taking in His handiwork.
I am not suggesting we can not learn certain things about the nature and reality of God from the natural world. Obviously we can for, "The heavens declare the glory of God." What I am suggesting is that we can not seek to create a synthesis between our observation of the natural world and the Word of God unless the Word of God is the standard for that synthesis. These two can NEVER be synthesized using human reason and logic that is rooted in natural process. The conclusions of the scientific community will always insist that scripture be subordinated to the rational process and this will never bring us to any semblance of truth. Evolution is wrong on every front and can NEVER be incommensurable with the Word of God. This makes scientific conclusions wrong, not the Word of God.
I think you are, every one of you, not understanding at all what God is telling you. You are blinding yourself to God's message by approaching it from the wrong angle.
God gives us spiritual facts, and God often uses the physical we understand better than the spiritual to illustrate. Usually these physical illustrations are literal, but sometimes he uses them as symbolic. For instance the way God uses numbers, often to symbolize spiritual truths. the number seven is often used to symbolize completeness.
In the Old Testament, God usually does not speak to our Hellenized mind that wants to reason everything through with how, when, why. God is speaking to the Hebrew mind in those books that says something like so THAT is how it is, well how can my life fit into those facts.
God's word can be absolutely relied on as truth, science often explains how that truth works. But science can't be relied on as truth. It is like a mechanic tearing a car apart and saying he knows more about the car than the designer of the car does. But the goal of scripture is teaching spiritual facts, not to explain physical facts.
God gives us spiritual facts, and God often uses the physical we understand better than the spiritual to illustrate. Usually these physical illustrations are literal, but sometimes he uses them as symbolic. For instance the way God uses numbers, often to symbolize spiritual truths. the number seven is often used to symbolize completeness.
In the Old Testament, God usually does not speak to our Hellenized mind that wants to reason everything through with how, when, why. God is speaking to the Hebrew mind in those books that says something like so THAT is how it is, well how can my life fit into those facts.
God's word can be absolutely relied on as truth, science often explains how that truth works. But science can't be relied on as truth. It is like a mechanic tearing a car apart and saying he knows more about the car than the designer of the car does. But the goal of scripture is teaching spiritual facts, not to explain physical facts.
R
I'd like to see you go through thousands of animals in a 12 hours or to be gracious to you, 24 hours (it's possible he didn't get sleepy 
)
)
Whether you endorse evolution or not I do not know. What I am trying to get you to see is that you cannot begin with your observation of the natural world and then move to scripture and then attempt to manipulate the grammatical structure of the text so that the text will seem to agree with you observations of creation. When God said he created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day, there is absolutely nothing in the language of that text to suggest this means anything other than exactly what it says. When your understanding of the logic of the creation event conflicts with the inspired account then it is not the account that is suspect. Exodus 20:11 confirms the account length of creation recorded in Genesis 1 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. The entire concept of their Sabbath was rooted in this temporal fact. This is why EVERY seventh day (every seventh 24 hour period) they rested. The standard of measurement that was to determine the frequency with which they were to observe the Sabbath was the duration of time recorded for the creation of the heavens and the earth. For six days they would work. On the seventh day they would cease their work. Just like the Lord did. The same language is used in both texts. However you interpret it in one text, you must interpret it the same in the other text. If not, then by what rule of grammar do you do otherwise?
R
actually my calculation is based on adam naming the animal kinds...a term that is probably broader than a species...the biblical created kind is probably more on the taxonomical level of family...
so adam just would have had to name one cat...not lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars and cheetahs and bobcats and lynxes and snow leopards and panthers and so on...
so adam just would have had to name one cat...not lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars and cheetahs and bobcats and lynxes and snow leopards and panthers and so on...
Any approach to science that does not have scripture as its epistemological base is not a valid science. This is a science that is rooted in the human rational process and can not be "pure science". What people generally mean when they speak of "pure science" is science that is "unencumbered" by scripture. Do you actually believe that everything about God is revealed in nature? Do you seriously think that what God has revealed to us about him in nature in any way compares to what he has revealed of himself in scripture? Scripture, not nature is the representation of the mind of God. It is through scripture that God reveals to us how he thinks, how he acts, and how he deals with man. It is through scripture, not nature that the WILL of God is revealed.
No don't believe everything about God is revealed in nature. However do I believe that not everything about God is revealed in Scripture as well. And what I mean by pure science is science that is testable and confirmed by unmanipulated elements and processes, or example ice cores, tree rings, star light, an half life of certain elements, which all confirm the same things.
Scripture is special revelation dealing most with God's redemptive revelation; nature and creation is God general revelation in which we can further our understanding of God and what He made, which all points to Him and His Glory.
Hey, I appreciate you civil discussion about this, but I haven't really read anything yet that make me reconsider 24 hour days and an YE. Peace bro.
Scripture is special revelation dealing most with God's redemptive revelation; nature and creation is God general revelation in which we can further our understanding of God and what He made, which all points to Him and His Glory.
Hey, I appreciate you civil discussion about this, but I haven't really read anything yet that make me reconsider 24 hour days and an YE. Peace bro.