If you were going into the Science Field, and Christian what would you want to know?

[Bowman]

You asked for verses that would support the method being "gleaned" from the Bible, not for examples.

That would be the same thing, brother...

Sorry, I don't see it. I can't see where God hypothesizes or checks by trial and error. He seems to know what He is doing, and just follows a plan He has made. Please give me a verse for each of the four steps from that chapter.

YEC's always have a difficult time with this.

Let's take this step-by-step starting with the frame of reference...

Gen 1.2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,

The frame of reference (i.e. the statement of the point of view) is from the surface of the earth.

Can you agree...?

 

[crossnote]

Honestly doubt these statements altogether - because if the church was run by dogmaticism - there would be no one to actually really glean this, now I suppose principles might be there - but taking the SM out of a biblical authoritative context leads to the crap we see today

Not sure which post is being responded to.

 

[Bowman]

i don't see how this is different from guessing. It is guessing restricted to how nature works, based on available evidence.

The inference is derived from the available data.

Think of it like exegesis...you make an inference of what the text is saying by a critical examination of the text data.

There are certainly a lot of scientists running around who disagree with you on what the scientific record shows.

Kind of like YEC's & OEC's...?

Same exact data....two completely different conclusions.

 

[Bowman]

Not sure which post is being responded to.

I doubt that the initiator of this thread even knows...sounds like he has already run completely out of steam.

You would have that that he would have thoroughly debated this material before writing a thesis on it and starting a company revolving around YEC homeschooling...

 

[kenisyes]

That would be the same thing, brother...

Not that it matters as long as the discussion continues, but the harvesters got the example of what kind of corn grew, the gleaners got what was left over. Since I do not believe the Bible supports the scientific method, I am forced to look for leftovers. I will follow the argument you are making below, and see if you can convince me otherwise.

YEC's always have a difficult time with this.

Let's take this step-by-step starting with the frame of reference...

Gen 1.2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,

The frame of reference (i.e. the statement of the point of view) is from the surface of the earth.

Can you agree...?

According to what I learned in school literature class, this the point of view of a third party observer, also called the omniscient point of view. Point of View in Literature -- Perspectives — The Writer’s Craft Omniscient Person Point of View — The Writer’s Craft

As I read it, there is no surface of the earth yet. In fact, the Greek and Hebrew sources (for example Plato or Philo) state specifically that there is no earth until God acts to separate the molecules of earth, air, water, fire, and that has not happened yet, as all is manifesting as "the waters on the face of the deep". Since all are mentioned, we must conclude that the frame of reference is big enough to hold all, including the heavens and the earth, and God. Frame of reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can accept that it is a report about the "earth", with that word referring to the part of creation that is not the "heavens". But the "earth" does not refer to anything yet that has a "surface".

 

[kenisyes]

The inference is derived from the available data.

Think of it like exegesis...you make an inference of what the text is saying by a critical examination of the text data.

So is a guess. And I agree, it's just like exegesis, for each of the 24,000 plus denominations, and each of their different guesses from the available 1100 pages of the bible.

Kind of like YEC's & OEC's...?

Same exact data....two completely different conclusions.

Yes. I beleive there are no YEC scientists who are considered scientists by the scientific establsihment.

 

[kenisyes]

I doubt that the initiator of this thread even knows...sounds like he has already run completely out of steam.

You would have that that he would have thoroughly debated this material before writing a thesis on it and starting a company revolving around YEC homeschooling...

No, I think he's already posted eons ahead of the details we are going over. If I were him, I'd just wait until we get to where he is at in understanding. I mean, we can't even agree on what "point of view" and "frame of reference" mean. the issue is not YEC or OEC, but the philosophy of scientific theory.

 

[crossnote]

Just an observation, the non christian scientist approaches his investigation mainly using his 'eyes' to verify recurring events that may end up becoming facts whereas the christian scientist in addition brings his 'ears' remembering and comparing 'truths' which he has repeatedly heard and must reconcile 'facts' with 'Truths'.

 

[Bowman]

Not that it matters as long as the discussion continues, but the harvesters got the example of what kind of corn grew, the gleaners got what was left over. Since I do not believe the Bible supports the scientific method, I am forced to look for leftovers. I will follow the argument you are making below, and see if you can convince me otherwise.

However, you already admitted that it does, at least in part...

According to what I learned in school literature class, this the point of view of a third party observer, also called the omniscient point of view. Point of View in Literature -- Perspectives — The Writer’s Craft Omniscient Person Point of View — The Writer’s Craft

The point of view would be the Spirit of God above the surface of the waters.

As I read it, there is no surface of the earth yet. In fact, the Greek and Hebrew sources (for example Plato or Philo) state specifically that there is no earth until God acts to separate the molecules of earth, air, water, fire, and that has not happened yet, as all is manifesting as "the waters on the face of the deep". Since all are mentioned, we must conclude that the frame of reference is big enough to hold all, including the heavens and the earth, and God. Frame of reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can accept that it is a report about the "earth", with that word referring to the part of creation that is not the "heavens". But the "earth" does not refer to anything yet that has a "surface".

I sense your reluctance in admitting the vantage point of the Gen 1 narrative....for, to make a commitment now would spell the death knell to your interpretation of the creation account.

However, as it is, if you fail to acknowledge the vantage point of the text, then you continue to mis-interpret the creation account.

The vantage point in Gen 1.1 is the cosmos...


Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;


Thus, we are told that the earth has already been made.

This vantage point then quickly changes to the surface of the earth, of which we discover in Gen 1.2, is covered in water...

Gen 1.2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,


Even in English, we can see not only that the vantage point has clearly shifted from that of the cosmos - to that of God being above the surface of the water-covered earth.

 

[Bowman]

So is a guess. And I agree, it's just like exegesis, for each of the 24,000 plus denominations, and each of their different guesses from the available 1100 pages of the bible.

A 'guess' lacks sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

Since you likened it to exegesis, I would hope that you would base your eternity upon more than a mere 'guess'.

 

[Bowman]

No, I think he's already posted eons ahead of the details we are going over. If I were him, I'd just wait until we get to where he is at in understanding. I mean, we can't even agree on what "point of view" and "frame of reference" mean. the issue is not YEC or OEC, but the philosophy of scientific theory.

Actually...he posts as one who is seriously deficient in his understanding.

He was surprised to learn that the scientific method was gleaned from the pages of the Holy Bible, and that this work has already been brought to light by great theologians like Thomas Torrance.

He is probably googling like mad right now trying to catch-up...

 

[Angela53510]

So, I will be even more specific about the rest of the replies
I am writing a book, specifically for Christians who want to purse fields in Science, there is a lot of push-back and retaliation if you say your Christian, and there is temptation to shy away from being bold, or from standing for what you believe, and a push to get you to reject Genesis 1-11 and other realities of Scripture. Almost like a survival book!

It is based on my experiences, my research, what God has taught me and so on. I want things that I wish I would have known before I started in college, those types of things.(even though I got saved in my Geology program) Does this make sense?

It was taking secular geology and biology at the same time that got me saved too! Really interesting to hear I am not the only one!

I think that nature, mathematics and even music all point to a Creator God. The first step in apologetics is to prove the existence of God. Esp. that God is compatible with nature. I saw some amazing videos lately about DNA and RNA and the specificity of life which are good starting points for understanding God's hand in creation.

I think creation is the what draws some people to God. My appreciation for nature and desire to study it further, led to me realizing that the world had a creator, and later, that the Creator's name was Jesus Christ. I would try and start with pointing towards the creator, then naming him and glorifying him.

 

[4enlightment]

If no one believe that God can create the whole entire universe in six days, then they are calling him a Liar. The scriptures even says that when Jesus saw the fig tree without fruits, He told the tree that it isn't going to produce any fruits anymore, and the tree withered away in a instant. Jesus didn't waited around for seasons to watch the tree wither away, it had happen in that moment and even the blind man has instantly received his sight. Science should not be consider more truthful than the Word. The devil knows how to deceive us all, but it is up to us to correct him by what it says in the scriptures.

Matthew 24:24For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Matthew 4:10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

 

[kenisyes]

However, you already admitted that it does, at least in part...

And then I said that two other parts disagree. If four statement define a method of working, and two are opposed to the Bible, then using all four together is opposed to the Bible.

The point of view would be the Spirit of God above the surface of the waters.

No, the point of view is technically the omniscient one. The author is taking describing the interaction of the Spirit and and waters, thus he can see both.

I sense your reluctance in admitting the vantage point of the Gen 1 narrative....for, to make a commitment now would spell the death knell to your interpretation of the creation account.

However, as it is, if you fail to acknowledge the vantage point of the text, then you continue to mis-interpret the creation account.

The vantage point in Gen 1.1 is the cosmos...


Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;


Thus, we are told that the earth has already been made.

This vantage point then quickly changes to the surface of the earth, of which we discover in Gen 1.2, is covered in water...

Gen 1.2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters,


Even in English, we can see not only that the vantage point has clearly shifted from that of the cosmos - to that of God being above the surface of the water-covered earth.

The vantage point cannot be the surface of the earth, because there is no surface at this time, and because the vantage point also sees the spirit moving. In verse 3, all of a sudden we see God speaking, and creating light in both heaven and earth at once.

I don't know how you are attempting to structure an argument from this verse. As I told you I do not currently see the scientific method outlined in Gen. 1. I don't want to get stuck on this point. Do you perhaps mean that verse 2 is directing our attention to the waters, and that is what you wish to look at to develop your argument? I have no trouble with that formulation.

And I seriously doubt my interpretation of the Gen. 1 narrative is wrong, as it agrees with everyone in the ancient world from the Sumerians to the Greeks, to the Hebrew rabbis. This is not the point of discussion anyway. I want to see how you get the scientific method from this chapter. That need not agree with the ancient interpretation, since the scientific method was invented in the Christian world of the 1500's AD.

 

[kenisyes]

A 'guess' lacks sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

Since you likened it to exegesis, I would hope that you would base your eternity upon more than a mere 'guess'.

So does a hypothesis. That's why the rest of the method requires checking.

Don't worry. God has more than proven Himself many times over.

 

[kenisyes]

Actually...he posts as one who is seriously deficient in his understanding.

He was surprised to learn that the scientific method was gleaned from the pages of the Holy Bible, and that this work has already been brought to light by great theologians like Thomas Torrance.

He is probably googling like mad right now trying to catch-up...

May I hypothesize that you believe you are right, and he is wrong?

It would be helpful if you could prove your "superior" understanding by showing in writing the derivation of the scientific method from the Bible. If would also be to your credit, if you would stop insisting you are right about unproven matters, when your use of basic literary technical terms conflicts with those published by the standard references in those fields, to the extent of paralyzing the advancement of your own theory, while we set the record straight on such elementary matters.

If indeed, Torrance has published such work, all you need do to prove yourself correct, is to provide a reference. The little I see online is of secondary source nature, but it suggests that he applied scientific method to theological debate. If his results are to be deemed correct, then it certainly is incumbent on him to prove that scientific logic is Scriptural. I find no mention of general approval of his results, only statements that the method is found by many theologians to be hightly interesting.

 

[Bowman]

If no one believe that God can create the whole entire universe in six days, then they are calling him a Liar. The scriptures even says that when Jesus saw the fig tree without fruits, He told the tree that it isn't going to produce any fruits anymore, and the tree withered away in a instant. Jesus didn't waited around for seasons to watch the tree wither away, it had happen in that moment and even the blind man has instantly received his sight. Science should not be consider more truthful than the Word. The devil knows how to deceive us all, but it is up to us to correct him by what it says in the scriptures.

Matthew 24:24For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Matthew 4:10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

He did....six loooooooooonnnnnnnnng days.....

 

[4enlightment]

He did....six loooooooooonnnnnnnnng days.....

Well I guess that you are implying Jesus had stood by the fig tree for many of seasons to watch it withered away.......

 

[Bowman]

And then I said that two other parts disagree. If four statement define a method of working, and two are opposed to the Bible, then using all four together is opposed to the Bible.

Picking a strawman scripture as your premise, and then showing how it fails to meet the requirement will hardly convince anyone, brother...

No, the point of view is technically the omniscient one. The author is taking describing the interaction of the Spirit and and waters, thus he can see both.

And...God is described as being where?

Above the surface of the water covered earth....

The vantage point cannot be the surface of the earth, because there is no surface at this time, and because the vantage point also sees the spirit moving.

The earth was already formed in Gen1.1.

Gen 1.2 tells us that the earth was covered with water and that God was moving over the surface of the waters....of which, is the vantage point for the Genesis narrative.

In verse 3, all of a sudden we see God speaking, and creating light in both heaven and earth at once.

No, brother.

The Hebrew creation verb is 'yə·hî'....'let it be'....as in, let it be seen from the earth's surface....the vantage point established in Gen 1.2.

Light was created in Gen 1.1.

You pride yourself of exegesis...but then you fail to even study the Hebrew here...

I don't know how you are attempting to structure an argument from this verse. As I told you I do not currently see the scientific method outlined in Gen. 1. I don't want to get stuck on this point. Do you perhaps mean that verse 2 is directing our attention to the waters, and that is what you wish to look at to develop your argument? I have no trouble with that formulation.

If you get the vantage point for the Genesis narrative wrong, as you have....then you have the sun being created on day 4, etc, etc....which is physically impossible.

And I seriously doubt my interpretation of the Gen. 1 narrative is wrong, as it agrees with everyone in the ancient world from the Sumerians to the Greeks, to the Hebrew rabbis. This is not the point of discussion anyway. I want to see how you get the scientific method from this chapter. That need not agree with the ancient interpretation, since the scientific method was invented in the Christian world of the 1500's AD.

We can kill two birds with one stone, here.

We can show you the error of your YEC interpretation....and, at the same time, show you how the scientific method is derived from the very same text...

What a deal!!!

 

[Bowman]

May I hypothesize that you believe you are right, and he is wrong?

It would be helpful if you could prove your "superior" understanding by showing in writing the derivation of the scientific method from the Bible. If would also be to your credit, if you would stop insisting you are right about unproven matters, when your use of basic literary technical terms conflicts with those published by the standard references in those fields, to the extent of paralyzing the advancement of your own theory, while we set the record straight on such elementary matters.

If indeed, Torrance has published such work, all you need do to prove yourself correct, is to provide a reference. The little I see online is of secondary source nature, but it suggests that he applied scientific method to theological debate. If his results are to be deemed correct, then it certainly is incumbent on him to prove that scientific logic is Scriptural. I find no mention of general approval of his results, only statements that the method is found by many theologians to be hightly interesting.

We are taking this step-by-step, slowly, so that you can understand it clearly, brother.

The scientific method first establishes the premise, the starting point, the frame of reference for what follows, does it not?

That is what we are doing in Gen 1...however, you are having great difficulty because you know if you were to change your legacy vantage point from the cosmos, to that of the surface of the earth, then your whole YEC theology is in jeopardy of collapse...