News-Record.com

The fact that objectively-established data leads to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong on historical and scientific matters is not "attacking religion." It is merely pointing out that literal interpretation of religious texts is a mistake. Even St. Augustine knew this over 1000 years ago.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

Words of wisdom indeed.

"The fact that objectively-established data leads to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong on historical and scientific matters is not "attacking religion."

Many a scientist was PROVEN wrong in the past when other, more able scientists, brought forth new data which superceded the previous "facts." Many achaeological data have been found to be consonant with the scriptural texts. The Hittite assertions and the Belteshazzar/ Nabonidus co-regent turn-arounds come to mind. And there have been others as well, where science had pronounced judgments and were proven erroneous.

Hence your assertion, quoted above, is FAR too inclusive and generalized. The Bible is NOT wrong on any historical data, except where there have been textual transmission problems or if the passage was MEANT to be a powerful truth statement, and NOT a mere listing of historical events (Genesis 1).

When interpreted properly, the Bible is fully accuarate for what it intends to convey. The spiritual verities thereby communicated are eternal and sure. Science, on the other hand, is admittedly changing and "evolving" its conclusions. Not a problem, as this is the natural of scientific inquiry. It just shouldn't get too haughty and cock-sure about it's superiority over the Scriptures, throwing out God and biblical truth simply becuase someone finds an archaeopterix or eohippus. Scientists still haven't a clue how the first living cell, either came into being, or replicated ITSELF. I guess a good bit of humility is needed in ALL quarters.

Most people do not even know what Darwin really believed himself. It is amazing to know that his only degree that he ever earned was in Theology! He had no other degrees whatsoever. Which is really not the point, just a good fact to know. It is silly to think that he taught that just because he seen those baffling creatures in the Galapagos Islands, that he concluded that all animals adapt to whatever environment they are in, and that is nonsense, when just looking at one specific island and making that kind of assumption. We can conclude that MICRO evolution is all around us, but the idea of MACRO evolution, in which one species turn into an entire different species is just plain silly. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. And Nikos makes the best point of all. I will press the unbeliever all day about life itself. Where is it's origin? Life cannot come from non-life. That violates science itself. In order to give life, you must have life. And I especially love the famous statements scientists make....."The more we learn, the less we know." If that is the case, then we are not learning anything! So, in the end, our quest for knowledge was useless!!! The fact is, without God being the Creator of life and the universe, you have no option. It is impossible to explain the uniformity of nature and the fixed laws that govern it and morality itself, if everything was by "chance". After all, scientists can't even go into the lab and experiment at all without using this uniformity. I do not have to defend the Scriptures, but you will have to justify your claim that there is no God, and come up with a world-view that fits what you believe. After all, everyone believes in something, no one is neutral.

Many a scientist was PROVEN wrong in the past when other, more able scientists, brought forth new data which superceded the previous "facts."

Nikos, thank you for stating the central point of science. It constantly improves its knowledge of the universe through searching for new facts. But to imply that there may be some un-discovered fact(s) that suddenly make it possible to accept Genesis and all the other legends of the Bible as literal truth is ludicrous. Obviously, you haven't learned the lesson that St. Augustine learned dozens of generations ago. Sad.

Self-editing here: I should have added a qualifier in my initial statement. "The fact that objectively-established data leads to the conclusion that the Bible is OFTEN wrong on historical and scientific matters is not 'attacking religion.' "

Thanks Namtac, first of all, for the added word (OFTEN). It does make something of a difference, although it doesn't enable me to jump on your bandwagon.

What you so deprecatingly call "legends" are not such in the usual sense. In fact, there are very few of these linguistic devices in Scripture that have any bearing on earth history - Genesis 1 and the Flood are two, although they are not necessarily equivalent in purpose.

These “legends,” as you call them, are simply linguistic forms that are entirely factual, or truth-loaded; but employ symbolic, poetic or apocalyptic language (in the case of Gen. 1, the key and ubiquitous sabbatical week, in Revelation, OT-based apocalyptic) as vehicles of expression – more effective in their contest than mere data listings.

They are NOT myths, devised out of thin air, but alternative modes of expression, presenting truth in a manner not immediately compatible with the modern newspaper mentality. Even hyperbole is sometimes used; but one can find that, as well as deception and falsehood, in modern newspapers. Entiende, amigo?

Your statement, Namtac, that science is by nature ever-changing, correcting and expanding is fine. As you can see in my previous entry, I said the same. It may aspire to absolute truth, but rarely lands there - comfortably. Scripture, on the other hand, is dealing in the realm of absolute spiritual truth, which entails physical and scientific truth as well, but not always in expressive forms that satisfy contemporary scientific expectations. If Jesus is said to BE the “bright and morning star” one understands that this is absolute truth couched in imagery; but no less true. If God created in one sabbatical week, one ought also to see the absolute truth that there is a Creator Who directly created the universal order. That we can discover how long and what means He used does NOT change the truth, merely the mode of expression.

In saying this, I am not buying into macro-evolution, but rather divinely enacted fiat creation of Key species and forms so that micro-evolution (as per Joshua Jones) could occur, over millions, billions of years. I also believe that ADAM was a special fiat creation of God, not a simian derivative.

Coordinating the imagery of Genesis with the scientific data (ever changing, correcting) is not easy. I prefer to let the biblical account be what it is, and say what it says; and scientific observations be what they are, however evolving and limited. Perhaps, in our lifetime, the twain will come ever closer together. In the meantime, Stephen J. Gould will never save your soul one whit; but the God-man Yeshua can – wonderfully and eternally!

Well said Nikos. The Biblical account should be left exactly the way it is, and nothing more. Adam was definitely created in complete union with God, and we are nothing like that. Adam was not created with our sin nature, and was not born of a woman. These arguments tend to sway entirely too far into the scientific realm, when the basis of it all consists with morality. People do not like the idea that they are being held accountable for their actions, no matter if they believe it or not. God has set a standard, and He holds mankind to it meticulously. People are very autonomous, and the fact that they are not their own creation, and that God has created their very being gets under their skin. Really, no one in their right mind says to themselves, " I created myself and I determined my personality and all of my traits and habits." This is the very core of the issue. If there is a creation, which we know very well that there is, then there has to be a creator. Nothing creates itself out of nothing. Life cannot come from non-life, and this universe and all that is in it did not just "bang" into being. That in itself violates yet another law of science....An object at rest stays at rest......well, you know the rest. There is nowhere to hide when it comes to the fact that we have a moral law that is written on our hearts that we did make ourselves, for if so, then there would be no objective laws in the first place. Everyone would have their own truths, and I think we all know where that would lead. These moral absolutes are weighing down on us all, and the most foolish thing to do is to deny them.

Nothing more passionate than the good old creationism debate.

Not even last night’s Duke/Carolina match up can come close to the devout passion and absolutist mentalities that permeate this age old and irreconcilable debate. I will play the role of Dick Vitale in this afternoon’s match up and be the analyst, but with hopefully less screaming and no obnoxious voice.

The first point to make is that both sides need a quick refresher in how definitive we say something IS or ISN’T. In any religious debate we can claim to be atheists or deists, but that’s a farce. In actuality, we’re all just afflicted with varying degrees of Agnosticism. Accept that fact. We don’t know, and we never will know in this Earthly lifetime—which I’m not saying is or isn’t the only life we have or hope to have, ‘cause I don’t know. We have our opinions and no matter how passionately we believe them or attempt to prove them to the world, they’re still just opinions.

The Bible, and the stories it contains, are the work of man. Science has proven that there are some historical truths contained therein which we can all agree upon. The degree of truth, however, cannot be evaluated. That reasoning is quite nicely stated by Nikos in the second post:

“When interpreted properly, the Bible is fully accurate[sp] for what it intends to convey.”

What the Bible INTENDS to convey is a dynamic truth, and it is often times misused by even the most devout Christians who attempt to make it into a static truth. Two equally knowledgeable and devout Christians may be unable to agree on what the Bible says, or means, or how it is interpreted, but they each can pull excerpts from the Bible that support their cause. In truth, not even the authors of the Bible agreed. Read through the Easter story in each Gospel. What role did the Angels play at the tomb? How many Angels were there? Where were they located? Et cetera? These inconsistencies make great ammunition for anyone combating the validity of the story. Those inconsistencies are a dime a dozen in the Bible.

On the flip side to the Angels’ status at the tomb is the argument made by most sensible Christians—you can’t take the Bible literally word for word. My father, a United Methodist minister, summed it up for me this way. He said, “It’s not important how many angels were there, just that Jesus wasn’t.” I think this attitude would better serve the ones who argue that the Bible is the absolute truth and the direct revelation of God. I think too often folks get bogged down looking at the trees instead of enjoying the forest.

Dicky V. signing out on another Diaper Dandy, BABY!!!

Most of the narrative in the OT is a preparation for the coming of Christ. It is amazing how God created a mind-set for his people to condition them to receive the most unique persona in all of history. Noah and the Ark, Job, Sodom and Gomorrah, and so many other great stories portray at "type" of Christic rreality. Take Jonah- we can be consumed by sin, and ultimately submerged in Living Water and emerge free. How very personal and revealing is this truth.

And pkx2, we readily acknowledge that we walk by faith, not by sight. That doesn't make me Agnostic. No one can prove that Eric the Red lived, butt from narrative writings we can believe he did.

I think some folks tend to overthink that which they do not understand.

huhuhuhuhuh.. I said butt.. huhhuhuh

WJ,
I don’t fully understand your point. Are you saying you can’t be considered agnostic because it is historically accepted that Jesus was a real person or because we have written stories about God which makes him/her/it real? I’m not trying to play “gotcha” here, just genuinely interested in the debate.

I do agree with you whole heartedly as it pertains to walking by faith and that was the point I was trying to make with the “varying degrees of agnosticism” comment. From the way it reads and for the sake of argument, I’d say you’re 99.999% a Christian Deist, but there’s still that 0.001% of you that acknowledges it’s only faith and that there’s no concretely definitive way to prove one way or another, other than our faith. For me, I’m about 70-30. For someone who is adamantly atheist, they’re more like 1-99.

As for over thinking what we don’t understand…guilty as charged. That’s the fun of it!

Getting back to the topic of fighting over Darwin, Darwinian evolution is an atheistic approach that has turned many thousands away from the Bible. This is part of the reinterpretation of history that is taught in many public schools. The Bible is a history book and the unbelievers and unfortunately, many Christians fail to understand this. And yet, many Christians assume that evolution is true and they try and fit it in the text of scripture. We make a false assumption that Darwinian evolution is a fact.

If anyone has heard of Richard Dawkins, he states very honestly that his faith was turned when he learned Darwinian evolution. I do not agree with him at all but I respect him for being honest on his views. He is a diehard evolutionist and has little patience for Christians at all. He has stated repeatedly that the Bible and evolution do not co-exist and would never co-exist.

It is very simple. We are taught that Darwinian evolution is a fact, that it is history, and it is the only explanation. No, it isn't. Yes we see changes within the "same kind" but not from one kind to another. Over the last 150 years, we have seen much so called evidence that later was silently removed from the public school textbooks because once “Critical Thinking” was applied to the evidence, the real truth was discovered.

It’s all about the definition. Do I believe in evolution? What do you mean? What is your definition? Do we change over time like our bodies, then yes! Do I believe non-life became life, “a so-called simple cell”, found another simple cell to marry, found something to eat and here we are millions of years later………uh….NO.

We need to critically examine all things and not be drones and just except it because we are told or we read it. I was 25 years old when I gave my life to Jesus Christ. I had seen information, evidence and science facts I never before thought existed. The Bible is the history book of the universe and I haven’t seen any science to disprove it, only an evolutionary theory that tries.

This is truly sad. The creationists are dogmatically certain that "macroevolution" does not occur, and never will; yet if they bothered to investigate, they will find numerous examples listed in Isaak's Counter-Creationist Handbook, pp. 91-93 (available in local bookstores).

Nikos says:"I prefer to let the biblical account be what it is, and say what it says;"...well, unless it's written in symbolic form, or " alternative modes of expression, presenting truth in a manner not immediately compatible with the modern newspaper mentality". That is, truth that has to be "properly interpreted" to mean that the Bible does not really mean what it says, but something else that conveniently dodges awkward contradictions. For example, when God says he is sorry that he made man in Gen. 6, the "proper interpretation" is not that God was sorry or had made a mistake, which is what the Bible SAYS. But biblical literalists cannot, in this instance, "let the biblical account...say what it says" because that conflicts with their theology, so they "interpret" "sorry" to mean "accommodating to our human understanding." But accommodating what? If God was not really "sorry" but felt something else instead, what was it? In order for "sorry" to be an approximation, it has to be similar, to convey an emotion like sorrow; if it doesn't, it is not an "accommodation" at all, since it conveys nothing to our understanding even remotely like what God was feeling. Thus it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, if it was something like sorrow or regret, it still means God messed up. So what they actually do with their "accommodation" theory is throw up a smokescreen plausible enough for those who want to cling both to their Bible and their theology, to dodge a difficulty they can't explain, especially if they don't think about it too hard. I did this myself for years, and I know how it works.

As for the ludicrous claim that the Bible is historically reliable (except, of course, when it is using one of those handy "modes of expression" which somehow convey truth although every specific thing expressed is false), only the nearly infinite human capacity for self-delusion can keep that notion going for long.The Bible is full of historical absurdities
and contradictions. Numbers in the OT are absurdly exaggerated; 70 Israelites enter Egypt and 215 years later, there are three million of them? How did they get them all together for the exodus, which Ex. 12:51 says God did in a single day? And where is the archaelological evidence for such a horde in the wilderness at that time? How did 600,000 Israelites circle Jericho seven times in one day? They must have been running full speed! Where in Sinai are the bones of all those millions of quail? Gen. 11 sats Terah was 70 years old when Abram was born and lived to be 205, which means Abram was 135 when Terah died; yet Gen. 12:4 says Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran after Terah's death. Dan. 5:31 says Darius the Mede was given the kingdom of Babylon, but it was Cyrus. Was it David or Elhanan who killed Goliath? Even if you "interpret" this discrepancy as a "scribal error," that means that there is historical error in the Bible (if you "let it say what it says", that is). How could God have been so careless? If 2 Chron. 21:20 is compared with 22:1,2, we discover that Ahaziah was two years older than his father Jehoram. Jesus mentions the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias (Mat. 23:35) who, according to Josephus, was killed about 40 years after the crucifixion. Need I go on? Although I could go on a good while. And yes, books on apologetics offer supposed "solutions" to some of these difficulties, but they all require admitting that the Bible, if we "let it be what it is and say what it says," says a lot of silly and contradictory things which have to be explained away by twisted logic and contorted language. And we haven't even got to the moral paradoxes or scientific innovations such as cud-chewing rabbits and bats that are birds.
As for Joshua, you need to learn something about evolutionary theory (if you dare) before making all those dogmatic pronouncements, or all you will convince people of is your own ignorance.

", the "proper interpretation" is not that God was sorry or had made a mistake, which is what the Bible SAYS".......................
the word "nacham " in no way connotes a mistake but certainly can be interpreted as sorry. it is inconceivable to you that God can truly be sorry but to me as (what you classify as ignorant) a believer see it as God wanting his creation to be more of what he had hoped for them to be. as would be expected you choose to jump on one of several meanings of the word and hoped that you could find weakness in God but what you demonstrated is exactly what scripture says we should expect from you. it is apparent you have either read the bible looking for every possible nuance of error or you have read others writings. perhaps you should write a book, it would be well accepted among non believers.

If you think of God as a mere force or cosmic "presence" then his being sorry or "repenting" for having done something is incongruous and uncharacteristic. But if you take the Bible at its wording, you can understand that He is a divine person, and interacts with human beings AS a person, and not an IT. According to the biblical model, there is an active analogical relationship between man and God in terms of thinking and feeling, based on man's having been created in the imago dei (image and likeness of God).

If this biblical truth can be understood and accepted, then it makes perfect sense that God "feels" as humans do: loving, caring, being sorry, etc. - yet on a divine level of perfection and depth. As Buz noted, God-sorry or God-repenting is not a sign of error or weakness, but of divine passionate analogy - as per the crucifixion.

If one has come to know Christ as Lord and Savior, and been transformed and filled with the Spirit, these concepts are no problema - in that God is not just an academic postulate, but a living PERSONAL reality in Whom one lives, and moves and has his being - joyously and wiht great fullness! God even "speaks" to the saint via His Word and Spirit. But such things are not perceptible to the unredeemed mind, but are "spiritually discerned." (see also C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.)

As for Darwin and doctrine: I, personally, have no problem whatsoever holding the two in a kind of tension or ataraxia. I understand what each is doing and saying, and enjoy it when they mesh and table it when it is not so obvious. To push or drive them to correspond in EVERY detail is not only conceptually dumb, but utterly unproductive. The Scripture, as absolute spiritual truth, has NEVER failed me - NEVER; and science is fascinating, enlightening and engaging - for what it is, but has never "led me beside the still water or restored my soul." When I see a glorious sunset i prefer not to merely analyze it in terms of color combinations, cloud formation, etc. but to rejoice in the Creator who so laviously spread such awesome beauty before me simply to enjoy - becoming "lost in wonder. love and praise."

The problem with God repenting of his actions (which he does often) is not whether he is personal but what sort of person he is. Since the Bible characterizes God as being "without variableness or shadow of turning"(Jas. 1:17) and has him saying "I, the Lord, do not change" (Mal. 3:6) and says of him that he "is not a son of man, that he should change his mind" (Num. 23:19 ESV), he cannot change his mind without contradicting the notion that the Bible contains no contradictions. These verses are not in the least ambiguous or honestly open to differing interpretations. Yes, the Bible says God is a person; it also says he does not change his mind. It also says he changes his mind about whether he should have created man, whether he should have made Saul king, 1 Sam. 15:11, whether or not to destroy Jerusalem (1 Chron. 21:15), and a lot of other things. Christian theology generally says that God is perfect and infinite in knowledge and knew all things before the foundation of the world. If that is the case, how can he be sorry for anything he did? Didn't he know Saul would fail him even before the creation of the world? If so, how could he repent of having chosen him to be king? He may have had some secret purpose in it that we don't know about, which is a favorite expedient for dodging these inconvenient contradictions, but even if that were the case (and by definition, we cannot know that it is), God would not say, "gee, I wish I hadn't made Saul king, I had hoped he would do better", he would say, "good; my plan is working perfectly." The truth is that the God the Bible describes is a different God than the God the Bible presents. An infinitely good being would not order slavery and genocide; an all-knowing being would not do things he was sorry about later; a being of infinite love would not order David to take a census and then punish him for his obedience by killing thousands of people who had nothing to do with it (2 Sam. 24).
Some will say, "who are you, O mortal, to judge your maker?" Nikos gives us the answer to this question: "According to the biblical model, there is an active analogical relationship between man and God in terms of thinking and feeling, based on man's having been created in the imago dei (image and likeness of God). " We should therefore be able to understand God at least well enough to form a coherent idea of his many graces and perfections, that we may praise and adore them. But the more we compare the Bible's picture with its portayal, the more we have to choose one of two options: either admit that the Bible is not infallible and absolute truth in everything it affirms, or close our minds to the obvious truth and wrap ourselves in a fog od delusion and defensiveness. As one who, unlike Buz, Nikos, and Joshua, has passed from the latter state to the former (not without regret), I can see both for what they are. And I too can look at a sunset and be lost in wonder, glory, and praise; but I can do it without having to deny what the nature God created reveals about the nature of the God who created it, just because the writings of scientifically ignorant people thousands of years ago demands it.

Well, Kuranes, you may be able to see a certain wonder in a sunset et al., but you can never know the joy of truly KNOWING personally the God who created not only the sunset, but the absolutely amazing, unexpected brain and eye that is perceiving it. To not see intelligent design in the universal order, and one's own intelligence contemplating it, is the true "fog od delusion and defensiveness." To be in a state of unregenerate hostility to God always results in a passionately cynical desire to oppose everything that speaks so eloquently of His being and power.

Even though you so blithely write off the idea of the scripture's use of "condescending and accomodating language" it IS, in fact, what is happening in the passages you cited, as well as in many other instances where a point is being made through this type of linguistic expression. It is a way of saying that God is not some kind of dispassionate celestial automoton, but a divine PERSON, in all that connotes, who can have regret and sorrow, even as Jesus did on the cross, because He is dealing with analogous creatures who deeply offend His purpose and holiness. His interaction is not perfunctory and mechanical, but deeply personal. IOWs there is room for changes of mind and sentiment, which may SEEM contradictory to the critical mind, but which to the eye of faith are acceptable because of the transcendence of God - His mystery and unfathomableness.

So, you may feel compelled to force these things into a mold of contracdition and inconsistency because of your need to diss the scriptural God, but IMO it is simply within the parameters of divine prerogative. This probably will never satisfy your rigid mindset regarding this issue, but there it is. No problema para mi.

If God can regret some of his actions, then he is not the god of perfect, infinite wisdom and foreknowledge of all events. Even unfathomable mystery cannot make both sides of a contradiction true. Of course there is no problem with you in taking refuge behind God's convenient incomprehensibility from the many contradictions and incoherencies in the idea. But I repeat that my point was not to dispute the idea that God is a PERSON, but the idea that you can simply "accept what the Bible says" without contortions of language and logic. Christians accept this gladly because it allows them to have their nice fuzzy feelings about sunsets and security that Big Daddy in the sky is taking care of them. However, I have noticed that every time they say something about their God, they end up having to hide behind his "unfathomableness." How can a nonmaterial being interact with matter? We don't know, but we can believe it because God is "unfathomable." How can a being outside time relate to, and act within, time? We can't explain, but we believe he does because he is "unfathomable." Why does God seem to answer some prayers and ignore others? We can't say, but we have to believe that he has a good reason which to us is "unfathomable." How can a loving God create a world with so much pain, misery, and natural disaster? We can't justify it, but we have faith that God has a good, but of course "unfathomable" reason for it. And on it goes. Christians say, "well, of course; a God we can understand wouldn't be much of a God." But to my "rigid way of thinking," (and look who's talking), a God we can't understand at all is no improvement. How do they know what they believe if they can't explain it without hiding behind the unfathomable? An unfathomable God might be anything. How do you know God loves us, or cares about what we do, or even intended that we exist? All you have is your book full of contradictions you refuse to see and accommodations that don't explain anything. If you're satisfied with that, fine; but don't pretend that you "accept what the Bible says" when you continually have to make excuses, evasions, and "accommodations" explaining why it really doesn't say what it plainly does say because your theology can't accept your scripture.
And just to head off another post, I know how theologians try to make sense of all the conundrums I mention; I don't need Nikos to recycle William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, and all the others.But, as Byron said of Wordsworth "explaining metaphysics to the nation, I wish he would explain his explanation."But he can't; it's "unfathomable."