Let me say it upfront that I don't personally believe in macroevolution. To me, how the universe was created may be an interesting topic for discussion....but it's not so important to me whether creation is to be taken literally or not.....after all, what God tells us, is to believe that, He is THE Creator. However, I've come across some Bible verses that would strike a chord in an evolutionist, or to someone who places his faith in science. Though the Bible uses a lot of figures of speech......some of these verses can actually be taken literally - thanks to modern science. The Creator knows intimate details about His creation. Only the Creator can give vital information about His creation. The Bible is teeming with them! In the Book of Genesis alone: * Starting with the very first 3 words, a very simple introduction: IN THE BEGINNING Indeed, it's been discovered, now we know that the universe had a beginning. This thread will explore the Bible together with scientific discoveries and theories.
Everyone needs to learn to keep Religion, Science, and Philosophy in 3 separate boxes in their minds, and not mix them. They have nothing in common. Religion is ancient and wicked and used to opiate the masses. Science is an investigative tool not meant to replace Religion or Philosophy. And Philosophy is pure human though, must be logical, and must be kept separate from Religion and/or Science.
Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. That verse could be an introduction......or, it could mean that the heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth), were already created before the first day! The second verse is quite interesting too: Genesis 1 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. What this verse describes is that there's so much water! https://www.newscientist.com/articl...vered-in-a-global-ocean-and-had-no-mountains/
@Tosca1 you really need to get an avatar for your moniker so that it would be easier to remember you from the other riff raff that spams the forums with fresh new Chinese or Russian accounts.
The water probably came from a comet collision. Comets are the only things in space that contain water. Planets form from the accretion of matter. Gravitational pressure then ignites it and it glows and burns like a molten mass.
Genesis 1 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Assuming that the universe, solar system, earth were all created before the first day, then that verse refers to the light of the sun, which is now separated from darkness. In its infancy, the theory is that thick gases covers much of the earth, too.....so, it must be dark. https://www.astrobio.net/earth/a-dark-and-warm-early-earth/ The analogy I can imagine is that of a light bulb that's off. The bulb is there but it does not give any light, until it got switched on.
I like that buddhist tale on that : It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
Genesis 1 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. One huge ocean, and one land mass. https://www.livescience.com/38218-facts-about-pangaea.html The hypothesized oldest supercontinent and single ocean were named Rodinia and Mirovia To be continued.......
The interpretation of the Biblical verses listed here are given in such a way that they are in-lined with evolution. I'm assuming.....this must be what the National Academy of Sciences meant when it says that .... https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
I can see how some evolutionists are claiming that Genesis is in-lined with evolution. As an example: Genesis 1 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Living creatures can be anything with life. Like, SINGLE-CELLED organisms. Isn't the theory for the origin of life among evolutionists, is that.... life started in water? https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells/ I'm putting myself in the shoes of an evolutionist (although I'm not!) Do you see what I see?
Still on this: Why are birds stated along with water creatures? Genesis 1 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. From fins......... to wings? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/11/evolution/zimmer-text
Now, let's talk about genders. Genesis 1 24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a]">[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. All the creatures that God created - He just spoke them into creation. He told them to be fruitful and multiply. Nothing is stated about genders. But the phrase, "after their kind" is repeatedly stated. Why? The only time God referred to genders - male and female - was when He created man. Why? After all the things that I've given above.....do you still think it's merely a coincidence that God never mentioned any genders when it came to the creation of creatures? And the phrase, "after their kind," is repeated? Well.......science had discovered that there are creatures that are described as "asexual." Some creatures don't require any mates in reproducing. They "mate" with themselves. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151216-virgin-births-are-happening-everywhere
Let's take some time to digest all the verses that were given above - in relation with evolution. To be continued......(we still have a long way to go).....
That's the problem with interpretation: you have to ignore what the Bible says in order to make believe it is saying something scientific.
How can you say it's ignoring what the Bible says? Good grief! Look at the verses - and the explanations! They jive! And, you even re-posted the NAS statement! The problem, clearly, isn't with the interpretation. The problem is with closed minds........ and, knee-jerk statements.
They don't "jive" in the least. The Big Bang theory does not claim that the earth was formed in the beginning. At all. The problem is with interpretation so broad that the "interpreters" ignore anything that contradicts the Bible and use their selective hearing only on things they can rewrite to make it sound scientific. The Bible says there was a global flood. Science says no. Picking and choosing and cognitive bias are not legitimate interpretations and they don't mesh with scientific observation.
You are simply taking verses and phrases to form your opinion. It's worth remembering that a lot of the Bible's creation story is adapted from much earlier myths, for consumption by people the Hebrews, who had no single god until they adopted the minor god - Yahweh - and subjugated the other gods to him. Monotheism began in Babylon and Ezekiel saw the Nation going forward under a religious leadership - not a monarchy. While there were kings - and a regnant Queen - during the Maccabean Kingdom, religion was foremost. The problem is with closed minds. I love that. I offer you the word 'introspection'. The Bible doesn't mention that animals came from the sea. It simply says that god made the animals of the land.
Don't bring up Global flood. I didn't. It's not about picking and choosing. Like I said, the Bible is full of figures of speech - we don't know which are to be taken literally or not until careful study and/or confirmation by science. Address what's been given. As for the beginning.....was I referring to the Big Bang in particular? You should understand what's actually being said. If you cannot understand what was simply stated - it's only sensible to question whether you understand more complex statements - particularly, from scientific articles. https://www.big-bang-theory.com/ https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
The problem is that Judah and Israel had two different creation stories that were cobbled together under King Omri. The problem is closed minds and a lack of education...
The topic was Bible and science. The fact that you want to exclude parts of the Bible to make your case isn't promising. That's exactly what it is That's an intellectually dishonest means of interpretation: wait until the facts are out and just pretend that anything in the Bible that doesn't match the facts was a figure of speech. The account in Genesis does not mesh with the Big Bang or evolutionary history. You are picking and choosing.
You're not getting the point. All that is irrelevant. The fact still remains the same: there are verses in the Bible that are in-lined with evolution!
