The Bible and Science

[BlackEagle]

From the 2007 Ligonier Ministries Conference Contending for the Truth:

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/confer...ge-of-science/

[targetacqmgt]

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

From the 2007 Ligonier Ministries Conference Contending for the Truth:

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/confer...ge-of-science/

To me our Father In Heaven used LAWS to create us, the universe in all of its glory. Man makes THEORIES until he is able to lock on to the LAWS. Laws that make the universe work Father invented them-we His children discover them. We have not YET discovered all of them-to me this is what science is about. 10 percent devinely inspired thought and 90 percent experiment till we have a firm grip on Father's law.

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by targetacqmgt

To me our Father In Heaven used LAWS to create us, the universe in all of its glory. Man makes THEORIES until he is able to lock on to the LAWS. Laws that make the universe work Father invented them-we His children discover them. We have not YET discovered all of them-to me this is what science is about. 10 percent devinely inspired thought and 90 percent experiment till we have a firm grip on Father's law.

True. I think that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, we would be visiting the stars by now.

As you say, science is discovering how God has created this natural world, and the way He makes it work; discovering the secrets God has hidden in this world. Science and Scripture go hand in hand.

Psalm 19 describes the two ways God reveals Himself to man: The first part describes the testimony of the natural world around us to God; the second part of the Psalm describes God's Word to us--The Bible.

[targetacqmgt]

Remember Adam had two commandments:keep Eve with him Always and do not eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge. Sooooo old scratch played into Father's hands, Eve partook and was no longer innocent but had knowledge. Adam partook inorder to keep Eve with him so he now had knowledge. Both now had mortality. Father then sent Michael the Archangel to guard the SECOND tree of eternal life so Adam and Eve would not be immortal. So without knowledge or the ability to learn -- we would not have even got to the moon. Adam and Eve would have had NO decendents, ie they were innocent. Does this make sense to you???

[BlackEagle]

I see what you are saying, but the Bible says something else.

Looking at the first few chapters in Genesis, within a very few generations, maybe even within the lifespan of Adam and Eve, quite a bit of industry had developed. Farming, the arts, metalurgy. All this before Noah.

Genesis describes how Adam and Eve had free and open conversation with God. Chapter 3 implies they were in the habit of walking and talking in the garden in the cool of the day. I would guess that, among other things they talked about, God could have used these times of fellowship and conversation to reveal things, knowledge, that it has taken scientists millennia to discover.

God's command to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 was to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. To me and others that means 1. populate the earth with offspring; 2. learn earth's secrets, make it serve man's needs.

[targetacqmgt]

:

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

I see what you are saying, but the Bible says something else.

Looking at the first few chapters in Genesis, within a very few generations, maybe even within the lifespan of Adam and Eve, quite a bit of industry had developed. Farming, the arts, metalurgy. All this before Noah.

Genesis describes how Adam and Eve had free and open conversation with God. Chapter 3 implies they were in the habit of walking and talking in the garden in the cool of the day. I would guess that, among other things they talked about, God could have used these times of fellowship and conversation to reveal things, knowledge, that it has taken scientists millennia to discover.

God's command to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 was to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. To me and others that means 1. populate the earth with offspring; 2. learn earth's secrets, make it serve man's needs.

That is some good thinking. However, I believe the KJV of the bible is in fact the word of Father (as it is correctly translated). Too many languages aramaic, greek, latin old english-over 400 versions of the bible BEFORE King James I or James the VII of Scotland gathered bibical scholars to assemble the KJV. I believe that they did the best they could but did in fact get it wrong. Even Joseph Smith with a pair of "seerers" mistranslated on part of the Book of Mormon-concerning the "curse of a dark skin" for doing "abhorent inequities". Men are failable. Many have been devinely inspired but still make slight errors. Every play the game as a child when you whisper a phrase and by the time it gets to the 10th child it is no longer recognizable?? Excuse my spelling I say these things in good faith and I will reread genesis. To make sure I understand it okay?

[carver]

If you have the word of God, where is it? You either have it, or you don't! If it's different, it's not the same. If it's the same, it can't be different!

[targetacqmgt]

Originally Posted by carver

If you have the word of God, where is it? You either have it, or you don't! If it's different, it's not the same. If it's the same, it can't be different!

Well maybe the Lord who appointed apostles left them to straighten out mans failings the senior apostle to keep the others straight?? And since John the Beloved was "taken up"-where are todays apostles????? Just saying Besides that is why we mere mortals "study" scripture is it not. It appears to me that at times we are so fearful of losing our Faith that we have to be like the Hebrews and have the "LAW" chisled in stone. Father gave us a mind and freewill to explore and think and to find out what is absolute and what is not? No?

[BlackEagle]

Och. I've translated many of those passages from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English; found no substantial differences between my translation and the KJV. When I compared my translation to other versions, the New American Standard Version was the closest, almost word for word.

BTW, it was James I and VI, and one of my profs pointed out that James 1:6 is a great description of the man. The preface of the KJV is a grand eulogy of King James.

There is much more technical info I could go into, but don't have time now. Tomorrow comes early.

[ampaterry]

I vote in favor of the accuracy of the Bible in several versions.
Some work VERY hard to duplicate the original language, and are almost unreadable due to the cumbersome phraseology in English.
Some word VERY hard to be easy to read, and do some damage to the original meanings in so doing.
Most fall in between these two extremes.

The KJV is almost word-for-word the text of the original Geneva Bible.
The Geneva Bible, with each new printing, had added more and more marginal notes.
The flavor of those notes had become distinctly anti-monarchy.
King James did not like that.
He authorized a new 'translation', but it actually was almost identical to the existing translation - but with all the marginal notes removed!

But, like BlackEagle, I have gone back to the original languages again and again on various passages from the KJV, and have not found any substantial difference.

[carver]

Originally Posted by ampaterry

I vote in favor of the accuracy of the Bible in several versions.
Some work VERY hard to duplicate the original language, and are almost unreadable due to the cumbersome phraseology in English.
Some word VERY hard to be easy to read, and do some damage to the original meanings in so doing.
Most fall in between these two extremes.

The KJV is almost word-for-word the text of the original Geneva Bible.
The Geneva Bible, with each new printing, had added more and more marginal notes.
The flavor of those notes had become distinctly anti-monarchy.
King James did not like that.
He authorized a new 'translation', but it actually was almost identical to the existing translation - but with all the marginal notes removed!

But, like BlackEagle, I have gone back to the original languages again and again on various passages from the KJV, and have not found any substantial difference.

I have to agree with you, and Black Eagle on this one. The reason there are so many bibles in the world today is because man wants to be God, and changing the Word of God makes man, in his mind, the final authority! Like I said we either have the Word of God, or we don't! But any bible, or book, that is different is not the same!

[BlackEagle]

There is a large number of English language Bibles available (just check out the options on BibleGateway.com). I'll probably be clumsy about this, but here goes...a simplified explanation as to why there are so many versions of the Bible around.

Some of these are translations: taking the original language and rendering it into English, while staying as close as possible to the original vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure while still making it readable in English. These are reliable, but harder to read.

Some are interpretations, substituting the ideas expressed by the original language with English terms and ideas. Maybe the term idiom comes into play here. These are not as accurate but are more readable.

Then there are the paraphrase versions which take the passages in the original languages, chew them up, digest them, and put out a very readable, but not nearly as accurate, a version of Scripture as a translation. These are subject to the human views of the ones preparing the version.

Each one has a target group of people, and sometimes a paprphrase can express the meaning of a passage of Scripture that gets lost in a strict translation. I like the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version for the way they stay close to the original languages; I also like the Phillips New Testament for its readability and plain language; and the Cotton Patch version for its earthy expressions of God's Truth. They give me different perspectives on God's Awesome Word. But, in order to get to grips with what God is saying, I keep going back to the translations.

[targetacqmgt]

This is very good for my education fellas. Thanks. I went back and read Gen. 1 and then 2nd chapter. What I got a sense of is chapter 2 "fills" out Father's Plan for man for example 2 explains how Adam and Eve got knowledge to fulfill the commandment be fruitful and multiply. Does this "sense" of chapter 2 jibe with any of your understanding. Got it too James 1:6-I will remember. :-)

[KenV]

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

True. I think that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, we would be visiting the stars by now.

As you say, science is discovering how God has created this natural world, and the way He makes it work; discovering the secrets God has hidden in this world. Science and Scripture go hand in hand.

Psalm 19 describes the two ways God reveals Himself to man: The first part describes the testimony of the natural world around us to God; the second part of the Psalm describes God's Word to us--The Bible.

Not trying to be controversial, but how do you figure the Psalm was referring to The Bible when The Bible did not yet exist and would not for another thousand years or so?

[jack404]

psalms refer to Jesus a few times eh ..

[carver]

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

There is a large number of English language Bibles available (just check out the options on BibleGateway.com). I'll probably be clumsy about this, but here goes...a simplified explanation as to why there are so many versions of the Bible around.

Some of these are translations: taking the original language and rendering it into English, while staying as close as possible to the original vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure while still making it readable in English. These are reliable, but harder to read.

Some are interpretations, substituting the ideas expressed by the original language with English terms and ideas. Maybe the term idiom comes into play here. These are not as accurate but are more readable.

Then there are the paraphrase versions which take the passages in the original languages, chew them up, digest them, and put out a very readable, but not nearly as accurate, a version of Scripture as a translation. These are subject to the human views of the ones preparing the version.

Each one has a target group of people, and sometimes a paprphrase can express the meaning of a passage of Scripture that gets lost in a strict translation. I like the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version for the way they stay close to the original languages; I also like the Phillips New Testament for its readability and plain language; and the Cotton Patch version for its earthy expressions of God's Truth. They give me different perspectives on God's Awesome Word. But, in order to get to grips with what God is saying, I keep going back to the translations.

Everyone needs to remember this simple truth; If it's different, it's not the same, if it's the same, it's not different! And every bible is different, therefore they are not the same! There can only be one true Word of God. If all bibles are different, and are supposed to be the word of God, then God has divided his own house! We all know what happens to a divided house.

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by targetacqmgt

Does this "sense" of chapter 2 jibe with any of your understanding. Got it too James 1:6-I will remember. :-)

That's getting at it. Chapter 1 is a chronological account of creation; Chapter 2 is more of a thematic approach, and as you say, fills in the entire account.

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by KenV

Not trying to be controversial, but how do you figure the Psalm was referring to The Bible when The Bible did not yet exist and would not for another thousand years or so?

The Bible as we know it, yes. The Old Testament describes on a regular basis how people responded to the reading of God's Word, and Jesus went into the temple or synagogue on a regular basis to read the Scrolls. That's all the Bible they had.

Psalm 19 describes God's Law, Statutes, Commandments, etc. David already had parts of the Bible--the first 5 books for sure and probably Joshua and Judges also; He was writing the book of Psalms. In his day that was all the they had. It wasn't until a number of (hunndred) years (I should know when it was, but can't even think of the name of the council that did this) after the Resurrection that a council of scholars got together and with a lot of prayer asking God for wisdom and guidance selected the 66 books that compose the Bible as we know it today.

Originally Posted by jack404

psalms refer to Jesus a few times eh ..

The Psalms do indeed refer to Jesus. OT people looked forward to seeing Jesus, just as we look back on His coming. There is a presentation of the Life of Christ in the Psalms, alternating New Testament readings with passages from the Psalms. We sing the Psalms, so with a good group it sounds good. It's fun to do, too.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

I see what you are saying, but the Bible says something else.

Looking at the first few chapters in Genesis, within a very few generations, maybe even within the lifespan of Adam and Eve, quite a bit of industry had developed. Farming, the arts, metalurgy. All this before Noah.

Does the bible really say "something else"? EVERYthing that you described came AFTER their fall into mortality. Before the fall they were so innocent and so utterly without understanding that they could not even recognize their nakedness. It was only after the fall that Adam and Eve started to gain knowledge and understanding. Before the fall, they appear to have had no understanding or knowledge, nor the ability to beget offspring.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

The Bible as we know it, yes. The Old Testament describes on a regular basis how people responded to the reading of God's Word, and Jesus went into the temple or synagogue on a regular basis to read the Scrolls. That's all the Bible they had.

Aaah. So when you say "the Bible" you meant "the scriptures".

Which brings up an interesting point. Did the people in David's time (when the psalms were written) have access to scriptures we DON'T have? Were there works of scripture written before David time, and lost before what we now call The Bible was assembled? Jesus for example seems to have quoted from scripture the people of his day were familiar with, but that we do not have.

The Psalms do indeed refer to Jesus. OT people looked forward to seeing Jesus, just as we look back on His coming. There is a presentation of the Life of Christ in the Psalms, alternating New Testament readings with passages from the Psalms. We sing the Psalms, so with a good group it sounds good. It's fun to do, too

Absolutely the Psalms referred to Jesus. In fact EVERY prophet of the old testament referred to Jesus in one way or another. The most powerful was probably Isaiah. The lyrics of "The Messiah" are often credited as quoting the New Testament. But actually the great majority is of it quotes Isaiah.

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by KenV

Aaah. So when you say "the Bible" you meant "the scriptures".

Which brings up an interesting point. Did the people in David's time (when the psalms were written) have access to scriptures we DON'T have? Were there works of scripture written before David time, and lost before what we now call The Bible was assembled? Jesus for example seems to have quoted from scripture the people of his day were familiar with, but that we do not have.

Scriptures--yes. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 talks about all Scripture being inspired by God. I believe, that even though the Canon of the Bible was not completed when Paul wrote those words, that passage refers to what we have as the Bible now.

The Hebrew people were extreemly careful about how they passed the scriptures down from generation to generation, and they were very exact about the accuracy. This shows up when comparing scrolls from different ages against each other. There is virtually no difference among the documents.

The Scribes and Pharisees wrote lots of supplemental things to the Scripture, which Jesus declaimed; it came to the point where they were adding to God's Word, rather than simply explaining it, as they should have been doing. The Torah was inviolate; the Talmud was the verbal, then written expansion on the Torah.

There are a number of times when Jesus referred to some of the sayings that had been passed down from generation to generation, today we would call them proverbs, not meaning the book of the Bible that follows Psalms. He also referred to things in the Talmud. Those are the only things I can think of that he referred to that are not part of the Bible. Were you thinking of something else?