I posted this in "deep waters" but it has gotten no responses, so I am not sure if it was just in the wrong place, or everyone though it was boring and no one responded LOL.
So often you hear the debate from both sides of the issue.
"The Bible says this about creation, or that about the flood, or it claims this about the earth and heaven etc etc."
"Science has proven such and such about mankind's origins, and science tells us something else about the earth and the seas, etc etc."
Inevitably, both sides always seem to clash. Neither side willing to give an open mind to the other, for being to busy to prove each other wrong.
The interesting thing is, the Bible tells us what happened, and who did it, but it doesnt really tell us how it was done.
However, science is very eager to discover, and explain how it all came about, the problem is, science denies the "who" and "what" part of the issue.
Now, I believe, that God is the "who", and the source of the "what", and science merely explains the "how".
For example.....
God created the heavens and the earth, and all therein.
At first look, the theory of evolution seems to contradict the Bible's claim.
But lets look deeper.
Genesis 1:20
20 And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Now, isn't that what science claims as well? Life started in the seas, and evolved into all the living creatures that walk slither and fly?
Here it seems that science actually proves the Bible correct!
Now, like I said before, science refuses to admit the existence of God, so they cannot figure out the "missing link" in the whole evolution of man bit.
But again, the Bible explains it well. God is the missing link!
He created cattle, and their kind so it is reasonable to believe he created apes and their kind. Some of which have gone extinct like many other species. Its also reasonable to believe that some of the ape like creatures were more like, and other less like, man. Would it be hard to assume that the ones more similar to man, would have been perceived to be threats from both apes, AND man, and therefore hunted to extinction? Science has found evidence of beings that fit that description.
Now they happen to think it was less evolved man, because they are not open to the thought of creation. But yet they cannot explain that missing link.
Again, GOD is the missing link, as he created those monkeys apes and their kind, but he also created man, in his own image.
There are MANY other points I could make about how it seems the Bible and science in fact confirm each other.
But that's what this thread is about. What do all of you think?
Now I certainly do not claim to know all the answers, far from it, and my theory may be proven wrong, who knows. But I believe it worthy of discussion: and what better place than among apostolic believers, People who know the word, and desire to search it with an open heart and mind?
Genesis 1:12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Genesis 1:12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ah...but there's another possible way of reading it. The term "God made" in verse 16 could mean, "God made to appear". The sun, moon, and stars could have been created in verse one, and only made visible from an earthly perspective on the fourth day.
I believe in flexibility regarding creation theology. I know a very devout Pentecostal who believes in Theistic Evolution. He believes the Genesis narrative is a sort of divine story, not a literal fact. He believes that the creation, Adam and Eve, the serpent, and the tree are more symbolic than literal, expressing eternal divine truths.
Another interpretation I have often studied is known as Day Age Creationism. It would sum the Creation up as follows:
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Ahhh! cool deal! Now I have to look into what science says about that.
Start with the nebular theory of planetary formation. *** Updating: ChristopherHall has brought this out already.
It could well be that from an entirely earth-centric perspective that the bodies known as the sun, the moon, and etc. became individually discernable at a later time due to the haziness of Earth's atmosphere and the still present nebula gasses and billions of years ago.
I don't know that I'm completely satisfied with that, but it's a start.
Another way of looking at it, however is from a rabbinic perspective where the various items that were considered "of a kind" were identified with a special note in Genesis. This would say that the items as they are listed in the creation accounts are not intended to be listed in the order they were created, but are listed in catagories conforming to Jewish Law.
Ah...but there's another possible way of reading it. The term "God made" in verse 16 could mean, "God made to appear". The sun, moon, and stars could have been created in verse one, and only made visible from an earthly perspective on the fourth day.
And that would explain how "evening and morning" were the first, second, and third days before the sun was even created. Always wondered about that one. But it does say "made" and not "revealed" or something like that. I wonder if the wording in the original language allows for that interpretation.
Quote:
I believe in flexibility regarding creation theology. I know a very devout Pentecostal who believes in Theistic Evolution. He believes the Genesis narrative is a sort of divine story, not a literal fact. He believes that the creation, Adam and Eve, the serpent, and the tree are more symbolic than literal, expressing eternal divine truths.
Not far from what I believe. It seems much more likely than a literal Adam, formed from dust, and a literal Eve, formed from Adam's rib, who literally spoke with a serpent and literally ate the fruit, etc. etc.
But some hard-core literal creationists stick to their guns. Even so far as to say that if Genesis is not literally true, then you can't trust anything else in the Bible.
Quote:
Another interpretation I have often studied is known as Day Age Creationism. It would sum the Creation up as follows:
One problem I see with Day Age is that Genesis seems pretty careful to present the days as the normal 24-hour variety: and evening and morning were the Nth day. Otherwise, though, it's fairly plausible, in the big picture.
Oh, but what epoch corresponded to the seventh "day", when God rested? Is that now? Is He still resting?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty