A Theological conundrum

[Mark Young]

I have a question.
It seems that any believer with an ounce of intelligence will eventually come to the conclusion that the bible has a lot of figuratives and parables to explain what was to the writer in their time was mysterious and strange, but to us is common knowledge.
So my question is(and it's more geared towards Christians), When does a believer decide to let science tell them what to believe and what not to believe?

I first started out believing everything in the bible as literal, that was how it was taught. But a careful consideration of the world around me leads me to reconsider this stance.
The catalyst for this re-evaluation was made on scientific terms, ie; How can the world be 6,000 years old but the sandstone that my house is built on is much older?
Why are there different layers and layers of animal fossils in the rock (that were laid down over millions of years) that have no human fossils in them until much later, even to my numbskull brain this would suggest that humans weren't around at that point in time?But this is contrary to the bible's timeline.
If the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, why do we have a shift in the earths magnetic pole every 50,000 years? (I'm not sure I have the time correct)
Well you get the picture.

It's ironic that science is now the tester of all things, including religion, where once it was religion that was the yardstick for setting standards and beliefs.

So you see the progression of my belief, and by reading this forum, I am sure that I am not the only one that has gone through this progression.

So what 's next? It seems to me that science will kill religion eventually.

I have a question specifically for Christians.
If religion first told us what to believe, but science now edits those beliefs according to scientific evidence, at what point will you stop believing the bible because science contradicts it?
Is the bible the word of God until science proves otherwise?

 

[CurtSibling]

Your last line says it all.

Fantasy and guess-work, until applied thougt explains a mystery.

 

[Mark Young]

It will be interesting to see what role religion plays in another 100 years time if my last line becomes the status quo.

 

[CurtSibling]

I reckon it will still be relevant to the individual only - as it should be.

 

[Stapel]

My guess is that religion won't die out, even when sciences can answer every single answer.

People will always need hope in bad times. And hope delivers religion.

Maybe, one day, people will understand religion is in their hearts only. And that is how it should be. During the period in my life, I was doubting, I read a book on this matter (written by a rather famous referend, Ter Linden): He simly stated: If God does not exist, but a person believes he exists, God therefor exists.

That was quite a remarkble statement for a Christian!

 

[Smidlee]

First of all the word Earth in scriptures referres most of the time to "dry ground". you can easily see these is Genesis 1:10. Also if you study the bible you will know that the phases " the earth was without form and void" was used again in Jeremiah which clearly point out this is a judgement. In the beginning could mean 6,000- 10,000 years or it could referr to an unknown point in time. you probably know that in the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. and the Word became Flesh which we know is Christ then in Revelation he is known as the beginning of the creation of God. this shows that God hasn't revealed to us everything about the past nor has God reveal all about the future either.
As far as science goes I keep up with enough of it to know that scienctists themselves are bais toward their own beliefs more than they want to admit. Also I find many contradictions in a lot of their claims if you listen long enough. science that tries to predict the past is the same as science that tries to predict the future.

 

[CurtSibling]

It's about knowledge - or alck off.

We humans come to our own answers in time.

Smidlee - are you still going to argue that the world is flat, or the universe revolves around Earth?

I guess religionists would prefer if everyone was unlearned and easy to control.

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Smidlee
Also if you study the bible you will know that the phases " the earth was without form and void" was used again in Jeremiah which clearly point out this is a judgement.

Not everything written in Jeremiah was judgemental, some of it was poetic, some historical and other bits were prophetic. So labelling it judgement based on what book it is written is presumptous.

Originally posted by Smidlee
In the beginning could mean 6,000- 10,000 years or it could referr to an unknown point in time. you probably know that in the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. and the Word became Flesh which we know is Christ then in Revelation he is known as the beginning of the creation of God. this shows that God hasn't revealed to us everything about the past nor has God reveal all about the future either.

The 6,000 years is the generally accepted timeframe of Adams creation until now. It's easy to work it out in the bible, I'll even tell you how to do it if your keen.

Originally posted by Smidlee
As far as science goes I keep up with enough of it to know that scienctists themselves are bais toward their own beliefs more than they want to admit. Also I find many contradictions in a lot of their claims if you listen long enough. science that tries to predict the past is the same as science that tries to predict the future.

I expect scientists to be a little biased toward their own beliefs, it happens when you are passionate about something.
Nevertheless, I also know of a few (I dont personally know too many) that are extremely open minded and will listen to any reasonable critisicm to their beliefs/theory/models etc. A trait not found widely in our circles.

 

[Pirate]

There may be interpretations of science that are biased toward the personal beliefs of some scientists (just look at the global warming controversey) but the scientific facts mentioned by Sir Eric, like the layering of geology and the age of rocks, are not beliefs capable of being biased. The fact that the earth is more than 6000-10000 years old is literally written in stone.

I know smidlee wasn't arguing this particular point, I am simply saying that there are some things that are interpetation and there are others that are not. You can't throw away the latter just because some scientists disagree on the former.

Like Sir Eric, I constantly find myself trying to reconcile my religious upbringing with the scientific evidence. But for the same reasons you can't throw out all science because some of it is questionable, you can't throw away the teachings of the bible because they contain some outdated imagery. The bible's message, if you choose to follow it, is not about science, it's about people's relationships with each other and their relationship with God. So whether you should love your neighbor, or not steal or kill or live in jealousy does not depend on the geology of the planet.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

The Bible makes no claims whatsoever as to the exact age of the planet we call earth. It states that Creation required six periods of time that God would have considered 'days' to complete. If you read the context the word 'day' is used in in Genesis, it instantly becomes readily apparent the 'day', in Genesis, is an allegorical term, excepting where specific mention of a day and night being creating by the division between light and darkness.

Elsewhere in the Bible, the phrase "...a thousand years are as a day to the Lord...", which indicates that God has a much different view of time than we do. Of further interest is the lineage back to Adam, in which we see that the age of the oldest man, Methusaleh, is 969 years, less than 1000 years.

Taken as a whole -- which is the only way to take the Bible, for it is far more than the sum of its parts-- each of the Creation 'days' could have had any conceivable length of time pass during them, rather than a mere 24 hours.

The Bible is inspired of God and beneficial for all things, and science has not yet managed to prove any portion of it to be wrong, unless that portion is examined in a textual vacuum, and stripped of any symbolic meaning, at which point, it no longer becomes a passage from the Bible, it is merely a string of words.

 

[CurtSibling]

Sorry chaps, theology aside, there is no way to support the notion that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Too many ruins pre-dating that figure exists.

And to say that all the events of the genesis myths are true is beyond the pale.

If you belong to that chain of thought, you may as well fling the Norse legends and Rupert the Bear in as 'fact' as well!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
The Bible is inspired of God and beneficial for all things, and science has not yet managed to prove any portion of it to be wrong, unless that portion is examined in a textual vacuum, and stripped of any symbolic meaning, at which point, it no longer becomes a passage from the Bible, it is merely a string of words.

Hmm.

A clever way of saying that the bible only has truth when looked at through un-lucid, illogical eyes.

It is a fantasy book, written by men who were hardly even privy to the events they attempt to describe.

I hold the charge that the bible or koran was written by men, invented by men and has precious few parallels to modern life,
save for those men who seek to regress their lives to the point where they will live via concepts from a primitive age.

'Symbolic meanings' do not cut the mustard in a real world of real matter.

It is the proper way to question that which is held up as truth, especially archaic wordings from a long-past time and long-passed people.

Science does and will prevail over primitive thought.

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
The Bible makes no claims whatsoever as to the exact age of the planet we call earth. It states that Creation required six periods of time that God would have considered 'days' to complete. If you read the context the word 'day' is used in in Genesis, it instantly becomes readily apparent the 'day', in Genesis, is an allegorical term, excepting where specific mention of a day and night being creating by the division between light and darkness.

Could you paraphrase that bit? The last sentence contradicts the first because during the creation process we have a night and day sequence that is reffered to as a day.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Elsewhere in the Bible, the phrase "...a thousand years are as a day to the Lord...", which indicates that God has a much different view of time than we do. Of further interest is the lineage back to Adam, in which we see that the age of the oldest man, Methusaleh, is 969 years, less than 1000 years.

The interesting thing to note is that with the first 8 generations after creation, from Adam to Methuselah, the combined years of those first 8 people is 6848 years. But because all 8 of them were alive at the same time, the first 8 generations happened over a period of 1654 years.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Taken as a whole -- which is the only way to take the Bible, for it is far more than the sum of its parts-- each of the Creation 'days' could have had any conceivable length of time pass during them, rather than a mere 24 hours.

For this to have happened, the earths rotation on it's axis and it's rotation round the sun would have to significantly different to what it is today.

 

[CurtSibling]

Fantasy does not neatly translate into reality...

Human myths - is all this stuff is.
Just as wild sounding as any cultures creation fables...And not any more realistic.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
'Symbolic meanings' do not cut the mustard in a real world of real matter.

If something is clearly an analogy or another literary device why read it another way? There are certain phrases that seem to clearly be intended as an analogies. Only by not reading it in the method intended (using literary and language techniques) can it be read differently.

 

[CurtSibling]

Some people have no understanding of subtle prose or irony.

Some people take fables as spoken truth.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Hmm.

A clever way of saying that the bible only has truth when looked at through un-lucid, illogical eyes.

Curt, Curt, Curt... Now you know that what I said is nothing of the kind. The Bible is an interwoven, interdependent, living Word. To attempt to 'reduce it to it component parts' and 'attack' them seperately is sheerest nonsense. The Word is a single message, a message of redemption and salvation. Any attempt at reduction instantly becomes reducto ad absurdium. The Bible is not mean to be read in little bits and evaluated seperately. It is to be taken as a whole, all or nothing.

That is what I said above. That you would imply otherwise frankly irritates me.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
It is a fantasy book, written by men who were hardly even privy to the events they attempt to describe.

I completely fail to understand why this is neccessary.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I hold the charge that the bible or koran was written by men, invented by men and has precious few parallels to modern life,
save for those men who seek to regress their lives to the point where they will live via concepts from a primitive age.

Revelations is reflected in the headline of every modern newspaper, and you cast apersions on the Bible's relevance? Either you seek to bait me, or you are contemptibly ignorant. You strike me as an intelligent chap, so I strongly doubt the second, which would mean this is a troll.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
'Symbolic meanings' do not cut the mustard in a real world of real matter.

Horse apples. You know better than this, Curt. Symbolic language is a part of everday speech. To even imply that people do not use symbolism as a part of everyday life is outright fabrication.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
It is the proper way to question that which is held up as truth, especially archaic wordings from a long-past time and long-passed people.

It might work well for the Rosetta Stone, or the Iliad, but the Bible is a single Word. Like it or not, it must be addressed as a whole entity, not one cell at a time.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Science does and will prevail over primitive thought.

Yes and yes. But we disagree on what constitutes primitive thought.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Sir Eric
Could you paraphrase that bit? The last sentence contradicts the first because during the creation process we have a night and day sequence that is reffered to as a day.

Genesis reports that as each stage of Creation was accomplished, God worked at that task and then finished it, and refers to each stage of Creation as 'a day and a night, a Xth day'. These 'days' are clearly symbolic, and refer to periods of work and accomplishement commensurate to a human workday.

When the Bible describe God's division of the Light and Dark into Day and Night, it refers to the establishemnt of earth's rotational period, and the clearing of the atmosphere sufficiently to make out the brightest heavenly bodies. Before that, the atmosphere (as any cosmlogy text can tell you) was a pearlescent, glowing shroud that illuminated the entire earth with a dazzling glow. Let there be light indeed.

Originally posted by Sir Eric
The interesting thing to note is that with the first 8 generations after creation, from Adam to Methuselah, the combined years of those first 8 people is 6848 years. But because all 8 of them were alive at the same time, the first 8 generations happened over a period of 1654 years.

Doesn't seem very interesting to me, but knock yerself out...

Originally posted by Sir Eric
For this to have happened, the earths rotation on it's axis and it's rotation round the sun would have to significantly different to what it is today.

Have you been reading the last few posts? Is English a 34th language for you?

THEY WERE NOT ACTUAL DAYS!!!!

THEY WERE PERIODS OF TIME IN WHICH GOD ACCOMPLISHED THINGS THAT HE EQUATED TO A MAN'S HARD DAY'S WORK!!!

GAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Curt, Curt, Curt... Now you know that what I said is nothing of the kind. The Bible is an interwoven, interdependent, living Word. To attempt to 'reduce it to it component parts' and 'attack' them seperately is sheerest nonsense. The Word is a single message, a message of redemption and salvation. Any attempt at reduction instantly becomes reducto ad absurdium. The Bible is not mean to be read in little bits and evaluated seperately. It is to be taken as a whole, all or nothing.

Yes and yes. But we disagree on what constitutes primitive thought.

FL2 - you are a good poster, and I have no desire to offend people here.

But!
I am at the other end of the polarity, so I must post accordingly, it's not personal - just my business.

I will grant you that the bible or whatever is to be seen differently be each single student of it.
But it is written at so many different eras, revised and revised again...

The whole 'word' might well be seen differently from you by another reader...Are they wrong?

Taking the 'word' and applying it to all worldly aspects apart from your own reality is indeed, shaky ground.

In this, I am thinking of your view that the disasters of revelation are nigh, I cannot agree on this.

To inspect something, it must be dismantled and looked at with cold logic, that is the way to learn.

Otherwise you are open to indoctrination or fanciful interpretations.

A thought:
An updated bible or koran, made relevant to modern people would come under less fire.
But as it is, things which wowed the classical times, do not always work today.

No baiting, no trolling, just my tuppence.

I accept your views - but I do have my own.

Keep it real!

 

[Pointlessness]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

THEY WERE NOT ACTUAL DAYS!!!!

THEY WERE PERIODS OF TIME IN WHICH GOD ACCOMPLISHED THINGS THAT HE EQUATED TO A MAN'S HARD DAY'S WORK!!!

GAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Well, considering that the Bible was written thousands of years ago, and by actual people, I would assume that the authors would have intended it to mean actual days, rather than metaphoric days. Remember, people were a lot less educated and so thought that a universe could be created in such a short time. I personally would not take anything in the book of Genesis literally; it is too unreliable.