Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
theophilus

Bible Science Guy

Recommended Posts

theophilus

Many people believe that science and the Bible contradict each other and that we must choose to believe one or the other. William T. Pelletier, also known as The Bible-Science Guy, has a blog that proves that this isn’t true. He discusses science from a Biblical point of view.

 

biblescienceguy.wordpress.com

 

Here is his introduction.

 

biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/author

 

Here is the table of contents for the blog.

 

biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/contents

 

The author of the blog doesn’t do his job alone. He has a Jack Russell terrier named Kepler who sometimes who sometimes contributes articles. Here is his latest post.

 

biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/keplers-dating-profile

 

I quoted from this blog in this thread:

 

https://www.christforums.org/forum/c...d-the-big-bang

 

Edited by theophilus

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47

Thanks @CDF47 I think that's a good site, I've used it before.

 

I agree. I use it quite a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
theophilus
Another good source for the Bible and science is below:

 

Evidence for God from Science

This is a very dangerous site. They do present a lot of good evidence but they deny a literal six day creation and a worldwide flood. Here are two much better sites:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/

 

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

Share this post


Link to post
RazeontheRock

God and science certainly do not contradict, they speak in different realms.

 

Science tells us what specifically God did, at best; whereas God comes right out and tells us WHY, and gives us ample information to know what we are to do about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
On 4/16/2018 at 3:17 PM, CDF47 said:

I agree with the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis creation they present.

There is actually no textual or historical evidence to support a day-age interpretation of Genesis.

 

On 4/22/2018 at 10:38 PM, RazeontheRock said:

God and science certainly do not contradict, they speak in different realms.

Not sure I agree with this statement, could you further explain what you mean?

 

On 4/22/2018 at 10:38 PM, RazeontheRock said:

Science tells us what specifically God did, at best; whereas God comes right out and tells us WHY, and gives us ample information to know what we are to do about it.

God tells us what he did. If science comes up with a different answer, science must either be wrong or God a liar.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Erik
2 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

There is actually no textual or historical evidence to support a day-age interpretation of Genesis.

 

Yes there is

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
1 minute ago, Erik said:

Yes there is

There really isn't. I wrote a whole paper on this. You have to do major literary gymnastics in order to come up with that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Erik
6 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

There really isn't. I wrote a whole paper on this. You have to do major literary gymnastics in order to come up with that conclusion.

Let me back up - I'm agreeing with you - I took it that you were saying a day is not a 24 hour period as God said it was.

Edited by Erik

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
1 hour ago, davidtaylorjr said:

There is actually no textual or historical evidence to support a day-age interpretation of Genesis.

 

Not sure I agree with this statement, could you further explain what you mean?

 

God tells us what he did. If science comes up with a different answer, science must either be wrong or God a liar.

 

 

I believe the following article is a good explanation of the day-age interpretation of Genesis:

 

 

I don't think there is literary gymnastics in this article.

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
15 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I believe the following article is a good explanation of the day-age interpretation of Genesis:

 

 

I don't think there is literary gymnastics in this article.

There are gymnastics from the very beginning:

 

1. "I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence" This is an assumption, not a fact.

2. On day 1, it is clear in the text that the heaven/earth/light/dark were all part of day one. You have to separate the literary unit to make the heaven and earth there prior to day one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
1 minute ago, davidtaylorjr said:

There are gymnastics from the very beginning:

 

1. "I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence" This is an assumption, not a fact.

2. On day 1, it is clear in the text that the heaven/earth/light/dark were all part of day one. You have to separate the literary unit to make the heaven and earth there prior to day one.

 

From the very outset the article is twisting things and taking things out of their structure to prop up the day-age idea.

There are gymnastics from the very beginning:

 

1. "I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence" This is an assumption, not a fact.

2. On day 1, it is clear in the text that the heaven/earth/light/dark were all part of day one. You have to separate the literary unit to make the heaven and earth there prior to day one.

 

From the very outset the article is twisting things and taking things out of their structure to prop up the day-age idea.

I disagree.  I believe God allows us to make scientific discoveries which prove His case, like DNA, fine-tuning of the universe,...  The age of the universe and of the earth is pretty well established.  Science shows us that the universe and the earth are old (13.8 billion year old universe and 4.54 billion year old earth).  I think this fits with Scripture when explained through the day-age interpretation.  

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

I disagree.  I believe God allows us to make scientific discoveries which prove His case, like DNA, fine-tuning of the universe,...  The age of the universe and of the earth is pretty well established.  Science shows us that the universe and the earth are old (13.8 billion year old universe and 4.54 billion year old earth).  I think this fits with Scripture when explained through the day-age interpretation.  

An appeal to extra-biblical authority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I disagree.  I believe God allows us to make scientific discoveries which prove His case, like DNA, fine-tuning of the universe,...  The age of the universe and of the earth is pretty well established.  Science shows us that the universe and the earth are old (13.8 billion year old universe and 4.54 billion year old earth).  I think this fits with Scripture when explained through the day-age interpretation.  

Science cannot speak to the original conditions of the universe.

 

Let me ask you this, do you believe Adam and Eve were real people who really walked this earth?

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
1 hour ago, William said:

An appeal to extra-biblical authority.

I disagree William.  I think the interpretation is pretty solid.  I look to others for Biblical interpretations as well, such as Matthew Henry and I don't see that as an appeal to extra-biblical authority.  It helps me understand the Bible and the world we live in.  I use this forum as well to help me understand the Bible and I don't consider it an appeal to extra-biblical authority.  I learn quite a bit about the Bible here as well.

1 hour ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Science cannot speak to the original conditions of the universe.

 

Let me ask you this, do you believe Adam and Eve were real people who really walked this earth?

Aging the universe was quite simple.  There is a doppler shift of red light to other galaxies which means they are moving apart.  Points would be taken for the speed of expansion and then dated back to the original big bang when God first created the universe.

 

Absolutely, I believe Adam and Eve were real people that walked this earth.  

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
3 hours ago, CDF47 said:

I disagree William.  I think the interpretation is pretty solid.  I look to others for Biblical interpretations as well, such as Matthew Henry and I don't see that as an appeal to extra-biblical authority.  It helps me understand the Bible and the world we live in.

I recommend you abandon everything you were taught from the SDA. 

 

And you mistaken the point, Scripture is the authority, and the best interpreter is Scripture. An example of a secondary extra biblical source may be creeds and confessions which are subject to the authority of Scripture. Likewise commentators and/or teachers may be an extension of extra biblical authority which should be subject to both the creeds and confessions and Scripture. Ultimately both councils/synods and teachers/commentators are subject to the authority of Scripture. 

 

You have made science the authority and subject the Scriptures to harmonize with an extra biblical source rather than subjecting them under the authority of Scripture. 

 

General (nature) revelation is inferior to special (Scripture) revelation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
10 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Aging the universe was quite simple.  There is a doppler shift of red light to other galaxies which means they are moving apart.  Points would be calculated for the speed of expansion and then dated back to the original big bang when God first created the universe.

No, you cannot give the original conditions of the universe upon creation because we were not there. That is not something science can measure or prove.

 

10 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Absolutely, I believe Adam and Eve were real people that walked this earth.  

Were they created as babies, or is it reasonable to believe they were formed as adults so they could survive? In which case, why is it not also reasonable to believe that the earth was created with age? Why must we form it into a day-age theory which has no textual evidence? You actually never answered my rebuttal to the article you posted earlier which I showed to not be faithful to the text.

 

3 minutes ago, William said:

You have made science the authority and subject the Scriptures to harmonize with an extra biblical source rather than subjecting them under the authority of Scripture. 

Excactly. The point is you have your method backwards. We do not subject the Bible to science, we subject science to the Bible. If science contradicts the Bible, chances are the science is not correct.  Science changes, the Word of God doesn't.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Erik
1 hour ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I think this fits with Scripture when explained through the day-age interpretation.

1. You can't change the Scripture or its meaning to fit your narrative. The Scriptures say 6 days - in the same time frame that we think of 6 days. Of course during creation God specifically pointed out what a day was (day/night)
and in Gen 31 God repeated it:  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD.. for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested


2. Find the explanation that does fit the Scripture (day-age interpretation is not it) and what science is telling you (hint: there is one)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
8 minutes ago, William said:

I recommend you abandon everything you were taught from the SDA. 

 

And you mistaken the point, Scripture is the authority, and the best interpreter is scripture. A secondary extra biblical source may be creeds and confessions which are subject to the authority of Scripture. Likewise commentators and/or teachers may be an extension of extra biblical authority which should be subject to both the creeds and confessions and Scripture. Ultimately both teachers/commentators and councils/and synods are under the authority of Scripture. 

 

You have made science the authority and subject the Scriptures to harmonize with an extra biblical source rather than subjecting them under the authority of Scripture. 

 

Natural revelation is inferior to special revelation. 

I have abandoned much of what the SDA taught but there are some lingering things; like end times theology which make sense to me for the most part.  SDA are actually YEC and I am OEC.  

 

I agree that Scripture is the authority and the best interpreter of itself.  I hold the secondary extra-biblical sources with far less weight than the Bible.  I do look to science for some authority.  I am an engineer and can't help it, LOL.  I know science is not perfect and there are political agendas in science so I try to do my best to wade through all that.  I do hold the Bible above science and all other sources.  I hope I don't come across as not holding the Bible with authority because that is important to me.   

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

I agree that Scripture is the authority and the best interpreter of itself.  I hold the secondary extra-biblical sources with far less weight than the Bible.  I do look to science for some authority.  I am an engineer and can't help it, LOL.  I know science is not perfect and there are political agendas in science so I try to do my best to wade through all that.  I do hold the Bible above science and all other sources.  I hope I don't come across as not holding the Bible with authority because that is important to me.   

The problem is that you think science appears to contradict the Bible so you try to morph the Bible into science's point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
CDF47
13 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

No, you cannot give the original conditions of the universe upon creation because we were not there. That is not something science can measure or prove.

 

Were they created as babies, or is it reasonable to believe they were formed as adults so they could survive? In which case, why is it not also reasonable to believe that the earth was created with age? Why must we form it into a day-age theory which has no textual evidence? You actually never answered my rebuttal to the article you posted earlier which I showed to not be faithful to the text.

 

Excactly. The point is you have your method backwards. We do not subject the Bible to science, we subject science to the Bible. If science contradicts the Bible, chances are the science is not correct.  Science changes, the Word of God doesn't.

 

Science cannot prove it but they can have a well established sound theory about it which they do.  

 

I believe Adam and Eve were adults upon creation.  The universe and the earth have been studied tremendously and they appear old.  I do not know why God would create a world that looked old that wasn't actually old.  He does not seem like that type of Designer to me. 

 

I do not believe that the Bible and science contradict each other here.  I  believe the Bible is approximately 90 percent natural and only 10 percent super natural.  

Share this post


Link to post
Erik
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

I believe Adam and Eve were adults upon creation.

Why do you believe that? if so do you think they were young adults or elderly adults?

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

I believe Adam and Eve were adults upon creation.  The universe and the earth have been studied tremendously and they appear old.  I do not know why God would create a world that looked old that wasn't actually old.  He does not seem like that type of Designer to me. 

You contradict yourself here. He doesn't seem the type of designer that would create a world that looked old, yet he creates humans that look old? Do you see the problem with this statement? You are not consistent.

 

2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I do not believe that the Bible and science contradict each other here.

"Science" also says we evolved. Do you believe that? Or do you believe God actually created Adam and Eve as written in the text?  You can't have it both ways.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...