Science and Religion

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I'm looking at everything. How man was created too. I was also looking at the whole creation of night and day, the earth, ect ect. That sort of thing.

I think you missed my point. The first two chapters of Genesis give differing and conflicting accounts of creation, pointing up the idea that, as AGDee says, maybe, just maybe, they are not to be taken literally.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think you missed my point. The first two chapters of Genesis give differing and conflicting accounts of creation, pointing up the idea that, as AGDee says, maybe, just maybe, they are not to be taken literally.

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

You have to read the Bible in the original languages and understand the cultures to know what was intended. Most people reading the Bible have no clue about the nuances throughout because they can only read the Bible as if it were written for their time and place. But, that's why we have scholars. Do you know the difference between tall tales, historical fiction and a historical textbook in 2008? Probably so. Ancient writers would have known the difference among their genres as well even if the average American today does not.

ETA: Regarding our misunderstanding of culture/language, for instance, the term commonly translated as "carpenter" for Jesus is probably not an accurate translation, but we've sure jumped on that bandwagon. It's more likely his father was a general handyman rather than a wood crafter.

And, even worse, in the King James version of the Bible, females were referred to as him/his due to the culture in which that version was written. Most other Bible versions have corrected it, but think about how many people believe that the King James version in English was breathed onto the pages by God him/herself. When you think about how enormously significant it was for women to be in positions of authority - which meant they had money, land, etc. - is huge in thinking about how Christianity got to where it was then.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

There already have been some good answers. The only one I would add is this: passages of the Bible regarding sexuality and the moral code are set forth as laws or commands. The creation story is just that -- a story. So, the question to be raised in whether to take it literally is "is it factually, historically correct."

As I am trying to teach my kids, a story does not have to be true to be True.

BTW, I have yet to meet anyone who really, completely takes the entire Bible literally, even among those who claim to do so.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think you missed my point. The first two chapters of Genesis give differing and conflicting accounts of creation, pointing up the idea that, as AGDee says, maybe, just maybe, they are not to be taken literally.

Maybe I did. I just thought you were asking what part of Genesis was I reading. I also read the part about the conflicting views too. I was actually looking at all of it. How everything was created. And yeah, I totally agree with you. I wouldn't take the Bible literally. It's just knowing what to take literally and what not to.

The way I view the process of creation is so far off from the way the Bible describes it. Of course no one knows how everything started. We can only have an idea. I would just rather follow the clues that the present day gives to have an idea of how it all started. A lot of it is common sense. Ya know, the whole thing about man being made from dirt/clay and a woman being made from his rib...that sort of thing just doesn't make sense to me.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

The way I view the process of creation is so far off from the way the Bible describes it.

It's probably not as off as you seem to think it is. The creation stories support A LOT of interpretations.

Ya know, the whole thing about man being made from dirt/clay and a woman being made from his rib...that sort of thing just doesn't make sense to me.

So, you're not made of the same stuff everyone else is made of which is turn is made up of the same stuff the known universe is made of? I'm a carbon-based being. Are you?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

It's probably not as off as you seem to think it is. The creation stories support A LOT of interpretations.

preciousjeni, you may have a point and this may very well be true, but then again it could be off too. To me, science is not about finding out true things, at least not if by "true" we mean that those things never change. I think it pretty much helps us find descriptions of the world that seem to work, in the same sense that we can use those descriptions to make predictions that are usually pretty reliable. The way I see it, is if a scientific prediction fails, it does so because the theory that led to it is imperfect, or even totally wrong, or has been applied to a situation in which it's an inappropriate description of, and in this case, the way the Earth was created, but it can be anything. The science itself can't be wrong, because it's an activity, not a theory. I just believe in seeing beyond the obvious.

To me, it just seems way off, because the fact that all living things we know of use the same building blocks in essentially the same way, which to me is a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that all life on Earth may stem from a single origin. I mean, how do we know that we're not all descended from some common ancestor? I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that some completely different form of life also existed on Earth long ago, because there's been fossil evidence that shows that life already existed on Earth before us. I'm not just talking about dinosuars, but single celled life that may have dated back 4 billion years ago. I mean, that's less than a billion years after the Earth formed, and long before dinosaurs and man. To me, a few hundred million years seems like a short time for chemistry to progress from simple things like carbon dioxide and ammonia, to things like proteins and DNA. No one really knows how life started, but based on fossil findings, Genesis doesn't make sense to me.

I read the book of Genesis a couple of days ago, and Mysticat you're right, the part you were referring to does get confusing.

Then we have the whole Big Bang theory. It may be true, but I see some flaws in this theory.

preciousjeni, you made a great point though.

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

preciousjeni, you may have a point and this may very well be true, but then again it could be off too. To me, science is not about finding out true things, at least not if by "true" we mean that those things never change. I think it pretty much helps us find descriptions of the world that seem to work, in the same sense that we can use those descriptions to make predictions that are usually pretty reliable. The way I see it, is if a scientific prediction fails, it does so because the theory that led to it is imperfect, or even totally wrong, or has been applied to a situation in which it's an inappropriate description of, and in this case, the way the Earth was created, but it can be anything. The science itself can't be wrong, because it's an activity, not a theory. I just believe in seeing beyond the obvious.

To me, it just seems way off, because the fact that all living things we know of use the same building blocks in essentially the same way, which to me is a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that all life on Earth may stem from a single origin. I mean, how do we know that we're not all descended from some common ancestor? I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that some completely different form of life also existed on Earth long ago, because there's been fossil evidence that shows that life already existed on Earth before us. I'm not just talking about dinosuars, but single celled life that may have dated back 4 billion years ago. I mean, that's less than a billion years after the Earth formed, and long before dinosaurs and man. To me, a few hundred million years seems like a short time for chemistry to progress from simple things like carbon dioxide and ammonia, to things like proteins and DNA. No one really knows how life started, but based on fossil findings, Genesis doesn't make sense to me.

I read the book of Genesis a couple of days ago, and Mysticat you're right, the part you were referring to does get confusing.

Then we have the whole Big Bang theory. It may be true, but I see some flaws in this theory.

preciousjeni, you made a great point though.

Have you ever heard or seen Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". I don't agree with her final conclusion, but the whole program is very well thought out and she talks about evolution in it. I think it is available for download from iTunes or her website. Anyway, this whole discussion reminded me of that.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Have you ever heard or seen Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". I don't agree with her final conclusion, but the whole program is very well thought out and she talks about evolution in it. I think it is available for download from iTunes or her website. Anyway, this whole discussion reminded me of that.

Actually no, I can't say that I've heard of this one. I agree with the process of evolution, but I don't agree with just totally letting go of God.

What was the final conclusion about? Just curious.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I would take that Bible story more seriously if it said that man and woman were made from dirt/clay. I never understood why man had to be created first and woman had to be created from the man's rib.

Was that God-the-Creator doing that or "divinely inspired men" with a gendered bone to pick?

It's a cultural thing. God works within culture and you'll see many times S/he doesn't admonish humankind for doing things that are destructive. It's rather complicated and sometimes doesn't make sense within our current worldviews.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Ya know, the whole thing about man being made from dirt/clay and a woman being made from his rib...that sort of thing just doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I would take that Bible story more seriously if it said that man and woman were made from dirt/clay. I never understood why man had to be created first and woman had to be created from the man's rib.

As jeni said earlier, one has to be very careful about translations. The word we translate as "Adam" means "human" generically, and it comes from the same root as the Hebrew word for "earth" or "ground." (Adamah; the word for "blood" also comes from this root.) "Eve" means "living one" or "source of life." In Genesis 2, the words for "man" and "woman" are ish and ishshah.

What is typically translated as "helper" literally translates as "one who corresponds to," while the word typically translated as "rib" (tsela) can also mean "side" -- these alternate transations show not a "helper" who is formed from a part of man, but basically an equal who is formed by splitting man. With this understanding, the "man" after the creation of woman is not really the same as the "man" before the creation of woman. This is how the ancients would have understood the origin of the male-female attraction -- the desire to return to the original "whole" -- and male and female can be seen to represent complimentary aspects of the imago Dei, the image of God.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Exactly and that's a viable alternative (there are various alternative meanings and interpretations that have been proposed).

Now guess how many people know that their Bibles' translations of words (and the subsequent interpretations of the Bible) are missing the mark and are receptive to being told that? Instead, words and accounts have been mistranslated and meanings completely lost, which perfectly suits whatever agendas the translators (and/or authors) had.

Hey I'm more concerned with the ministers who haven't been trained properly than the Bible translations.