Would Jesus Have known what Modern Science knows?

[Brian2]

Scientifically and biologically? Or symbolically or metaphorically, or "spiritually" which might be a better way to state it? If you mean scientifically, in the sense of biology, then you have a problem with the science.

While there is genetic evidence that we did came from a single male and a single female for our species, this "Adam" and "Eve" known scientifically as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, this is due to a genetic bottleneck in the species, and this single female and single male lived anywhere from 180,000 to 530,000 years apart. This hardly can be validation that the Adam and Eve of the Genesis story are these biological, genetic parents of all modern humans.

If however, you don't read Genesis in scientific terms, then you have no problem. If you understand them as "spiritually" representative figures, that symbolically capture the nature of the whole of humanity, then Adam and Eve are meaningful figures biblically speaking. Theologically it all holds together. Scientifically it all falls apart.

Theologically they still represent the "sin" nature of humankind, and you have Jesus as the last Adam, symbolically. You have no problem understanding Jesus as "Adam", even though clearly he wasn't married to Eve. So you can likewise symbolically understanding the awakening early human, who first realized his isolated "sin nature" as Adam as well. He doesn't have to literally named Adam, just as Jesus wasn't named Adam either, but symbolically still is. Make sense? We just call them "Adam" as a point of reference to symbolize the human existential dilemma.

As I just said and I'll repeat again, Symbolically, or theologically, it all holds together. Scientifically or historically, it all falls apart. The Bible does not speak in scientific terms. Why make it a target for scientific critique then? That's to your own undoing.

Science is a changing landscape, new things being discovered all the time.

I wouldn't say "attack", I would say critique scientifically. As I just said, if you make it historical and scientific, then you better be ready to have science critique and expose its non-scientific nature! That's on you. That's not on the Bible. It's on those who mistake the nature of what the scriptures are, which are symbolic language and figures to speak about existential human truths. They are not about teaching natural sciences and earth history. That's is an error of man that makes it that.

You don't need it to be scientifically and historically factual, to be symbolically true. Those truths are far more powerful than just mere history and factual scientific information. They point to something beyond those things. Why cheapen scripture like that, making it scientific?

"Attack" is probably too harsh. Yet the study of science and history etc use a naturalistic methodology which does produce conclusions which speak against the Bible's historicity. Whether these conclusions can be seen as true science, because of that methodology, is something open to debate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and the debate rages on.
I do understand the book of Genesis as history however and it sort of fits with what science has found imo.
I don't think it is cheapening scripture to make it open to critique. Maybe it is cheapening it by saying it is symbolic to avoid the disputes.
If we don't want the critique then maybe it is time to declare that Jesus did not live and the story was symbolic.
But there are a wide range of views amongst Christians about Genesis and who knows, maybe you are right about it.

Science isn't throwing stones at it. If anything, it's throwing stones at those who mistake what the scriptures are and try to claim the Bible is true science! Of course you make yourself a target when you do that! And rightly so. Science's job is to establish scientific truths through intense examination and scrutiny and testings. That's it job. That's its function. So as I said, you only have yourself to blame if you invite science to measure the Bible's texts as scientifically accurate and valid! That's on you, not on science.

Yes it is on me and I'm happy with that and maybe one day I will see things as you do.
At the moment I just view science as having reached wrong conclusions because of not allowing supernatural intervention and wanting naturalistic answers all the time when in reality many things may not have happened without supernatural intervention and may not have been able to happen without that.

I'm sorry, how? Why is that a step backward, and not forward? In reality though, maybe you do need to take a step backward to how those who wrote it and read it back then were approaching it. They were not approaching it scientifically! They were taking it all symbolically. They didn't evaluate it's truths in terms of scientific scrutiny. They didn't have modern science back then. So maybe going back to how they thought, might help you.

Going back to how people read it back then (whenever that is) and without scientific critique would probably land me at a place of historical belief. It has been religion's view that have had to evolve to fit the science, and that is OK as science helps us understand the Bible.
We are at the edge of what science can find however without denying the Bible altogether. Abiogenesis is a good example but science no doubt will come up with the physical possibilities of biological life developing and come up with ideas of what life and consciousness is that show the Bible to be complete rubbish. But as I say that is based on the naturalistic methodology and I think there is reason to make a stand at times and not just cave in to what science claims.
And of course atheists will use what science claims to justify their beliefs (lack of belief) and attack the Bible whether we take it as history or symbolically.
That is what I meant when I said that attacks would be there no matter if we take it symbolically and historical myth or not. Taking it as myth would be seen by the world as just another step backwards in a cave in to "truth", science.

I do. I think it works much better symbolically than making it historically and scientifically true. Symbolically, it makes much more sense. Scientifically, if fails. Don't kill it by claiming it is.

In that respect you probably feel about me as I feel about those who push Young Earth Creationism.
Some of them even think that YEC has to be believed by Christians or maybe we are not Christians.
This whole question is an attack on the Bible and the unity of Christians by Satan (if you see him as real),,,,,,,, a it is a shame that it is succeeding to an extent.
I'm glad it works for you, and who knows, maybe one day it will work for me.

 

[1213]

...Have you ever done a DNA test for doing geneaological research? It works! I'm on Ancestry.com, and sure enough, those who I know are my cousins, through all the evidences I have from records that I researched, all pointing to common ancestors, is 100% confirmed much later on by DNA results! Yep, she is a 2nd cousin, just like the records indicate. Yep, he is a 3rd cousin, just like the records indicate....

I wouldn't trust them, for example because Live Science says:

"According to a customer care article(opens in new tab) by 23andMe, the probability of detecting a first cousin through their service is around 100%, while detecting second, third and fourth cousins becomes less probable the more distantly they are related. A third cousin, for example, has a 90% probability of being detected accurately, while a fifth cousin has as little as 15% probability."
How accurate are DNA tests? | Live Science

 

[Oz.]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

God is in matter.

 

[rational experiences]

God is in matter.

God is held.

To be termed the God or a God.

If you ask what was God seeing its past cold cooling was.

As a theist says two types of causes exist cold opposite to heat.

Heat removes. Cold holds.

A human man says I want gods power. Applies heat to release it. So has to apply cold to hold it.

Says I've created God. I changed God. I held God. In a constant presence .....mass converted.

So we said we name you man a satanist.

How a man said....I'm not God. I took God changed God gained God created God.

Why we assessed his terms and said he's a liar.

 

[allright]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

 

[allright]

Jesus raised the dead, walked on water controlled the weather paid his taxes with money from a fish's mouth

fed thousands of people with 2 fish and 5 loafs healed every form of disease

Not bad for someone who didnt know anything

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus raised the dead, walked on water controlled the weather paid his taxes with money from a fish's mouth

fed thousands of people with 2 fish and 5 loafs healed every form of disease

Not bad for someone who didnt know anything

I don't recall ever saying, let alone ever thinking that Jesus "didn't know anything". Of course he knew many things. Just not everything. He even says that himself, doesn't he? And even scripture says he grew in wisdom, so that would seem to indicate that there was growing room in the knowledge area, doesn't it?

 

[Sand Dancer]

What a non-Christian believes about what the Bible says is totally irrelevant for a real Christian.

Non-Christians can talk about it in the context from when they were Christian.

 

[rational experiences]

Jesus raised the dead, walked on water controlled the weather paid his taxes with money from a fish's mouth

fed thousands of people with 2 fish and 5 loafs healed every form of disease

Not bad for someone who didnt know anything

The medical terms. An asteroid wanderer star passed by earth. Had cooled so it no longer fell in sacrificing human life from temple Egypt Moses fallout.

Said a honest human.

Baby life sacrificed murdered by human scientists caused now healed in ovary cell of women. Not all women just chosen mother's.

As 2012 was stated total human body cell return. By asteroid star wandering passing by only.

Which allowed ice stable position human baby animal life supported.,..ice now would remass. It returned to correct lost winter. Sea of son. DNA genesis returned naturally.

A long time suffering sick. Not a miracle. Wasn't instant. It was a cooling heavens body evolution.

The correct human intelligent advice.

Position you seem to forget new fallout as the wandering star body burnt began coming in ...began again.

Human mind lost balanced sanity began seeing visions chemical brain changed.

Petitioned Rome to stop temple science. They just murdered them as scientists and rich men are so very spiritual and kind.

So as birds by flock fall out of sky. Fish killed as shoals in sea fed humans starving. Starving as crops that burnt as proven by crop circles didn't give them a food supply.

Bread comes from those crops. So Jesus the sacrificed human life gave them star fall carbon amassed life death instead. Loss of cell formation or blood consistency.

By saviour mass ice having to assert cooling onto a scientific heaven body change of natural mass.

Then nature on earth took over. God earth heavens began a four day earth carpenter tectonic pressure change mother womb position attack.

All humans thought life would end. Day went dark increased space opened. Loss of gas body sacrificed of gods.

Were very grateful womb position holy mother of God stopped it. Took it down from its sacrifice was how it was taught. Put the sacrifice body into cooled now dead not alight sin hole cooled life saved....as life into sink holes.

How a light gas is holy only in vacuum womb.

Why a dead gas body goes back from alight unnatural burn to saved by death cooled.

Was an exact scientific teaching plus visionary advices why.

As visions get assesed by the visionary advice to format reasoning.

New Cave sink tombs men of science had caused.

As it wasn't completely cooled human dead life visions were seen too. Nor natural nor should it have occurred.

Jesus was not taught as should not have occurred.

It was taught see what occult ground science changes caused.

Whilst it was experienced they said it should not occur.

 

[Windwalker]

Science is a changing landscape, new things being discovered all the time.

That of course does not at all mean that well-established scientific theories get willy-nilly tossed aside! Quite the opposite in fact. Once something is established as a scientific theory, which is considered, "a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts". Once something is a scientific theory, it would take the moving of heaven and earth to unseat it.

The ToE as a well-established and well-supported scientific theory, just as the theory of gravity is. So your pointing to the new discoveries happening all the time as casting reasonable doubt on the science of evolution, is really not valid. To say the ToE is just a theory in any colloquial sense of that word is misleading. It's an established Theory, which means it's more like a mountain of granite. New data only helps refine our understanding of it, not call into question its validity.

This is something I'd really recommend familiarizing yourself with regarding scientific theories. It's an easy read: What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

"Attack" is probably too harsh. Yet the study of science and history etc use a naturalistic methodology which does produce conclusions which speak against the Bible's historicity.

Your use of language still shows you view it as hostile, "against the Bible's historicity". I don't see it as against the Bible anything. The only thing it does it challenge our ideas about the Bible in modern terms of historicity. It challenges our ideas, our notions about the Bible. It doesn't attack, or go against the Bible at all. That is your mental reaction to its challenges, as hostile to you. The word choices betray that perception of it.

Rather, I see it as simply neutral, finding out the facts. And it's up to us what to do with that information. How do we integrate that with the faith? That should be the focus and effort, not attempting to challenge or deny the science. That's why I quote the verse, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". The evidence is in. To continue to deny it is to do self-harm. It harms faith, IMHO.

Whether these conclusions can be seen as true science, because of that methodology, is something open to debate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and the debate rages on.

No it doesn't. Only in the minds of those who don't want to accept the validity of science. I see those arguments as disingenuous. This is considered the best form of knowledge we have, when it comes to the study of the natural world. I do not however believe that all knowledge, such as spiritual truths, come through that set of eyes.

I subscribe to an epistimological pluralism. That doesn't mean one against the other, but complementary ways of understanding reality. The eye of flesh (empiric sciences), the eye of mind (psychology and hermeneutics), and the eye of spirit (contemplative introspective). All three tend to help create the whole picture, as opposed to using faith to denying science, which is just bad faith and bad science.

I do understand the book of Genesis as history however and it sort of fits with what science has found imo.
I don't think it is cheapening scripture to make it open to critique. Maybe it is cheapening it by saying it is symbolic to avoid the disputes.

Again, I still think you don't understand or appreciate symbolism. And not, calling it symbolism is not to avoid disputes. It's to recognize it for its depths. Here's a great quote about mythologies and symbolism that captures this:

"Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online​

When we make the story a matter of science, we deprive it of its subtleties and nuances. It fails at that point to be an expression of "a light too great to bear". It becomes a calculated discussion instead. That' what I mean by cheapening it.

If we don't want the critique then maybe it is time to declare that Jesus did not live and the story was symbolic.

I'm perfectly fine critiquing scripture historically as a matter of academic interest. But those details don't detract from the symbolic nature of it for me. I am able to see the meaning of the story, without needing the story to be necessarily factually true however. It's like the story of George Washington who could not lie about chopping down the cherry tree. It's irrelevant if that story is historically factual or not. The meaning transcends the historicity of it. Otherwise it's just dry data about some boy who cut down a tree, with no real symbolic meaning. It's the story is the point, not the historical aspect of it or not.

But there are a wide range of views amongst Christians about Genesis and who knows, maybe you are right about it.

Because I am unable to ignore, dispute, reject or deny what science has to say about earth history, I'd say my understanding is more compatible with modern knowledge. If I didn't have that awareness, then it wouldn't matter, there is no conflict as in the past. But because I do have that knowledge, and accept it out of intellectual and ethical integrity, understanding the symbolic nature of scripture as its real point (it always has been anyway), then there is no conflict anymore.

Each is true, and fully compatible with each other. That's much easier than fighting against one or the other as "right". Both are right.

Yes it is on me and I'm happy with that and maybe one day I will see things as you do.

You're happy to make scripture a target of scientific scrutiny? Why? Are we talk about faith here, or alternative science?

At the moment I just view science as having reached wrong conclusions because of not allowing supernatural intervention and wanting naturalistic answers all the time when in reality many things may not have happened without supernatural intervention and may not have been able to happen without that.

The data is the data. As far as supernatural goes, don't you see the whole thing, granting the evolution is factually true as the all the data strongly supports, as miraculous in and of itself? Isn't the entire process, the fact we exist itself, through natural processes, a miracle of Life or Spirit, herself?

You see, it's not that God created or not. It's how it was created, and evolution is no less miraculous a thing than some simplified story of God making clay figurines out of dust and spit in an afternoon and animating them with breath. In fact, evolution is even more miraculous way of God creating. Thank God for Evolution.

continued....

 

[Windwalker]

continued from above...

Going back to how people read it back then (whenever that is) and without scientific critique would probably land me at a place of historical belief. It has been religion's view that have had to evolve to fit the science, and that is OK as science helps us understand the Bible.
We are at the edge of what science can find however without denying the Bible altogether.

Again it seems to me you are making it a debate of is science true, or is the Bible true. Why can't both be true, but with different sets of eyes? Is the Bible the eyes of science? Is science the eyes of faith? No to both of those. But yet, that is how it is being treated by making it which one is right question. I don't see the conflict, nor the need for it.

Abiogenesis is a good example but science no doubt will come up with the physical possibilities of biological life developing and come up with ideas of what life and consciousness is that show the Bible to be complete rubbish.

Complete rubbish to who?? I won't see it as rubbish, anymore than I see it as rubbish by accepting evolution as factual. If it becomes rubbish to you, then you are making your faith dependent upon scientific verification! You make scientific truthfulness the validator of your faith. Do you have any idea how precarious that is? I do. You make it that if you can't deny the science, your faith is rubbish.

That's exactly what countless ExChristian atheists have done, and for those same reasons. It's sets up faith for a major crisis, and that is why I believe denialism runs so deeply against the science. It's seen a direct threat to faith. That's is the source of the problem. Not the science. But the foundations of faith itself.

But as I say that is based on the naturalistic methodology and I think there is reason to make a stand at times and not just cave in to what science claims.

Caving in? It's not a battle between science and faith. It's a battle between a faith of the heart, and a faith of the mind only. It's a battle between the faith and itself.

And of course atheists will use what science claims to justify their beliefs (lack of belief) and attack the Bible whether we take it as history or symbolically.

They don't understand symbolism either. They likewise see it as either literally all true, or just "mere symbolism" or literally not true. They are just flipside of the same exact same coin. Either the Bible is true and science is rubbish, or science is true and the Bible is rubbish. It's exactly the sentiment that you have expressed here, just on the faith side of it, and not the atheist side of it. I'd call it "believer poised to become an atheist", faith. It's the exact same approach of literalism. The problem is not understanding symbolic truth for boths sides of that same coin.

That is what I meant when I said that attacks would be there no matter if we take it symbolically and historical myth or not. Taking it as myth would be seen by the world as just another step backwards in a cave in to "truth", science.

No. It would be a step forward liberating it from a debate that has nothing to do with actual faith.

In that respect you probably feel about me as I feel about those who push Young Earth Creationism.
Some of them even think that YEC has to be believed by Christians or maybe we are not Christians.

I've encountered more than a few who think I am against the Bible, or against Jesus, because I don't think as they do about these things. Quite recently on this site by a couple. In reality, I share what I do because I see there is a way to not set themselves up for a failure of faith by making it about science vs. faith. I'm not entirely sure where you are at, but when I hear arguments from you that seem to be 'well why should I believe science' type sentiments, that can create a problem for faith.

This whole question is an attack on the Bible and the unity of Christians by Satan (if you see him as real),,,,,,,, a it is a shame that it is succeeding to an extent.

It's only Satan because people make it that. I see it as truth that asks faith in God to grow.

I'm glad it works for you, and who knows, maybe one day it will work for me.

I'd be happy to help show how it can, if you feel it would be beneficial to your faith.

 

[rational experiences]

A humans life natural first says a honest human thinker.

As machines are controlled by humans only and not owning any mass as natural position.

What I theory means I just tell stories from observation first of natural bodies. By a human seeing.

A human on earth a planet owning an atmosphere as planet is not a law.

It's natural existence just one place our planet.

There is no theory zero space and gravity.

As you don't exist by thesis consciousness nor does earth and heavens. Bodies don't exist inferred as space zero as it owns no thing.

So humans who lie are theists.

Human first but theory our destruction as no man is God. The earth orbits or its owns the heavens.

An exact legal human statement.

The sun space and other planetary bodies are involved in exact placed not the earth advice.

The greater gods advice hence said no man is God

Science is a fallacy of machine inventions used to experiment first position second status... do we survive the machines reaction.

Hence as space enforced the laws science men want to overcome own control anything they name as a man. To exert his will by machine.

He always loses. As no man is God.

Why he wants ice removed saviour by his machine thesis as he already knows the answer as a man. Machine must take saviour away ...as maths reaction is minus... He doesn't want bio life to exist by saviour protection.

As we aren't in space zero themes.

A destroyer never asserts a theory they express a mind confession.

As it's human choice natural man and it's human behaviour of natural man.

It's not science as it does not exist. Natural anything exists first is his lie.

He claims human thought science exists first.

Meaning natural bodies without his life existed first. Not science.

Science was theoried to remove a body. Is exact.

As he inferred science to medical his scientists memory now lies.

As medical is natural using all earths products. One to One human to human practice. It's not rationally a science. It's a human wisdom to assist a human.

Science answer is no human life existing.

Lucky for us natural mass exists first or we wouldn't.

 

[Brian2]

That of course does not at all mean that well-established scientific theories get willy-nilly tossed aside! Quite the opposite in fact. Once something is established as a scientific theory, which is considered, "a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts". Once something is a scientific theory, it would take the moving of heaven and earth to unseat it.

I was really pointing to discovering with DNA which could show an original Adam and Eve. This it seems has been done but the dating of Eve and Adam are at different times. Maybe that is wrong.
But of course if God did create the bodies of A@E through evolution and make them into humans using just one of those bodies, that would go against evolution to the extent that the scientific theory of evolution does not allow for divine intervention at any point, and everything has to have happened through natural processes.
For me and my faith that just shows where the naturalistic methodology in science produces conclusions that are wrong.

Rather, I see it as simply neutral, finding out the facts. And it's up to us what to do with that information. How do we integrate that with the faith? That should be the focus and effort, not attempting to challenge or deny the science. That's why I quote the verse, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". The evidence is in. To continue to deny it is to do self-harm. It harms faith, IMHO.

I don't see science as coming up with fact all the time. Sometimes what is found is just a natural outcome of the naturalistic methodology. A best guess with that presumption applying.

I subscribe to an epistimological pluralism. That doesn't mean one against the other, but complementary ways of understanding reality. The eye of flesh (empiric sciences), the eye of mind (psychology and hermeneutics), and the eye of spirit (contemplative introspective). All three tend to help create the whole picture, as opposed to using faith to denying science, which is just bad faith and bad science.

When it comes to science telling us things that go against my faith I listen and see how far my faith can take me in believing those things. So I end up believing evolution, to an extent, while recognising God's intervention along the way somehow.
When science tells me that it knows how life and consciousness has developed naturally I react and look for flaws in the science. Not that I am a scientist but I have found that many time it is just a matter of looking at the presumptions in science to find errors.
When it comes to history (using naturalistic methodology) telling me that the story of Moses and Joshua did not happen I look for answers and find them in alternative views of the same archaeological and historical evidence.
When historians, using naturalistic methodology, tell me that Jesus did not exist and the gospels were written by people who did not know Jesus and the story of Jesus was compiled from bits and pieces from other god stories in the ancient world, I reject it.
Etc etc.
If you are a Christian then you no doubt would draw a line also, even if it might be in a different place.

Again, I still think you don't understand or appreciate symbolism. And not, calling it symbolism is not to avoid disputes. It's to recognize it for its depths. Here's a great quote about mythologies and symbolism that captures this:.............................................................

When we make the story a matter of science, we deprive it of its subtleties and nuances. It fails at that point to be an expression of "a light too great to bear". It becomes a calculated discussion instead. That' what I mean by cheapening it.

Whether the stories are literally true or not, the same deep meanings can be derived from them. But for me a true story actually does tell us about God instead of telling us about what men have thought about God.
Of course speaking with sceptics on a forum like this, one does not get past the historicity of the stories. It seems to be the historicity that is attacked by sceptics and is seen as important by them, and I agree. But the sceptics want the naturalistic methodology applied to the stories,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, making them all just what man has made up about God and what God has done.
I see it as a good thing that there are those in science and history who look at the facts from a different angle and actually affirm the historicity of the Bible.

It's like the story of George Washington who could not lie about chopping down the cherry tree. It's irrelevant if that story is historically factual or not. The meaning transcends the historicity of it. Otherwise it's just dry data about some boy who cut down a tree, with no real symbolic meaning. It's the story is the point, not the historical aspect of it or not.

The Washington story does not really tell us anything about George Washington however if it is made up.
But of course it is dry history if only read that way, and there are different ways to read the Bible and hopefully the dry history way is not the only way we read it.

Because I am unable to ignore, dispute, reject or deny what science has to say about earth history, I'd say my understanding is more compatible with modern knowledge. If I didn't have that awareness, then it wouldn't matter, there is no conflict as in the past. But because I do have that knowledge, and accept it out of intellectual and ethical integrity, understanding the symbolic nature of scripture as its real point (it always has been anyway), then there is no conflict anymore.

For me there is no conflict when I realise that not all science or history is accurate, just interpretations which others disagree with, even if the others might be fewer in number and even seen as biased because of their faith perspective. (but a naturalistic pov is not seen as a bias strangely enough).

Each is true, and fully compatible with each other. That's much easier than fighting against one or the other as "right". Both are right.

I just think that capitulation to the naturalistic pov about the Bible can lead to problems in faith, and it has for many people, because that pov has in the past been taught in seminaries and Bible colleges in many places.
The sceptic pov of the historicity of the Bible was popular and imo it is a good thing that people of faith have been able to debunk some of the sceptical povs that have been used.
If you take the "both are right" angle too far then you might end up with a faith in tatters because you can't say "no" to science.

You're happy to make scripture a target of scientific scrutiny? Why? Are we talk about faith here, or alternative science?

I don't make scripture a target of scientific scrutiny. It is a target of scientific scrutiny.
I just take my stand somewhere.
I'm not really into alternative science, but that does no mean that I cannot critique non alternative science or history.

The data is the data. As far as supernatural goes, don't you see the whole thing, granting the evolution is factually true as the all the data strongly supports, as miraculous in and of itself? Isn't the entire process, the fact we exist itself, through natural processes, a miracle of Life or Spirit, herself?

You see, it's not that God created or not. It's how it was created, and evolution is no less miraculous a thing than some simplified story of God making clay figurines out of dust and spit in an afternoon and animating them with breath. In fact, evolution is even more miraculous way of God creating. Thank God for Evolution.

continued....

Evolution seems like a great way to create life and make it viable and adaptable in various environments.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human looking at just humans stories is all they are first. Human belief. Thoughts compiled.

I would agree with a science story that used a static but enlarged machine study position to say an ape is our closest living relative on earth. Not using it looking anywhere else.

Ape is not a human but owned similar biology. As proof closest living pre body type.

So no human group by cult dictatorship behaviour could argue any other story.

For human safety.

As humans who believe in human safety are good humans.

If I had to claim loss of humans health consciousness is our reality. I can blame earth God earth heavens for that human owned status.

Both bodies proven reactive and changed. The change which is only controlled by the massed body that reacts naturally itself.

Hence I can say God did it as a human and we need to respect those two bodies that a human once named as holy.

Defining holiness.

If I wanted to assist family I would teach self help brain entrainment healing centres are for cleansing mind bodies as a service. A practice.

Knowing its a medical service.

And I would teach the human form was created as it's present only as a one of species and two of by diversity. And respect it should not diversify from its origin nature. Ownership.

Thinking assessments. Not scientific.

I would not deride a humans personal physical body and mind change as a human experience. Yet if it owned continued strange human misbehaviour I would determine it medical.

Basic advice.

As far as teaching a human has a death experience....that circumstance is personal only. And it owns no argument or need for preaching for or against.

As we only live a humans living position. Which should support no human thoughts allowed about life's non presence as a criminal act. It once had been proven to be human asserted and legally defined criminal.

To think against natural being.

 

[Brian2]

continued from above...
Again it seems to me you are making it a debate of is science true, or is the Bible true. Why can't both be true, but with different sets of eyes? Is the Bible the eyes of science? Is science the eyes of faith? No to both of those. But yet, that is how it is being treated by making it which one is right question. I don't see the conflict, nor the need for it.

For me there is a conflict.

Complete rubbish to who?? I won't see it as rubbish, anymore than I see it as rubbish by accepting evolution as factual. If it becomes rubbish to you, then you are making your faith dependent upon scientific verification! You make scientific truthfulness the validator of your faith. Do you have any idea how precarious that is? I do. You make it that if you can't deny the science, your faith is rubbish.

I can see your point to an extent, but I don't mind denying the science if necessary. In that way I am not making my faith dependant on the scientific verification. I admit that it can cause angst when something in science or history is found that is new to me and I have not been able to integrate it into my understanding yet, but in the end I find that God gives me an understanding of things that does that. If that involves a different understanding of the Bible or of a reasoned denial of the science, that is fine.

Caving in? It's not a battle between science and faith. It's a battle between a faith of the heart, and a faith of the mind only. It's a battle between the faith and itself.

Sometimes I see it as caving in to a naturalistic pov and that is more dangerous to my faith than the complete acceptance of such a pov.

They don't understand symbolism either. They likewise see it as either literally all true, or just "mere symbolism" or literally not true. They are just flipside of the same exact same coin. Either the Bible is true and science is rubbish, or science is true and the Bible is rubbish. It's exactly the sentiment that you have expressed here, just on the faith side of it, and not the atheist side of it. I'd call it "believer poised to become an atheist", faith. It's the exact same approach of literalism. The problem is not understanding symbolic truth for boths sides of that same coin.

I don't see it as not understanding symbolic truth, I see it as not accepting symbolic truth.
But of course if I have found that science is not necessarily 100% correct because of the naturalistic methodology that it uses my faith at the moment is not in danger.

No. It would be a step forward liberating it from a debate that has nothing to do with actual faith.

I think the debates have something to do with faith since it is justification that people give for not having faith and showing those justifications are not solid is a good thing imo.

I've encountered more than a few who think I am against the Bible, or against Jesus, because I don't think as they do about these things. Quite recently on this site by a couple. In reality, I share what I do because I see there is a way to not set themselves up for a failure of faith by making it about science vs. faith. I'm not entirely sure where you are at, but when I hear arguments from you that seem to be 'well why should I believe science' type sentiments, that can create a problem for faith.

Maybe if I knew your beliefs I would wonder if you were a Christian.
In the case of YECs I can see your concern and presume that their young are being hit hard when they go off to university to study science.
I have ended up in a place of going to the presumptions behind the science,,,,,,,,,, presumptions that can lead to conclusions which are in error, in error that is when compared to what God has said in the Bible.

It's only Satan because people make it that. I see it as truth that asks faith in God to grow.

I see it as truth that asks faith in God to grow but maybe my job in that is throwing doubt in there about justifications for non belief.

I'd be happy to help show how it can, if you feel it would be beneficial to your faith.

Thanks but not at the moment, even though it would be interesting to see how more liberal Christians think about things.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

add to this in fact the evidence that has known been proven to show that the Bible is one of the few recognized historically accurate accounts for a couple of very significant lost civilisations (Assyrians and Hittites for example), then

They aren’t lost. Dr. Josh on Digital Hammurabi is an Assyriologist and that means that there is enough to study.

Therefore the question "did Jesus know about modern Science" becomes insignificant...he created everything.

And yet he’s not in Genesis.

If you read the account of Satan tempting Jesus immediately after his baptism...even Satan knew who Jesus really was and openly stated to him "for he has charged his angels concerning you, that they will lift you up least you dash your foot against a stone"

But demons lie so you can’t trust them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus referred to his divinity, not God absolute. This comparison was one of the reasons that the Jews had him killed.

Romans killed him because he rioted at the temple. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The teachers that the Son sent before hand were also abused and even killed.

Well the scripture says to kill false prophets.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You did not have an objective look at the gospel accounts. Look for example at the I am sayings and what it implies.

It doesn’t matter what it implies because any narcissist can claim divinity.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Sorry, too many witnesses.

How many of his followers witnessed him creating the universe?