I do not really care about the exact years, we were not there after all, and Adam and his sons did not quite have the gift of administration.
6k to 10k, does not matter.
Hundred and something million years - now how will you fit that into the bible?
Christians and Science
- Thread starter lizloves
- Start date
6k to 10k, does not matter.
Hundred and something million years - now how will you fit that into the bible?
Be blessed
YOU be blessed!!! [emoji34] Lol! [emoji14]
I am ! Thank you
Why do you say now how will you fit that into the bible for ?
If you got something to say then say it. lol
You can know the year it is today from Creation, according to the word of God. That's why I did my study on the Chronology of Man, According to the Scriptures. It took me 10 years to write because you cannot leave out one single verse, so I had to write an excel spreadsheet to map out every time the word said "and he reigned eleven years and he slept with his fathers" to "and in the fifth year of his reign, the king of Israel came to power"... then you have to understand how they counted a king's reign. But it can be done. I may not be, but I figure I'm dead on. In fact up until the Jews changed their calendar to point away from Jesus we were within 5 years of the Babylonian count of time. I'm overlapping the shmitas now to see how they fall into my timeline. In fact just putting in the raw data, the first shmita is only off by 2 years clear back to creation. The issue is the jubilee count. Both the 7th shmita (49th year) and the Jubilee year are years of rest. So when does the count begin for the next shmita after a Jubilee, the year of Jubilee is year one, or is the next year, year one? There's nothing in the scriptures and the Jews are really tight lipped about it, so I can't find the answer - yet!
Here's my question... a shmita ends, you count seven years and the seventh year is a shmita. You do that 7 times and you have the next year as a Jubilee... is that year of Jubilee year the first year of the next cycle?
S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S J then which J 123456S? or J23456S?
Jesus started His ministry in the year of the 80th Jubilee from Creation. The 120th Jubilee from Creation is 2025.
Jesus did say that no one knows when He is coming back, so I might be incorrect. Hopefully I am. I want to get married before Christ comes back, and I'd only be around 22 when that happens, according to the theory.
That's some hardcore stuff.You can know the year it is today from Creation, according to the word of God. That's why I did my study on the Chronology of Man, According to the Scriptures. It took me 10 years to write because you cannot leave out one single verse, so I had to write an excel spreadsheet to map out every time the word said "and he reigned eleven years and he slept with his fathers" to "and in the fifth year of his reign, the king of Israel came to power"... then you have to understand how they counted a king's reign. But it can be done. I may not be, but I figure I'm dead on. In fact up until the Jews changed their calendar to point away from Jesus we were within 5 years of the Babylonian count of time. I'm overlapping the shmitas now to see how they fall into my timeline. In fact just putting in the raw data, the first shmita is only off by 2 years clear back to creation. The issue is the jubilee count. Both the 7th shmita (49th year) and the Jubilee year are years of rest. So when does the count begin for the next shmita after a Jubilee, the year of Jubilee is year one, or is the next year, year one? There's nothing in the scriptures and the Jews are really tight lipped about it, so I can't find the answer - yet!
Here's my question... a shmita ends, you count seven years and the seventh year is a shmita. You do that 7 times and you have the next year as a Jubilee... is that year of Jubilee year the first year of the next cycle?
S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S 123456S J then which J 123456S? or J23456S?
Jesus started His ministry in the year of the 80th Jubilee from Creation. The 120th Jubilee from Creation is 2025.
I just wouldn't have the patience. Even if someone told me how long it would take. When I am told how long something will take, I am usually content and will not quit in the middle. But ten years? I would probably quit after a month.It's in the word, so why not study it?
To me. It is ironic that many in the faith community have concentrated on evolution as an enemy. When Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the rest of science still considered the universe as being eternal. They were having more and more problems getting their views to fit the discoveries that were coming out of research. From thermo-dynamics to astrophysics, things were just not fitting into an eternal universe. Then Darwin published Origin and suddenly science was pointing to a creation event. Many in the faith community hailed it as a vindication of scripture.
When Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into his field equation, he did so because he still thought that the Universe was eternal, and that after enough observations and measurements were taken, a value for the constant could be arrived at to balance gravity and make the Universe eternal.
So, instead of being an attack on the idea of God as a creator, evolution was the first science to unequivocally point to a beginning, even if it originally only pertained to life on Earth.
Rejection of evolution is not universal, even among committed Christian leadership:
In his Humani Generis Encyclical, Pope Pius XII identified evolution as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection. Building upon that, II Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) further supporting the study of evolution as being compatible with faith in God.
Billy Graham wrote:
Even Pat Robertson rejected Young Earth Creationism and acknowledged evolution as being correct.
The Clergy project which circulated a letter for endorsement collected over 13000 signatures of Christian clergy. That letter stated (in part):
The Clergy letter project has been endorsed by leadership of Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopal denominations as well as individual clergy of a wide variety of denominations.
When Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into his field equation, he did so because he still thought that the Universe was eternal, and that after enough observations and measurements were taken, a value for the constant could be arrived at to balance gravity and make the Universe eternal.
So, instead of being an attack on the idea of God as a creator, evolution was the first science to unequivocally point to a beginning, even if it originally only pertained to life on Earth.
Rejection of evolution is not universal, even among committed Christian leadership:
In his Humani Generis Encyclical, Pope Pius XII identified evolution as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection. Building upon that, II Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) further supporting the study of evolution as being compatible with faith in God.
Billy Graham wrote:
I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74
Even Pat Robertson rejected Young Earth Creationism and acknowledged evolution as being correct.
The Clergy project which circulated a letter for endorsement collected over 13000 signatures of Christian clergy. That letter stated (in part):
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
The Clergy letter project has been endorsed by leadership of Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopal denominations as well as individual clergy of a wide variety of denominations.
So do you believe in evolution?
It is not an on/off switch...
If you were to classify my approach, it would be called theistic evolution, meaning that the science of evolution is generally valid, although I would not necessarily accept everything it written by every evolutionist. I believe that God has been directing it to accomplish His purpose of glorifying Him. In fact evolution, like physics and chemistry and aerodynamics are a study of God's manifestations in His physical world.
I love Science as well… it works! (hard science: it can predict the future)
The funny thing with "Scientific Method" is from hard science (repeatable result experiment: ie: can predict the future), it goes to soft science (can be subjective: human bias)....
The Scientific Method
Identify the problem.
Gather data.
Experiment: repeatable experiment (hard science)
Analyze.
Conclusion (soft science)
The funny thing is the conclusion: ) it uses Logic! (soft science: human bias....)
Well, it can be funny at least: there are lot of conclusions in the past, accepted by the Science community, that after found not to be true... is really funny : )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
just a thought....
The funny thing with "Scientific Method" is from hard science (repeatable result experiment: ie: can predict the future), it goes to soft science (can be subjective: human bias)....
The Scientific Method
Identify the problem.
Gather data.
Experiment: repeatable experiment (hard science)
Analyze.
Conclusion (soft science)
The funny thing is the conclusion: ) it uses Logic! (soft science: human bias....)
Well, it can be funny at least: there are lot of conclusions in the past, accepted by the Science community, that after found not to be true... is really funny : )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
just a thought....
I see confusion here, imo: as far as Catholic official take on this::
Darwin Evolution is different from Theory of Evolution
Darwin = natural selection… is of impossible acceptance…
Here is from Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
Catholics and Evolution
The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions.
The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin of species by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism—adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above—under (2)—to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.
Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution
To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm
Evolution (History and Scientific Foundation)
General conclusions
The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:—
- The origin of life is unknown to science.
- The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
- There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
- There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
- Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
- There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.
Yes, there are a lot of ways man's knowledge about God's world has evolved (if I may use that word). The same can be said about the things of faith. As I pointed out in an earlier post (several pages ago), what was considered a heretical view concerning the structure of the universe is now held by some Christians to be the Biblical view (and not even those Christians have any problem with the fact that it is not how a modern scientist would describe it).
Even here in this forum of persons of faith in the Lord, there are many subjects that have banned because we start too many quarrels and make the mistake of treating our friends & brothers that we disagree with as enemies. If we cannot agree on what the scriptures say about our common faith, we should not be too surprised to find that there are differing views on a variety of other subjects.