Religion fears Science

[Halbhh]

From the article on Isaac Newton's faith:

Newton’s Faith
For Newton the world of science was by no means the whole of life. He spent more time on theology than on science; indeed, he wrote about 1.3 million words on biblical subjects. Yet this vast legacy lay hidden from public view for two centuries until the auction of his nonscientific writings in 1936.

Newton’s understanding of God came primarily from the Bible, which he studied for days and weeks at a time. He took special interest in miracles and prophecy, calculating dates of Old Testament books and analyzing their texts to discover their authorship. In a manuscript on rules for interpreting prophecy, Newton noted the similar goals of the scientist and the prophecy expositor: simplicity and unity. He condemned the “folly of interpreters who foretell times and things by prophecy,” since the purpose of prophecy was to demonstrate God’s providence in ...
The Faith Behind the Famous: Isaac Newton

Newton is perhaps the single most towering figure in the establishment of modern science. And a very strong believer.

And with a clear and strong view on how to interpret Genesis chapter 1 it turns out! (see post #100, just before this post).

 

[Halbhh]

Religion especially Christianity has always feared science in all of its forms. The reason for this, it proves many biblical belief false. Copernicus and Galileo with telescopes figured out the earth is not the center of the universe and the church fought furiously to prevent that information from being spread.

Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Archeology all have disproved many things in the bible and Christianity fears that and so does Islam. The earth is not flat nor the center of the universe, Natural Disasters is nature acting up not punishment from god. Diseases are not caused by evil spirits but by germs. Geology, Archeology, and Astronomy have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth and universe are much older than religion likes to admit.
The bible is a book written over 2,000 yrs. ago by fisherman and goat herders, has been translated into and out of 100s of languages, by human beings, depending on the language one word can mean several thing. Evolution, Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Archeology, science in all its forms threatens Christians more than most. It does not threaten me, it proves the existence of god to me. If you look at how complex the universe is you can see a designer behind it. I believe in Christ, I also know that the New Testament has been edited books have been removed. I believe the bible to be a book designed to show us how to have a relationship with god, I think much of it that many consider fact is just parable and myth.

Hey Laconia, you may like to read posts 101 and 100 just above.

 

[Ragdoll]

Hey, wanted to let you know, for some reason your post made me want to look up precisely what the very-strong-in-faith Isaac Newton thought.
(yes, very strong in faith: The Faith Behind the Famous: Isaac Newton)


Since Newton is one of the most towering figures of the modern age of science. And you'd written, "I also find it ironic that modern science was founded and established Christians who were mostly young earth creationists!" Which isn't all that important, but is interesting to consider anyway.

And I found this:


Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Pg 450 of that book we find:
( from a letter written by Newton to Thomas Burnet in January 1680.):

(by 'vulgar' Newton seems to mean simply the typical notions of the common people, who are not scientists nor very mathematically inclined, etc.)

"As to Moses, I do not think his description of ye creation either philosophical or feigned, but that he described realities in a language artificially adapted to ye sense of ye vulgar. Thus when he speaks of two great lights, I suppose he means their apparent not real greatness. So when he tells us God placed these lights in ye firmament, he speaks I suppose of their apparent not real place, his business being not to correct the vulgar notions in matters philosophical, but to adapt a description of the creation as handsomely as he could to ye sense and capacity of ye vulgar. So when he tells us of two great lights, and ye stars made ye 4th day, I do not think their creation from beginning to end was done the 4th day, nor in any one day of ye creation, nor that Moses mentions their creation, as they were physicall bodies in themselves, some of them greater than the earth, and perhaps habitable worlds, but only as they were lights to this earth, so therefore though their creation could not physically [be] assigned to any one day, yet being a part of ye sensible creation which it was Moses’s design to describe, and it being his design to describe things in order according to the succession of days, allotting no more than one day to one thing, they were to be referred to some day or other, and rather to the 4th day than any other, if they [the] air then first became clear enough for them to shine thro’ it, and so put ye appearance of lights in ye firmament to enlighten the earth…”
Isaac Newton on the Mosaic Account of Creation

Since Newton famously wrote many religious tracks, and is such a towering figure in the modern age of science, he's a fun example to look to out of curiosity to learn what he thought.

It's not that I would just think whatever Newton thought was always automatically correct -- thought it's clear it's superior in thinking to typical stuff we hear in many YEC theories. (You'd not just assume without any reflection that YEC theory is automatically correct I hope!) But, at least Newton is someone that has more than just a clue on how to discover new things in science, and it's interesting to see how he thought.

I have many of Newton's books and he was definitely a Young Earth Creationist. He was a man of faith. However, his theology was not always on par with, say, the early church fathers, or Luther, Tyndale, Cranmer. Newton did not have their knowledge of the Bible. Though one thing that is attributed to Newton (though I have never read), is his prediction of what year Christ will return. He said that Christ will return in the year 2060. Now that's not a bad guess at all. Give or take a few years and he's spot on! This world will not last much longer then that.

 

[Ragdoll]

From the article on Isaac Newton's faith:

Newton’s Faith
For Newton the world of science was by no means the whole of life. He spent more time on theology than on science; indeed, he wrote about 1.3 million words on biblical subjects. Yet this vast legacy lay hidden from public view for two centuries until the auction of his nonscientific writings in 1936.

Newton’s understanding of God came primarily from the Bible, which he studied for days and weeks at a time. He took special interest in miracles and prophecy, calculating dates of Old Testament books and analyzing their texts to discover their authorship. In a manuscript on rules for interpreting prophecy, Newton noted the similar goals of the scientist and the prophecy expositor: simplicity and unity. He condemned the “folly of interpreters who foretell times and things by prophecy,” since the purpose of prophecy was to demonstrate God’s providence in ...
The Faith Behind the Famous: Isaac Newton

Newton is perhaps the single most towering figure in the establishment of modern science. And a very strong believer.

And with a clear and strong view on how to interpret Genesis chapter 1 it turns out! (see post #100, just before this post).

Newton's overall interpretation of Genesis 1 is not all that impressive. I prefer the early church fathers to Newton.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

This is not sound exegesis. First, there is no dome mentioned in Genesis. The word raqiya means "expanse" and not a solid object. The solid comes from another word that appears nowhere in Hebrew, which is the Latin word firmament. This word came from the Greek stereoma because there was no Greek equivalent to raqiya. Today, there is more knowledge on the subject and all Hebraist agree that raqiya means "expanse." This expanse consists of the atmosphere "the heavens", the space between land and sky where air flows, and the surface of the ocean. The expanse also describes space where the stars and planets are. Genesis 1:6-8 are about the earth's sky. But the heavens on Day 4 are about the greater expanse which is space.

In Chattanooga, this is called hogwash. On the east side of South Los Angeles a less reserved expression is used. In the community of Westwood in Los Angeles, it is known as irresponsibly baseless fiction! In the entire paragraph, there is not a single phrase that is true.

Why is it that persons who do not know even so much as the first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet believe that they have a more accurate understanding of the language than virtually every professor of Semitic languages teaching today in seminaries and universities around the world that are internationally known for their academic excellence?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There is no way you can date the earth with a gadget. No scientists have ever travelled back in time with a time machine to check to see if the date is correct. Also, when dating unknown things, your dating methods are millions of years. When dating known things of the modern age, they still date millions of years. Absolutely no scientist knows the age of the earth. Philosophy is not science so try not to confuse the two. Scientific method is very rigid and doesn't allow for assumptions. You make a great assumption when you trust a dating method that cannot be verified. Its all philosophy.

On an honest day, any evolutionist will tell you that nobody knows the age of the earth or the universe. A few years back, I was watching the Science Channel and they even admit the universe could be young or it could be very old. They, of course, believe it is very old and lay down their philosophical reasons why they believe that. But its not science. Don't confuse science with philosophy. Know the difference.

Denying reality will never make it go away.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Newton's overall interpretation of Genesis 1 is not all that impressive. I prefer the early church fathers to Newton.

Newton lived (most of his life) more than 300 years ago at a time when the study of the Old Testament was in its infancy. The first reliable Hebrew concordance of the Old Testament was not published until 1840; the first comprehensive Hebrew concordance of the Old Testament was not published until 1896. A Hebrew, Latin and English Dictionary; containing all the Hebrew and Chaldee Words used in the Old Testament, by Joseph Samuel Christian Frederick Frey, was first published 1815. Far better concordances and lexicons for the study of the Old Testament have been published and are in use today. The first extensive commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis was first published (in German) in three volumes in 1974, 1981, and 1982 respectively.

 

[Halbhh]

Newton's overall interpretation of Genesis 1 is not all that impressive. I prefer the early church fathers to Newton.

Well, as we know, how a person interprets Genesis 1 will not save them, or anyone, but salvation is only through faith in Christ Jesus, alone, and not in any other means, and not by any collection of esoteric knowledge or understandings like theories about Genesis chapter 1 Thank God for that, as people often have mistaken ideas. But it's not how perfect your intellect is that will save you, but only, solely, your faith in Christ and how that faith leads to keeping his words (Matthew chapter 7).

And that reminds us of a key thing: if we argue with a lost person about Genesis chapter 1, about evolution and so on, that will never save them, and could even block them from hearing the gospel. Because if they believe X and you argue not-X, you only seem merely mistaken to them, and it even makes all the Bible seem mistaken to them, but crucially a person can only ever be saved by hearing the Gospel message (in the New Testament, not the Old), the good news about Jesus Christ.

So, arguing against evolution with the lost is a harmful activity. If you want to discuss it, then pick a believer like me that already has faith and send me a PM, and then you won't be accidentally blocking some lost person from considering the gospel.

 

[Ragdoll]

Well, as we know, how a person interprets Genesis 1 will not save them, or anyone, but salvation is only through faith in Christ Jesus, alone, and not in any other means, and not by any collection of esoteric knowledge or understandings like theories about Genesis chapter 1 Thank God for that, as people often have mistaken ideas. But it's not how perfect your intellect is that will save you, but only, solely, your faith in Christ and how that faith leads to keeping his words (Matthew chapter 7).

And that reminds us of a key thing: if we argue with a lost person about Genesis chapter 1, about evolution and so on, that will never save them, and could even block them from hearing the gospel. Because if they believe X and you argue not-X, you only seem merely mistaken to them, and it even makes all the Bible seem mistaken to them, but crucially a person can only ever be saved by hearing the Gospel message (in the New Testament, not the Old), the good news about Jesus Christ.

So, arguing against evolution with the lost is a harmful activity. If you want to discuss it, then pick a believer like me that already has faith and send me a PM, and then you won't be accidentally blocking some lost person from considering the gospel.

I agree with you in part. I know how hard it is for atheists who believe in evolution to accept Christ since they already closed themselves up to the knowledge of God. I agree there is a line of reasoning between discussing and arguing. When you see an atheist who is showing no interest in being reasonable with you, then its good not to discuss anything with that atheist who doesn't want to know. To discuss creationism with such an atheist accomplishes nothing. So I try not to discuss any topic of creationism with an atheist who doesn't want to know. The only time I will get into an argument with one is when they are influencing others and then I will step in and reasonably defend creationist beliefs. These are important to defend which is why I decided to learn about things like creationism and apologetics to begin with. I do agree with you as you rightly pointed out that one's interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 will not save them because nobody has perfect knowledge except God. Though as a student of Scripture I enjoy learning about creationism.

I don't believe a person can be saved by belief in evolution. To me that is the same as doubting the existence of God Himself, since evolution excludes God from His work of creation. As it says in Genesis 1:1...God created. The first verse automatically disagrees with evolution.

Overall, its best to avoid all discussion where the blood pressure rises up. Many people online who get into multiple debates experience high blood pressure. So lets just all agree to keep our discussions peaceful and keep the blood pressure low

 

[Ragdoll]

Newton lived (most of his life) more than 300 years ago at a time when the study of the Old Testament was in its infancy. The first reliable Hebrew concordance of the Old Testament was not published until 1840; the first comprehensive Hebrew concordance of the Old Testament was not published until 1896. A Hebrew, Latin and English Dictionary; containing all the Hebrew and Chaldee Words used in the Old Testament, by Joseph Samuel Christian Frederick Frey, was first published 1815. Far better concordances and lexicons for the study of the Old Testament have been published and are in use today. The first extensive commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis was first published (in German) in three volumes in 1974, 1981, and 1982 respectively.

Have you ever read the works of the early church fathers? I find those works to be important because it sheds light on what the early Christians believed. You would be surprised at what they knew. I noticed someone on this forum was quoting the early church fathers in a flat earth debate. He rightly handled their knowledge of how they understood the earth from Scripture. Apart from that topic, you can find that they quoted from the Bible so much, that you could preserve the Bible just by going through all their quotes and still contain most of the Bible. While they did not quote every verse in the Bible, a great portion of Scripture was preserved just by quotes alone. Then there are the lessons they taught which are well worth the read. I have learned more from them than any other modern scholar with some exceptions where the church father openly said they did not understand what a verse or passage meant. Those passages usually reflect things in end time prophecy in which they said are left up to the people of that time to know.

So there are volumes of works written in the early centuries of Christianity, long long before the Protestant reformation.