|
|
Post by jedidja87 on Nov 19, 2016 13:14:27 GMT -8
So i am curious about is Genesis scientifically valid book? Can you draw conclusion from the Genesis that Universe is 6000 years old?
Or is Bible scientifically and biologically truthful book? How Messianic Jews think about it and what you think about this for yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 23, 2016 16:42:50 GMT -8
So i am curious about is Genesis scientifically valid book? Can you draw conclusion from the Genesis that Universe is 6000 years old? Or is Bible scientifically and biologically truthful book? How Messianic Jews think about it and what you think about this for yourself? The universe may or may not be older than 5777 years. But God said He created everything on earth in six days, and I believe Him. Scientifically proven? That's a mixed bag, but there is evidence that it is correct. It has been calculated that if the moon were billions of years old, the dust on its' surface would be several feet deep. I was around during the space race, and when we landed on the moon this was one of the concerns NASA had was that the Lunar Lander would sink too deep in this layer of dust. And there are other things like the Institute for Creation Research evidences that there was a flood and that men and dinosaurs coexisted. So science does support creation if properly applied. However the big grants seem to go to those scientists who can convince most people that everything was randomly created by a loud noise (Big Bang). Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 30, 2016 18:31:16 GMT -8
I was just talking with my mom and dad about this the other day. Here's our conclusion. As believers, if we start debating with science on their terms we will loose because our fundamental assumption as believers is that we cannot understand G-d or His way. By definition, He does the miraculous and acts beyond what is humanly logical or possible. This topic is a bit of a hot button one for me because I get really annoyed knowing that the world is pulling believers into a position to defend and explain something we fundamentally admit that we can't. As a matter of fact, that we can't explain creation is for us a reason to glorify G-d. Science has more to explain than we do simply because science assumes it can explain it. Our assumptions are not compatible at their base, and so I will argue from mine. My assumption is that my G-d is beyond human wisdom , confines, or time restraints. I can't understand Him, and compared to Him, people know nothing and can accomplish nothing. So I don't hold Him accountable to human concepts of time, rates of change, or the realm of possibility. My go-to example is that until science can explain how even a painting could be created by accident, they need to pay more attention to the fundamental hole in their own theory. In the meantime, I won't be forced into a position defined on their terms to defend what science perceives as holes in mine. Like I said this is a hot button topic for me.  That's because it undermines us from the get-go in expecting us to explain something we freely admit we can't, while elevating them into thinking they can explain a lot more than they actually can. |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
That's because it undermines us from the get-go in expecting us to explain something we freely admit we can't, while elevating them into thinking they can explain a lot more than they actually can. 
