www.Science and the Bible.net
Exploring Science and the
Bible for the Intellectually Honest Inquisitor
Dedicated to the proposition that one can believe the bible because of science rather than in spite of science.
Encouraging the intellectually honest inquisitor in how to think, not what to think.Biblical
Creationism
True Biblical Creationism:
1. Provides an intellectually honest answer to the Six Days of Genesis Dilemma.
Christians are faced with a dilemma.
Their good book contains a schedule of the origins that puts everything into a six-day chronology only a few thousand years ago.
For thousands of years that six-day chronology has been assumed to be the official biblical position concerning the beginnings.
A few hundred years ago a dilemma arose when modern science began discovering the six-day chronology is in conflict with reality.
Untold effort has gone into resolving the conflict, but to no avail. There have been many attempts, but until now there has been no consensus on how to reconcile the two.
Intellectually honest analysis concludes either the six-day schedule of Genesis 1 is not the true chronology, or science is wrong. None of the compromises is intellectually honest.
For decades the dilemma has been assumed to be whether to believe the bible or science.
Now an alternate chronology has been recognized. There are at least thirty-four major creation accounts in the bible, not just one upfront as has been traditionally assumed.
In that myriad of biblical accounts is recorded a chronology that is not only inconsistent with the six-day chronology, it contains many more details, is consistent from account to account and consistent with reality even to the point that it predicts yet undiscovered scientific discoveries.
These are two different biblical chronologies, the six-day schedule that is found in only one account and inconsistent with both the rest of the bible and with reality, or the one found in thirty-four biblical accounts that is both internally consistent and consistent with reality.
The dilemma then becomes: Which biblical chronology is intended to be reality, and which is fiction? Under the rules of logic, opposites cannot both be true. Both could be fiction, or one could be true and the other fiction, but both could not be true; at least one must be fiction. If one is to be considered to be the official position of the bible as to the actual chronology of the origins, then which one?
True Biblical Creationism provides an intellectually honest answer.
An in-depth presentation is found in an article published on Academia.edu, Intellectually Honest Answer to the Six Days of Genesis Dilemma, by Max B. Frederick, AnOldScientist, and Debbie A. Knapp, BS, MS, 6/30/2019,Also at, ScienceAndTheBible.net.
2. Is the result of intellectually honest analysis of the technical information in all the Biblical Creation Accounts, Not just the one up front in the Bible.
In the ancient scriptures of the bible there are nearly three dozen major creation accounts. Each of these biblical accounts is characterized by containing at least one or more technical details along with the claim that the God of the bible caused it.
3. Recognizes all the nearly three dozen Biblical Creation Accounts.
In the Bible there are at least thirty-four unique Biblical Creation Accounts, not just one found in Genesis 1.These biblical creation accounts mention many technical details of the origins. Those details contain chronology clues as to the order in which things happened. Those accounts all give God credit for causing it all to happen. Yet they have never before been officially recognized to be creation accounts on a par with the first chapter of Genesis. The myriad of technical details in these additional accounts gives a more complete picture of the origins.
4. Upsets some long-held assumptions.
The Book of Genesis was compiled/edited from pre-existing accounts that existed in written form during the time of Moses. Biblical scholars have long held the assumption that writing did not exist from the time of the original information until it was later written down from oral tradition. The accurateness of the technical information preserved in the Genesis biblical creation accounts could not have been so preserved if left to oral tradition during an era when that information was not in the knowledge base of those transmitting the accounts. They would have been passed on in the storyteller's own words.
Biblical scholars have long held the assumption that the human author of the book of Genesis was either Moses, or multiple later imposters writing under the pen name of Moses. The validity of the technical information and the variousness of the expression thereof in the different individual biblical creation account lead to the conclusion the Book of Genesis was compiled by a compiler/editor from prior existing written accounts, probably Moses, at least in the time of Moses if not by Moses himself due to some of the information in the edits such as the names of places being originally recorded in the old name and edited to indicate the current name, current at the time of Moses.
Other assumptions such as the idea that the Ancient Hebrews believed there was any such thing as a "firmament", an idea upon such theories as the Water Canopy theory is based, are shattered. See The Story Behind The Legend of the Firmament.
5.
Contains Many More Technical Details than
Traditional Creationism.
Recognition of the many Biblical Creation Accounts enables a more detailed view of what God revealed to humans about the origins thousands of years ago at a time when there was no way they could discover it on their own. Among the Biblical Creation Accounts with the most technical detail is the Chronological Order of Creation Account found in Psalm 104.
6.
Is Consistent from Account to Account and
is Consistent with Reality.
That picture is not only consistent from account to account, but consistent with the technical details that modern science has been discovering in recent times. [This is not to say there is consistency with the interpretations of either theologians or scientists when they go beyond the discovered facts and into human interpretation of the facts.]
When you interpret the whole bible based on only one creation account you do not get the same picture of what the bible says that you do if you base your interpretation on all 34 Biblical Creation Accounts.
7. Recognizes Biblical Publication that Documents Biblical Technical Knowledge in Advance of Independent Discovery by Modern Science.
There is no need to re-interpret the bible to agree with modern science as some critics have suggested. When you investigate the ancient scriptures in all the Biblical Creation Accounts there are many technical details published first in the ancient scriptures thousands of years before the discovery of those same technical details by modern science. That pattern of modern science discovering technical details first recorded thousands of years ago is even continuing into the future. A Timeline of Science and the Bible History illustrates this by listing the date of original biblical publication and the date of Modern Science discovery for many technical details mentioned in the Biblical Creation Accounts.
8. Actually Predicted a Recent Modern Science Discovery.
See the article Modern Science Discovery Predicted by Ancient Religious Literature for the story of some significant technical details recognized in Biblical Creationism over ten years before being recently discovered by modern science and published no earlier than the year 2018.It tells the story of their publication in Ancient Religious Literature thousands of years ago, recognition in Biblical Creation accounts, and their subsequent independent discovery by modern science.
9. Provides scientific evidence that sheds new light on answers to many biblical questions long unanswered.
For
too long secular scholars have questioned the validity of the
Ancient Hebrew Scripture with questions that have confounded the
intellectually honest enquirer.
Such questions include, but are not limited to:
What is the true biblical age of the earth?
Did Moses really write the book of Genesis, or was it not really
written until much later by imposters around the time of the
Babylonian Captivity as is proposed by the documentary hypothesis?
Or maybe, was it in existence before the time of Moses in
scattered written accounts and those pre-existing accounts simply
compiled by Moses into the book of Genesis?
Where did the ancient scriptures of the bible really come from?
When were they first written down; first preserved in writing?
Was ancient scripture originally preserved in writing or was it
first transmitted by oral tradition?
Did the Hebrew religion really come from, plagiarized from, the
more ancient Egyptian religion, as some secular scholars have
postulated? Or was it
first?
How long ago did narrative writing exist?
What was the ultimate origin of the technical information in the
biblical creation accounts?
How did that technical information get to us today preserved in
ancient scripture accounts; what was the path the information
traveled that preserved it so intact
When did the literal seven days of the Sabbath Doctrine first
become apart of the ancient Hebrew Creation narrative?
When did the six days of Genesis 1 first become the worldview of
the actual schedule of creation?
Note that when Psalm 104 was included in the Hebrew Scriptures,
assumedly around the time of David, it included a chronology of
existence from eternity past to eternity future that is consistent
with reality as recognized today, a chronology that has at least
fifty technical points of detail, all in the correct chronology as
verified by modern science, but makes no mention of any six-day
schedule.
There are many more questions. Some are the result of trying to discredit the validity of the bible. Some are the result of trying to prove the traditional interpretation of the bible overrules modern science. No matter the source or motivation of questions concerning the biblical record of the origins, intellectually honest analysis need not be feared. The more the complete record of the technical details in the ancient scriptures is investigated, the more in awe of the impossibility that it could have been the result of the imagination of the human mind.
10. Resolves the Controversy over What the Bible Actually Reveals About the Origins
Recognition of these thirty-four biblical creation accounts to be official biblical creation accounts eliminates the need for trying to artificially fit the six day schedule with reality. True Biblical Creation based on all of the Biblical Creation Accounts is consistent from account to account. It is consistent with the discoveries of Modern Science. And thereby it resolves the controversy that has persisted since the separation of Science and Religion about the time of Galileo.
If
the six days of Genesis one is not the actual schedule of
creation, then what is it? The
six-day schedule of Genesis 1 is found in only three places in the
bible, all in the context of the Sabbath principle; the first
place is in Genesis 1, the other two places are both in two
different accounts of the giving of the Ten Commandments in the
context of the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath
principle. It is only by an extreme
stretch of logic that the six day schedule can be erroneously read
into creation at any other place in the bible.
The six days of Genesis one is not the schedule of the beginnings. It is superimposed upon a prior existing
account of the beginnings for the purpose of using that particular
creation account to illustrate the principle of the Sabbath.
See, Intellectually Honest Answer to the Six Days
of Genesis Dilemma, by Max B. Frederick,
AnOldScientist, Debbie A. Knapp, BS, MS, 6/30/2019, Also Published on
ScienceAndTheBible.net,
11. Is not Traditional Creationism.
Traditional Creationism is based on only one biblical creation account and the assumption that its six days is the actual schedule of the beginnings is an assumption that is Inconsistent with the myriad of other biblical creation accounts and inconsistent with reality.
12. Is the Result of Recent Intellectual Honesty.
True Biblical Creationism was first recognized in modern times around the year 2004when the realization dawned that there were over thirty major biblical creation accounts, not just the one up front in the bible. This was first presented in a local seminar presentation, in May of 2004.By 2006 thirty-four major biblical creation accounts were recognized and assembled into one cohesive presentation of the beginnings. July, 2007 the first edition of Eyewitness to the Origins was published presenting a fairly complete compilation of all accounts into one chronologically ordered presentation of the Chronology of Existence from Eternity Past to Eternity Future based on biblical clues within those accounts. In 2014 a condensed and easier to read version was published under the title, How the Earth was Formed.
Explanation:
Keys to recognizing technical stuff first recorded in Ancient Scripture:
1.
Discover the technical meanings of original language words.
Example: The word Earth in
bible means the dry ground of continents, not the planet. Glossary
2. Compare multiple passages on the same subject.
Example: 34 major biblical creation
accounts (Not just the one upfront.). 34
Biblical
Creation Accounts
3. Contrast date of original publication to date of independent
human discovery by modern science.
Example: About
1015 BC, Psalm 104 included forming of the earth by emergence from
below sea level in a sudden event. In
2018 Binderman et. al. published their discovery of the same
thing, but thousands of years later, and not until after recent
publication of the recognition of that event in the many Biblical
Creation Accounts. See
timeline.
Discovering technical information recorded in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, in the Old Testament of the Bible, reveals many previously unrecognized facts about the past that apparently were known thousands of years ago, but lost to humanity until rediscovered by modern science.
A wealth of technical information has been locked up in the Ancient Scriptures, unrecognized by modern day scholars, both religious and secular. Many biblical creation accounts have not been recognized as such simply because of the fact that the information recorded therein is technical, not religious.
Recognizing technical information requires the acceptance of a few prerequisites.
Accept the fact that Words have meaning. The technical meaning of the original words used to record that information is, in many cases, overshadowed by traditional religious meaning of the words they have been translated into.
Accept the fact that Context has meaning. Once a passage of scripture is recognized to be a Biblical Creation Account, to be a record of technical information in chronological order, the immediate context becomes the technical information observed in reality. One versed in the technical information therein can overcome the religious bias in translation and recognize technical details in part due to their position in the chronological order.
Accept the fact that Theologians typically get it wrong when interpreting the technical information recorded in ancient scripture. Just because theologians get technical stuff wrong does not make it wrong any more than the theologians [Pharisees] of Jesus time did not get the stuff about Jesus right.
Do not succumb to the criticism that Ancient Scripture cannot be about technical stuff unknown to humans and therefore what we see is only imagination reading science into the bible. If Old Testament passages can contain details about the then future Jesus about whom the writer knew nothing, then the same principle applies to technical knowledge known only to God and not to humans at the time it was recorded in writing.
These basics have actually led to the recognition and publication of technical details recorded in ancient scripture before the discovery and publication of the same technical details by modern science thereby predicting or anticipating future discovery by modern science.
This is evidence of the fact that the accusation of re-interpreting scripture to agree with science is false.
Best regards,
Max B. Frederick
Max B. Frederick, an Old Scientist.