Preaching the Gospel, Preparing a People

Inside United Podcast #093: Steven Britt - Sound Science and the Bible, Part 3

You are here

Inside United Podcast #093

Steven Britt - Sound Science and the Bible, Part 3

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×
Downloads
MP3 Audio (15.35 MB)

Downloads

Inside United Podcast #093: Steven Britt - Sound Science and the Bible, Part 3

MP3 Audio (15.35 MB)
×

Inside United Podcast #093: Steven Britt - Sound Science and the Bible, Part 3 by United Church of God

Steven Britt and Victor Kubik continue their discussion of science and the Bible through the topic of astronomy and the origin of the Earth and life as described in Genesis.

Comments

  • Peter John Hutchison
    Apologies, the first line of my last comment should read "The UCG creation narrative requires Satan to have been judged and cast out "
  • Peter John Hutchison
    The UCG creation narrative requires Christ to have been judged and cast out of heaven and down to the eaarth prior to day 1 of the record in Genesis 1. Here are verses that show quite clearly that Satan was not cast out of heaven nor down to the earth until after Christ's resurrection. The day before Christ was crucified he made a stand alone statement: "Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. " This is confirmed in: "Joh 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. " Further evidence is that Satan is judged after Christ's resurrection: "Joh 16:8 And when he (the comforter) is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: ……… Joh 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." These verses coupled with the question "why did God create the expanse of the universe (the firmament and nothing else) on Day 2 of Moses history if it already existed as per the UCG narrative? None of these verses have been considered in arriving at the UCG creation narrative.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    I wold draw to the attention of those that have read my comments that the UCG Booklet “Sunset to Sunset – God’s Sabbath Rest” refers only to the six days of the creation week as the Original creation ( page 7: He pointed them back to the original creation week), (Page 21: It was God’s will at creation that the Sabbath have the purpose of serving mankind). There are several more quotes available. This is in direct contrast to the Old Earth Creation Narrative that is referred to in this podcast. So we must ask which of the UCG Booklets is correct? The problem with the Old Earth scenario is that too many pertinent scriptures are ignored as they do not support that narrative.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    Shaun, I agree with you that science is flawed. The Hawking model of the Big bang Theory is starting to fall apart with recent observations in astronomy (the study of the cosmos) and geology. One thing God would agree with is Hawking’s view that the universe was created from nothing. And what is nothing in this context? It is the absence of space. So when the earth suddenly appears on day 1, there is nothing around it. It cannot fall or move sideways because there is no space for it to move in. I would argue that there is nothing (no space) outside of the universe. On Day 2 God spent the whole day creating the firmament – SPACE. I am sitting here and there is space beside me that I can move into. There was no space at the end of day 1. If there was then why did God create it on day 2? And God said, Let there be a firmament….. and it was so. Your argument requires that space existed for millions of years prior to Day 2 of the creation week.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    Shaun, your comments reflect a desire to interpret God’s intentions from your own logic rather than the written word of God. You say that “God specifically wanted two different words used with different meanings.” Then you go on to say that the word “the” is not in the original text. Nor is the word “a” which you adopt and claim it to be truth. This is exactly the same problem as in Ezekiel 28:16 where the choice of tense for the verb to cast will determine the timing of the event. You have not referred to the word “was” in Genesis 1:2 being changed to “became” as in the UCG narrative which again presupposes the timing of an event. So what we have is a series of word adaptations being necessary to allow an OEC theory to be formulated. And all of this ignores the repeated use of the phrases in Genesis 1 which are a statement of creation; “Let there be” (something does not exist) “and it was so” (it now exists). Psa_148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. I note that you prefer to stand with one leg on either side of a barbed wire fence. lol
  • Shaunc
    being cast down or destroyed. From that they believe this term refers to Noah's flood. However, the word "kosmos" did not take on the possibility of referring to the arrangements of man until approximately 600 years after the death of Christ. Prior to that it was used exclusively to refer to the perfect arrangement of God or the perfect arrangement of nature - again, indirectly, of God. This tells us that the disruption of this perfect arrangement of God occurred prior to the creation of man due to a casting down that must have happened prior to man's creation. It's difficult to explain these points properly when the blog limit is a thousand characters so my apologies to the webmaster. I wouldn't like to rest my salvation on either a YEC or OEC perspective. It's a debate that has gone on for at least 3,000 years according to ancient Jewish writings and, no doubt, will continue until the return of Christ. But, when biblical instruction is studied rather than the heavily flawed sciences of today, I think the weight of evidence rests with an OEC perspective. That said, it would be folly to dismiss some of the valid points in the NEC viewpoints.
  • Shaunc
    (continued) * I'm not going to turn to all the scriptures but Satan is the ruler of this earth. Clearly this position had to have been awarded to him prior to his rebellion against God because God does not reward the wicked with promotions. Scripture is clear: He renders to each according to their works. If Satan disobeyed God did not then say "well done, let Me put you over the whole earth". * katabole kosmos. Translated as "foundation of the world" on ten occasions in the New Testament and generally referring to the sacrifice of Christ being from "the foundation of the world". Those who have looked at it know that this is a completely incorrect translation. The Greek word Katabole refers to "casting down" or a "reaction". It is where we get our term "catabolic" from as in a catabolic reaction. The important term, however, is cosmos which I imagine we all know does not mean "world" but "arrangement". Here's the tricky part: some have mis-interpreted this as referring to the "arrangements of man". Greek literature is quite clear; the word implies "perfect arrangement", "an adornment". This only fits the arrangements of God. Some say this term refers to "the arrangements of man"
  • Shaunc
    Hi all, I'd like to first agree that the blog is quite an effective tool to garner views and interpretations of people. I'm not sure that anyone will actually read this but, currently, there is only one perspective put forward and, being all about balance, I'll just make a couple of points. * The NEC movement continues to ignore the two different words that God plainly instructed Moses to use; " bara' " and " 'asah " There was no mystery or intrigue involved - God specifically wanted two different words used with different meanings. * We get this common mistake that people think it is "the beginning". It's not. The Hebrew is quite clear - there is no "the" in the original text as it is not an absolute. When Wycliffe translated the bible it was fraught with danger; he understood neither Hebrew nor Greek which, when you consider that he was translating a Hebrew and Greek book is almost humorous. He understood Latin which uses an absolute term here and so he translated it as an absolute. Every translation followed the same approach - sort of like Wycliffe introducing a Latin name (Lucifer) into a Hebrew text and all translators followed. More accurately it's "a beginning".
  • Peter John Hutchison
    I think I have posted enough information to show that the UCG narrative of the creation has many problems. There are many more problems that could be addressed. Thanks to the Bloggers for allowing me to participate. I did make a submission to the Doctrinal Committee, however it was summarily dismissed. The advantage of the Blog system is that it does give members opportunities to discuss difficult matters in a disciplined environment. Hopefully the authors of this Blog will consider the comments I have posted and take them on board. Perhaps even they might open a new look at the creation story. It is a difficult topic as mainstream science promotes a history in direct opposition to the Moses history. Nevertheless, God’s Word is where all truth lies.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    Riddles and Parables. When God spoke to His prophets it was in riddles that needed an interpreter, e.g. Genesis 41. And Christ spoke to the people in parables so that they would not understand, e.g. Mark 10:4-11. However when God spoke to Moses it was not in riddles. Numbers 12:6 Then He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;…. Moses wrote the Book of Genesis under God’s instruction. Should we not expect it to be written “plainly” and not in riddles? An unfortunate criticism of the preferred narrative of UCG converts Genesis 1 into a big riddle that even when one tries to read Genesis 1 as a “re-creation” it simply just does not fit.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    The Circular Argument of Ezekiel 28:17. (KJV) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. The word translated in the KJV as “will cast” is H7993 shâlak; A primitive root; to throw out, down. In the NKJV it is translated as “cast”. The question is what tense is to be used or imputed, past, present or future. If we turn to Ezekiel 3:24 in the NKJV H7993 is translated in the future tense as “shall throw”. So from the Hebrew H7993 the translator needs to use the context of the passage to determine which tense should be used. UCG tends to rely on the NKJV. Now the tense can be chosen to achieve a desired outcome. If the translator or reader has pre-decided that Satan was cast out long ago, then the past tense is chosen and vice versa for a cast down in the future. So we have a circular argument and the use of Ezekiel 28:17 to PROVE a pre-Adamic casting down is not valid as the tense of the event is chosen to suit the argument. Cross reference with John 12:31 would show that a future tense is required.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    In order for the OEC-Re-Creation narrative to be accepted, the re-creation needs to be consistent with all of Genesis 1. As an example, let us consider Day 5 (Genesis 1:21-23). Here God’s Word says that great whales were created. The Hebrew word translated as whale is the same Hebrew word that is translated as dragon in other parts of the Bible; and in the OT the word dragon is not used to refer to anything other than large animals or sea creatures. These were gigantic creatures. The word dinosaur had not yet been coined and it replaced the usage of the word dragon in the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are described in detail in Job 40 &41. These are enormous creatures. In Psalm 74 Leviathan is food and in Psalm 104 is swimming with ships. Furthermore, there is not one verse in the Bible that states that any living breathing creature existed prior to Genesis 1:21.Taking this into account, the fossil record is explainable as the result of Noah’s flood. Consideration of each day of Genesis 1 will show incompatibility with the OEC-Re-Creation narrative. God’s Word concludes the history with Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    God, having proclaimed that the Universe was completed (Gen 2:1) says Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in CREATION. Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were CREATED, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Is not the Sabbath the 7th Day of The Creation? Furthermore I note: Mat_19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' Does this not put the creation of the universe and man at the same time? Peter Hutchison, Sydney Australia
  • Peter John Hutchison
    As a simple minded person I asked myself why God didn’t simply get rid of Satan when he led Adam and Eve astray in the Garden of Eden. Problem solved. But God would not do that because throughout scripture, He insists that He is righteous, just and impartial. All judgements must be consistent. Whatever judgement He applies must apply to all. If He had banished Satan for any sin then (or prior), He would also have to banish Adam as both partook of the same sin. So the great plan of God began. Christ’s sacrifice was a ransom paid for all mankind (Mark 10:45). Immediately before His crucifixion Christ said Joh_12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Christ’s sacrifice released the connection of man and Satan in respect of sin. Satan Can now be cast out and not before then. If Satan was cast out before the ransom was paid, then mankind would also have to suffer the same punishment and never been able to enter the Kingdom of God.
  • Peter John Hutchison
    The inconsistency between Day 2 of the Genesis account of creation and the OEC / Re-Creation narrative is but one of the discrepancies that exist. Knowledge of Science and history develops by uncovering of additional facts and/or aligning existing those facts to the narrative of the day. If the newly discovered facts cannot be fitted to the narrative then the narrative is discarded. The event recorded for Day 2, according to the Word of God, is that the expanse of the universe was created on Day 2. It did not exist at the end of Day 1. Yet this is the primary premise of the OEC narrative. That being the case, the OEC / Re-Creation narrative has a significant problem that must be addressed. Peter hutchison
  • Peter John Hutchison
    Gntlemen, I wrote a comment that is too long to post here so I will send it as an email seperately and leave it to you whether to post my comments in full or not. In the meantime you might consider the following vesres Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Talking of Moses: Num_12:8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Is not Genesis 1 very clear? Immediately prior to His crucfixion Christ said Joh_12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' Also, if the Universe was created billions of years ago then the space of the Universe would exist. Unless Satan is capable of undoing creation, then the question is this: On Day 2 God created the firmament (expanse of the universe) and named it Heaven. If it already existed how is this verse consistent with your proposition of a ‘re-creation’? Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this Blog. Peter Hutchison Sydney Australia
  • Join the conversation!

    Log in or register to post comments