Evolution...creation....creation....Evolution????

[newbeliever02072005]

Hello Everyone! :)

I was talking to a friend and we got into this question. Where did Cain get his wife? I was on this site http://www.drdino.com/index.php and he said in an article this: ".... Before that time sibling marriage was probably quite common. The Bible states that Adam and Eve had MANY sons and daughters. Jewish tradition suggested that they had 33 sons and 23 daughters! Cain merely married his sister...... "

Anyway, we got into a discussion about this and his stance was that Adam and Eve is a story or a folklore. Not meant to be believed but a way of introducing God. That the human being evolved and there is no God creation. "....That was how the nuns used to put it to. The truth is that gradually over millions of years we became capable of reason, we started to ask our own questions about where we came from. I suppose you could say that as we gained awareness of our place in the universe so we gained the need to know about our spiritual selves and that's what we call having a soul..." I am totally confused by all of this. He is a catholic, so does the catholics believe in evolution? Should I steer clear of this kind of discussion? I am curious, but I am afraid that I will confuse myself beyond repair. I am walking in faith that the Lord, Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour. I know what He has done in my life and the "miracles" that He has done for me. So I believe in Him and I don't want to waiver from that EVER. But how do you keep from waivering if you keep hearing conflicts like this....evolution, creation, creation or evolution????? YIKES!!!!!:help:

[Joykins]

My understanding of the Catholic belief is that Christianity is not incompatible with evolution, but it would be viewed as a mechanism that God used for creation. This is essentially a Theistic Evolution viewpoint. There are probably Catholic creationists as well. Here's a good link that lays it out, for what it's worth.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

[arunma]

One word of caution. I would avoid reading anything by "Dr. Dino." From what I've heard, Kent Hovind doesn't really have any extensive education in any scientific field. Many of his claims are outright lies. Taking Mr. Hovind as a spiritual teacher could be harmful to the faith of a Christian, so I suggest that everyone steer clear of him.

As Joykins said, there are Catholic creationists out there. One of my fellow physics majors at school is a Roman Catholic who believes in Biblical creationism.

I've always been confused by the Catholic position on creation. Most Catholics accept evolutionary theory, and Pope Pius even supported it. However, the Catholic Church claims that the creation account as written by Moses is literally true. So I'm not really sure how to develop a working model out of this. Perhaps they think that a couple of apes evolved into the Biblical characters Adam and Eve?

Anyway, this whole debate about creation and evolution always makes me think about an open-air preacher who made weekly trips to my university campus last semester. He's a polite individual. He doesn't deliberately try to offend others (except with the Gospel). Unlike the more crazy preachers who come to campus, this person does not make derogatory comments about homosexuals, but attempts to win them to Christ with love rather than hate. And I was especially impressed by his dialog with the Jews, because none of his statements angered them, except when he said "Jesus Christ was crucified for your sins, and God raised him to life."

But he's got one problem: he focuses far too much of his attention on creation/evolution debates. On several of his trips, people make the claim that evolutionary theory contradicts the Bible. And this preacher spends most of his time defending creation science, and explaining why evolution is a false teaching. He also makes the claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago (this claim is controversial because even many creationists disagree with it). The result is that when he gets into these debates, he spends almost no time discussing the Gospel. And since he is otherwise a good preacher, these evolution debates are a poor, unproductive use of his time.

Personally, I believe in Biblical creation, and I reject evolution. But I also realize that this belief is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Believing in creationism won't save anyone. People are saved by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and by believing that God raised him from the dead. So that's why I say that we shouldn't concern ourselves with evolution debates. We conservative Christians can believe in creationism, but we don't need to focus our attention on defending this doctrine. Rather, let us focus on the Gospel of Christ, which has the power to save humans from their sins. Even if evolution turned out to be true, it really wouldn't have any impact on Christian doctrine.

[Project 86]

Anyway, this whole debate about creation and evolution always makes me think about an open-air preacher who made weekly trips to my university campus last semester. He's a polite individual. He doesn't deliberately try to offend others (except with the Gospel). Unlike the more crazy preachers who come to campus, this person does not make derogatory comments about homosexuals, but attempts to win them to Christ with love rather than hate. And I was especially impressed by his dialog with the Jews, because none of his statements angered them, except when he said "Jesus Christ was crucified for your sins, and God raised him to life."

Talking about Todd Friel?

[Project 86]

newbeliever02072005, check out my web site at www.issuesthatmatter.com/creation.html (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/creation.html) There is information on there and a lot more to come in the future. Also there are links to other great sites such as Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) in the bottom right corner of the web page.

[arunma]

Talking about Todd Friel?

I couldn't remember his name when I wrote that last post, but yes, that's him! Do you work at the University of Minnesota, by chance?

[Project 86]

I couldn't remember his name when I wrote that last post, but yes, that's him! Do you work at the University of Minnesota, by chance?

Nope, I don't work out there. I have heard Todd over the radio witness many times at the U of M though. I finally got to meet him last Sunday at the state fair. We talked for a bit, very nice guy. Also got to see him witness to several people there during the radio broadcast.

[arunma]

Nope, I don't work out there. I have heard Todd over the radio witness many times at the U of M though. I finally got to meet him last Sunday at the state fair. We talked for a bit, very nice guy. Also got to see him witness to several people there during the radio broadcast.

Well like I said, he's a nice guy, and an excellent witness to Jesus Christ. My only problem is that when he starts talking about evolution, he wastes time that could be better spent witnessing. After such people as Brothers Mike and Jed preaching on campus (you might have heard of them; they're fundamentalist nutcases), Todd has certainly restored my faith in open-air preachers. I just wish he'd spend more time preaching and less time talking about science.

[seebs]

I am mostly on the evolution side. I am not aware of Creation sites that are not at least occasionally dishonest or deceitful in their attempts to drum up support for their position. I'd rather not discuss the issue here, when we have a perfectly good Origins Theology forum, though.

I mostly use the Talk.Origins website as a starting point for investigating claims; I have checked and double-checked links from there, and never once found them to be dishonest. They also, unlike many other sites, actively provide links to other sites that disagree with them. They show a trait I associate with truthfulness: They have no fear of other beliefs.

[arunma]

Well, I'll concede this much: most creation scientists practice bad science. Another reason I've given up on evolution debates.

[novcncy]

Arunma's post about origins being nonessential to Christian faith got me thinking...

I think in a way it is essential, because it goes to the literalness of God's word. I don't believe the creation scientists, although I frequently agree with them. But I do believe the Bible, which gives us a literal accounting of creation, complete with timelines (days with light and nights with darkeness). It's a timeframe any culture can relate to, whether or not they use hours, seconds, or whatever. I think this whole raging debate is God making foolish the wise of this world.

The reason it's important, is because to not believe the plain words of Genesis, is to echo the question "Did God REALLY say?" If you can't take that simple bit for truth, then the whole Bible is subjective. A firm faith is grounded on the fact that the Bible, as God's inspired word, presents truth as objective.
To say that God meant something other than what He said in Genesis, means that the same approach can be taken to scripture, and therefore it all is relative, and nothing is truth, and here we are....

So although I don't think it's necessary for salvation specifically, it could undermine the capability to place complete faith in Christ, because maybe the blood isn't that important, or He wasn't really crucified, or He wasn't really God, or whatever doubt you want to insert, it's viable, because God's word is so subjective. Like I said, I think it is objective, and that's why this is an important issue.

[seebs]

The Bible is full of texts which we do not understand as history. Genesis, in particular, is written in a very poetic style.

If it were entirely literal, we would have to ask why Adam continued breathing and walking around for at least 24 hours after eating the fruit, after being told that he would die in the day that he ate it. Once we are ready to concede that perhaps that wasn't a day, or that perhaps it was "spiritual" death...

I can see the basis for concerns about what else people might come to believe or disbelieve, but I would point out that the same exact arguments have been made about heliocentrism and the flat earth.

Augustine's observation that the days and nights predate the description of the sun and moon is significant.

[novcncy]

Or spiritual death. What kind of consequence, substantially, would physical death be?


Augustine's observation that the days and nights predate the description of the sun and moon is significant.


So to do plants predate the sun and moon.

[Leimeng]

~ Adam and Eve were placed INSIDE the garden. The garden did not cover the entire earth. There was an 'outside of the garden' location as well.
~ We do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall. It might have been a few weeks, or a few decades, a few million or billion years? The Bible does not say. I do feel pretty confident in saying that the fall of man was within the past 15,000 years though. (Probably a lot sooner but that is besides the point.)
~ The important point to me is that we were created by God with a specific purpose.
~ It really is not a big deal. But it seems that for many people it is easier to argue about stuff and masturbate their intellect, than it is to get on their knees and pray for others.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)

[JPPT1974]

Well like I said, he's a nice guy, and an excellent witness to Jesus Christ. My only problem is that when he starts talking about evolution, he wastes time that could be better spent witnessing. After such people as Brothers Mike and Jed preaching on campus (you might have heard of them; they're fundamentalist nutcases), Todd has certainly restored my faith in open-air preachers. I just wish he'd spend more time preaching and less time talking about science.

He does need to start talking about witnessing and not about evolution as ou are right. And about people's salvation most of all and where they are going when they die.

[Project 86]

Well, I'll concede this much: most creation scientists practice bad science. Another reason I've given up on evolution debates.

We can agree on other things but I will have to strongly disagree with you here. The percentage of bad science being practiced by evolutionary scientists and creation scientist is about the same.

[Project 86]

I am mostly on the evolution side. I am not aware of Creation sites that are not at least occasionally dishonest or deceitful in their attempts to drum up support for their position.

*sarcasm hat on*

You got to love when a Christian uses ad hominid attacks on other Christians. Specially when you know the people being attacked very well and have met with them in person, talked to them on the phone and communicated via e-mail. Or will you admit AIG isn't dishonest or deceitful? I didn't think so.

*sarcasm hat off*

Also besides AIG (http://www.answersingeneis.org) and ICR (http://www.icr.org) another site that isn't dishonest or deceitful is my site Issues That Matter (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/creation.html). Attack me as well seebs if you please. :sigh::(

[seebs]

*sarcasm hat on*

You got to love when a Christian uses ad hominid attacks on other Christians. Specially when you know the people being attacked very well and have met with them in person, talked to them on the phone and communicated via e-mail. Or will you admit AIG isn't dishonest or deceitful? I didn't think so.

*sarcasm hat off*

Also besides AIG (http://www.answersingeneis.org) and ICR (http://www.icr.org) another site that isn't dishonest or deceitful is my site Issues That Matter (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/creation.html). Attack me as well seebs if you please. :sigh::(

No ad hominem attack there. An ad hominem attack would be namecalling; descriptions of dishonesty are directly on point when talking about the reliability of a source.

I haven't seen your site before, so I won't comment. I do have prior evidence of dishonesty from both ICR and AIG. I was very disappointed by the AIG case, because they demonstrated both dishonesty and lack of charity in their handling of an issue...

(It is worth noting, though, that nonetheless they warn people away from Kent Hovind, who isn't even trying.)

[Joykins]

*sarcasm hat on*

You got to love when a Christian uses ad hominid attacks

^_^ was that intentional?

[Project 86]

No ad hominem attack there. An ad hominem attack would be namecalling; descriptions of dishonesty are directly on point when talking about the reliability of a source.

I haven't seen your site before, so I won't comment. I do have prior evidence of dishonesty from both ICR and AIG. I was very disappointed by the AIG case, because they demonstrated both dishonesty and lack of charity in their handling of an issue...

(It is worth noting, though, that nonetheless they warn people away from Kent Hovind, who isn't even trying.)

I know you think you have evidence of dishonesty from both ICR and AIG but you don't. Your view seems to be so clouded by the lies that evolutionists have told you that you would belittle Christians to defend evolution. Is the defense of evolution, where you go to the extent of attacking other Christians, so important to you? Sorry if I sound so harsh but it feels harsh to see friends in Christ getting attacked day after day on forums by people saying they are Christians. I don't know how people can do such horrible things.

[seebs]

I know you think you have evidence of dishonesty from both ICR and AIG but you don't. Your view seems to be so clouded by the lies that evolutionists have told you that you would belittle Christians to defend evolution. Is the defense of evolution, where you go to the extent of attacking other Christians, so important to you? Sorry if I sound so harsh but it feels harsh to see friends in Christ getting attacked day after day on forums by people saying they are Christians. I don't know how people can do such horrible things.

This, I think, is a good example of ad hominem.

The evidence in question has been discussed at length in the Origins Theology forums.

Even if this were the right forum for such a discussion, how can I possibly have any kind of discussion with someone whose starting position is that the things I have seen and experienced are unreal because my mind is clouded by the lies people have told me? There is simply nowhere to go from here.

[arunma]

I know you think you have evidence of dishonesty from both ICR and AIG but you don't. Your view seems to be so clouded by the lies that evolutionists have told you that you would belittle Christians to defend evolution. Is the defense of evolution, where you go to the extent of attacking other Christians, so important to you? Sorry if I sound so harsh but it feels harsh to see friends in Christ getting attacked day after day on forums by people saying they are Christians. I don't know how people can do such horrible things.

I can't speak for other Christians, but personally, I do not believe in evolution. That said, I don't consider creation science to be valid science. In fact, I've even seen creationists claim that creation scientists are scientifically dishonest. I know that Christians ought not to attack each other, but nor should we permit each other to lie. For example, I can't in good conscience say that Kent Hovind is an honest scientist. I think what you may object to is not the fact that we are criticizing creation scientists, but that we don't appear to be doing so in a loving spirit. Right?

[Project 86]

I can't speak for other Christians, but personally, I do not believe in evolution. That said, I don't consider creation science to be valid science. In fact, I've even seen creationists claim that creation scientists are scientifically dishonest. I know that Christians ought not to attack each other, but nor should we permit each other to lie. For example, I can't in good conscience say that Kent Hovind is an honest scientist. I think what you may object to is not the fact that we are criticizing creation scientists, but that we don't appear to be doing so in a loving spirit. Right?

Let me cut and paste a post I made from another Christian web site where the same discussions show their ugly head all to often.

I have heard many evolutionists claim that creationists are not real scientists and they don't even do their own research. To make it clear that this is a lie I'll give you some links. I would supply more but I have to leave soon. Also when evolution believing scientists do a rebuttal the creation believing scientist normally will put out a response to it.

ICR research papers (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_papers) (Group contains many Ph.D. scientists)

Gentry, R.V. reports (http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm) (A Ph.D. scientist that has gotten praises from Ph.D. Scientists from various secular universities)

Also there are peer reviewed science journals put out geared towards creation believing research. Those would be TJ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/technical.asp) and CRS (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html).

A list of of only some of the creation believing scientists can be found here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/).

More information on this topic can be found here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0818icc_update.asp).
Also I recommend that you read an article I wrote a while back here (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/religon.pdf).

[seebs]

There are more scientists who accept evolution and are named "Steve" than there are scientists who accept creation.

Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp)

And can't we please take this to a forum where it's actually topical, and the people familiar with the field can debate it?

[arunma]

There are more scientists who accept evolution and are named "Steve" than there are scientists who accept creation.

Indeed. That's why I accept that evolution is a scientifically viable theory. That said, let me be clear in saying that I don't believe it. I take the Biblical authors at their word. But I admit that this is for reasons of faith, not science.

And can't we please take this to a forum where it's actually topical, and the people familiar with the field can debate it?

I'd rather not. As Project 86 said, it's a terrible thing when Christians attack each other. I'd prefer to keep this between brethren in Christ.

[InnerPhyre]

One word of caution. I would avoid reading anything by "Dr. Dino." From what I've heard, Kent Hovind doesn't really have any extensive education in any scientific field. Many of his claims are outright lies. Taking Mr. Hovind as a spiritual teacher could be harmful to the faith of a Christian, so I suggest that everyone steer clear of him.

As Joykins said, there are Catholic creationists out there. One of my fellow physics majors at school is a Roman Catholic who believes in Biblical creationism.

I've always been confused by the Catholic position on creation. Most Catholics accept evolutionary theory, and Pope Pius even supported it. However, the Catholic Church claims that the creation account as written by Moses is literally true. So I'm not really sure how to develop a working model out of this. Perhaps they think that a couple of apes evolved into the Biblical characters Adam and Eve?

Anyway, this whole debate about creation and evolution always makes me think about an open-air preacher who made weekly trips to my university campus last semester. He's a polite individual. He doesn't deliberately try to offend others (except with the Gospel). Unlike the more crazy preachers who come to campus, this person does not make derogatory comments about homosexuals, but attempts to win them to Christ with love rather than hate. And I was especially impressed by his dialog with the Jews, because none of his statements angered them, except when he said "Jesus Christ was crucified for your sins, and God raised him to life."

But he's got one problem: he focuses far too much of his attention on creation/evolution debates. On several of his trips, people make the claim that evolutionary theory contradicts the Bible. And this preacher spends most of his time defending creation science, and explaining why evolution is a false teaching. He also makes the claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago (this claim is controversial because even many creationists disagree with it). The result is that when he gets into these debates, he spends almost no time discussing the Gospel. And since he is otherwise a good preacher, these evolution debates are a poor, unproductive use of his time.

Personally, I believe in Biblical creation, and I reject evolution. But I also realize that this belief is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Believing in creationism won't save anyone. People are saved by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and by believing that God raised him from the dead. So that's why I say that we shouldn't concern ourselves with evolution debates. We conservative Christians can believe in creationism, but we don't need to focus our attention on defending this doctrine. Rather, let us focus on the Gospel of Christ, which has the power to save humans from their sins. Even if evolution turned out to be true, it really wouldn't have any impact on Christian doctrine.

I hope I can answer your question without violating the rules here. Mind you I am neither arguing for or against evolution, but simply explaining what how some Catholics reconcile the two. I have waivered back and forth between the two sides of this argument, so once again, I'm just putting out what some believe, not arguing for or against it. There is a school of thought within the Catholic Church that the meaning of "created in God's image" means that man was given a soul, since God the Father doesn't have physical features like we do...that image is the soul. So some believe that man evolved, and when we had evolved to the point acceptable to God, He separated Adam from the rest, gave him a soul (which they would say is God breathing life into him), and placed him in Eden, apart from the rest, where He also created Eve. When they disobeyed, they were cast out of that place of peace. Evolutionists claim that all modern humans descend from a group of approximately 3 or 4 anatomically modern females in Africa, so it stands to reason that perhaps these females were Eve, and her daughters. Some believe this and some don't. Since it is ultimately not relevant to our salvation, the Catholic Church permits either belief, but even if you believe in evolution, the Church demands that we acknowledge that there was a first man, Adam, who disobeyed God and caused the fall from grace, and that Eve was created from Adam's rib.

[seebs]

Indeed. That's why I accept that evolution is a scientifically viable theory. That said, let me be clear in saying that I don't believe it. I take the Biblical authors at their word. But I admit that this is for reasons of faith, not science.

That's fine by me. I know many people who feel that Genesis is best understood as literal history, and I can respect that.

I'd rather not. As Project 86 said, it's a terrible thing when Christians attack each other. I'd prefer to keep this between brethren in Christ.

Origins Theology is a Christians-only forum, not an open forum. I was not proposing taking this to the E/C forum.

[Project 86]

There are more scientists who accept evolution and are named "Steve" than there are scientists who accept creation.

Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp)

And can't we please take this to a forum where it's actually topical, and the people familiar with the field can debate it?

Oh, since majority decides truth Christianity must be false since many more people reject Christianity then accept it as truth.

Also there is no reason for me to move this discussion. This was a post in the baptist thread. I'm trying to help the poster see what the truth is. Taking this to another thread where a pack of evolutionists are hungry to eat the creationists will not help a thing. That's why I don't post in those forums, it gets very nasty and creationists like myself get teamed up on. By the way way I'm talking about the Christian only forum, not the secular one here in case anyone was wondering.

[Joykins]

I believe that a belief in theistic evolution is compatible with Christianity, but I read the first part of Genesis as primarily mythical/allegorical--that is to say that its spiritual truth is far more important than the literal facts of the matter.

[novcncy]

I think I agree with Arunma that we should keep this here. I don't think this an origins debate, per se, but rather, a discussion over why origins is important. I obviously disagree with theistic evolution, for no other reason than that theory erodes the objectivity of the Bible. That's why it's important to me. I admit that God COULD have created man and the universe however he chose to do it, but on the other hand, I see in Genesis His very simple and straightforward account of how He did it. So it boils down to whether He meant what He said, or not. That's the difference between six day creation, and theistic evolution, the reliability of the Bible. If God did use evolution to create, then not only is He limited, but He is a liar, and everything in the Bible is suject to rejection. That's the problem. Salvation is just another fairytale, if you can't be one hundred percent certain that what God says is legitimate.

I know that many will say that this is a simplistic way of looking at things, and that Genesis is very poetic and not to be taken literally, etc. etc. This very undermining of the legitimacy of God's word, is the problem. It's possible to get too smart for your own good, and in many cases, that's exactly what has happened. The simplicity of God's creation claims are further reinforced in Exodus 20:11. "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Now I don't know too much about Hebrew, I'll admit, but in English at least, it sounds to me like God is reiterating to Moses and the people, and relating it as a fact, that He created everything in six days. So on one hand, I have God's repeated claim, and on the other hand, I have smart people saying it's not literal, it's poetic, etc. etc. I don't think there's much of a choice to make here, actually.

As an aside, a comment on good/bad science, I think we have elevated science too much. Shouldn't we make science agree with God, instead of trying to make God agree with science (falsely so called, IMO)? Will anyone ever be able to scientifically figure out how salvation works? Will they ever be able to scientifically prove that God loves us? So what's our faith REALLY in?

[Gold Dragon]

I subscribe to Theistic evolution.

I don't believe God is a liar.

I believe that the entire bible is God's inspired, authoritative and trustworthy words to mankind.

I interpret Genesis literally. Good literary interpretations will recognize literary devices like metaphors, allegory and poetry. Interpreting Genesis literally does not mean reading it the way a modern historian or scientist would write it.

I believe God created exactly like he said he did.

[Gold Dragon]

But I also realize that this belief is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Believing in creationism won't save anyone. People are saved by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and by believing that God raised him from the dead. So that's why I say that we shouldn't concern ourselves with evolution debates. We conservative Christians can believe in creationism, but we don't need to focus our attention on defending this doctrine. Rather, let us focus on the Gospel of Christ, which has the power to save humans from their sins. Even if evolution turned out to be true, it really wouldn't have any impact on Christian doctrine.

:amen:

[Project 86]

I subscribe to Theistic evolution.

I don't believe God is a liar.

I believe that the entire bible is God's inspired, authoritative and trustworthy words to mankind.

I interpret Genesis literally. Good literary interpretations will recognize literary devices like metaphors, allegory and poetry. Interpreting Genesis literally does not mean reading it the way a modern historian or scientist would write it.

I believe God created exactly like he said he did.

Let me see if I understand your logic.

If creation is true then God is a liar. Ok, how does that work? Maybe you mean since nature tells us evolution happened that it would be a lie if it really wasn't that way? Think again. Scientists that believe in evolution and those that don't have the same evidence to work with. They have Ph.D's in the same fields. There are assumptions though made on both sides. Evolution believing scientists carry various assumptions. They don't allow a divine foot in the door is one that is commonly held to. You have to explain things only naturally. Also they assume things always were as they are now. There was always death and suffering, contrary to the Bible, so don't evolutionists make God a liar? Also they deny a world flood which is contrary to the Bible also so there again God is called a liar, is he not? There is evidence for a world flood and such. Evolutionists will deny it because that throws their theories into a mess.

As for how to read Genesis I suggest checking out my powerpoint presentation (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/6%20-%2024%20hour%20days.ppt).

[Joykins]

I obviously disagree with theistic evolution, for no other reason than that theory erodes the objectivity of the Bible. That's why it's important to me. I admit that God COULD have created man and the universe however he chose to do it, but on the other hand, I see in Genesis His very simple and straightforward account of how He did it. So it boils down to whether He meant what He said, or not. That's the difference between six day creation, and theistic evolution, the reliability of the Bible. If God did use evolution to create, then not only is He limited, but He is a liar, and everything in the Bible is suject to rejection. That's the problem. Salvation is just another fairytale, if you can't be one hundred percent certain that what God says is legitimate.

If we're going to talk about what God says, what does God say?

God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And it was good. And so forth for everything created.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

These are the 2 major places in the Bible where God's words are concrete, substantial Reality. Not conincidentally, they are also beginnings.

Of course God is not a liar! He reveals himself both through His own creation (which are the result of his words) and through the perception of men who distilled it into the Bible.

However, the empirical evidence to date strongly supports the case for evolution as a mechanism of biological development of organisms. So the only intellectually honest thing to do is see if the story in Genesis and our knowledge of the current scientific evidence reconcilable (this doesn't mean you have to "believe in" evolution--I don't believe "evolution" is anywhere near the whole story, and I am completely open to the possibility that we are misinterpreting the data in some way--but I would certainly say that the evidence indicates the world is much older than Ussher's conclusion and that the order of the development of life lines up only approximately with the order in the Bible). Because if they aren't both reconcilable in some way, it's just a matter of picking which "lie" we should believe.

I believe that of all the creation myths in the world, the Genesis story is actually the closest to fit the scientific observations, and it also reveals the character of the God we worship--he made everything, and he makes things which are GOOD, which reflect back on his goodness. Obviously something has gone wrong, because (again from observation) we see that people are not always behaving as if they are GOOD and created in the image of God (immortal soul). Genesis 2 ff explains why. MAN and WOMAN are tempted and disobey, and come into the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL and therefore lose their innocence (become aware of their nakedness) and are no longer worthy to stand in the presence of God and enjoy an intimate relationship with him, although there are predictions of some sort of reconciliation. It is an explanation of what's gone wrong with us spiritually, with hints that redemption is possible. The message of salvation is rightly founded on this.

If you ever listen to a sermon on these verses mostly what you will hear the kind of thing I mentioned above. Not because anyone is taking a position on literal vs. figurative, but because the lesson we can apply from it illuminates our understand of God and our own human condition in relation to Him.

[Gold Dragon]

If creation is true then God is a liar. Ok, how does that work?

Creation is most definitely true. God's creative work is evidenced all around us.

I believe the man-made scientific theories of Creationism not to be true. Since God sent us Genesis which is most definitely true, and not the AIG or ICR websites which can easily be falsified, I can confidently say that God is not a liar.

[Project 86]

Creation is most definitely true. God's creative work is evidenced all around us.

I believe the man-made scientific theories of Creationism not to be true. Since God sent us Genesis which is most definitely true, and not the AIG or ICR websites which can easily be falsified, I can confidently say that God is not a liar.

I suggest to you and anyone else that may think macroevolution is supported by Genesis to check out the powerpoint. If you can't view powerpoints I would be more then happy to make it a PDF or just a word document for you.

I'm a baptist and I know this is a baptist forum but I feel these quotes are fitting:

When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.

albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years … God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.

[Gold Dragon]

I suggest to you any anyone else that may think macroevolution is supported by Genesis to check out the powerpoint.

Macroevolution is not supported by Genesis. Genesis is not a scientific text and its intention was not to comment on the theory of evolution which was not in existence at the time of its writing. Anyone trying to do so would be eisegetically reading Genesis.

Evolution is evidenced by God's natural revelation and of course the distinction between micro and macro evolution is an arbitrary one.

[novcncy]

I subscribe to Theistic evolution.

I don't believe God is a liar.

I believe that the entire bible is God's inspired, authoritative and trustworthy words to mankind.

I interpret Genesis literally. Good literary interpretations will recognize literary devices like metaphors, allegory and poetry. Interpreting Genesis literally does not mean reading it the way a modern historian or scientist would write it.

I believe God created exactly like he said he did.

I'm having a hard time resolving your claims.

Genesis says that God created light and seperated it from the darkness, called them day and night respectively, and the evening and morning were the first day.

Literally, we know what day and night, evening and morning, a day is. There is not one person alive who doesn't have a common understanding of this point of reference. This would speak to the universal applicability of the Bible, for what that's worth. But sometimes the Bible is figurative, I understand that, so to further solidify the understanding of days, I see that God tells Moses, when He's giving him the ten commandments, that He created everything in six days, and on the seventh He rested....hence, the sabbath. So you can see that it's not just little ole me insisting that Genesis is a lteral account, but God Himself made the same claim to Moses.

So there are a few possiblities.

Maybe God didn't actually make any claims regarding creation. Maybe, this is "the creation myth" that is closest to the truth. In which case the Bible is approaching worthless.

Maybe, Moses or whomever wrote the Pentatuach was just trying to coerce generations of gullible people into believing a claim made simply out of an inablity to generate evolutionary theory. So the references to creation are simply editorializing in order to make things line up. Again, the Bible is approaching worthless, if this is the case.

Maybe there's something I haven't thought of, that will resolve this seeming disparity. If so, please let me know, as I am anxious to hear it.

So I'm not sure how one can claim to interpret Genesis literally and deny the Bible's claims regarding origins Something doesn't add up here.

[Gold Dragon]

If you can't view powerpoints I would be more then happy to make it a PDF or just a word document for you.

Thanks for the ppt. I had a look through it.

Your concerns about death happening before the fall, which is your primary arguement against Progressive, Gap and Theistic, is addressed in Genesis.

NASB - Genesis 2:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+2&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en)

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

God did not lie, the day Adam ate it, he died.

NASB - Genesis 5:5 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+4&section=0&translation=nas&oq=ge%25204&new=1&nb=ge&ng=4&nnc=%A0%3E%3E%A0&ncc=4)

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

What type of death did the fall bring? Physical or spiritual?

[Gold Dragon]

Literally, we know what day and night, evening and morning, a day is. There is not one person alive who doesn't have a common understanding of this point of reference.

Literally, it signifies beginnings, ends and periods of time, changes in brightness.

Scientifically, it represents the rising and falling of the sun from the perspective of someone on the planet earth far from the poles as a result of the rotation of the earth on its axis. Currently that rotation is a 24 hour period.

I don't believe that the scientific representation was intended by the author of Genesis 1 at least for days 1-3 since it wasn't until day 4 that the sun was created in the account.

[Project 86]

Thanks for the ppt. I had a look through it.

Your concerns about death happening before the fall, which is your primary argument against Progressive, Gap and Theistic, is addressed in Genesis.



God did not lie, the day Adam ate it, he died.



What type of death did the fall bring? Physical or spiritual?

Thanks for checking it out. As for the type of fall I would say it is not an either or answer. I would answer it is both. The spiritual you accept so I will just address the physical and the reasons to believe that was part of it.

1. There were other clear physical consequences to the fall mentioned. Such as the pain during child birth and the physical labor that now would have to take place to survive.

2. God said it was very good. With our understanding about God's nature in the rest of the Bible would God call creation very good if the animals and everything else were dying terrible deaths from things such as cancer?

3. Everyone (including the animals) were vegetarian at first. This also points to the fact that there was no animal death before the fall.

4. Once things are restored even lions will be no danger to a child. Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Things will be like they were in the Garden at the very start of creation.

5. The whole earth groans because of the fall. (Romans 8:22: For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.) There is implied by that passage in Romans a physical aspect to the fall.

6. Jesus had to die a physical death to save us.

That's a quick summary. I'm sure I'm missing some other points I could bring up but I hope that gives you a better idea of why I believe that it was not only a spiritual death but a physical death as well.

[novcncy]

I don't believe that the scientific representation was intended by the author of Genesis 1 at least for days 1-3 since it wasn't until day 4 that the sun was created in the account.

I'm not sure why God would have used common reference points (evening, morning, day, night) to label that time space a day if it was something other than a day. But I think your statement highlights a potential duality. When you say the author of Genesis one "intended" a meaning, what are you really saying? Who is the real author of Genesis? Did God inspire the very wording of Genesis account? As for the intended meaning, who are we to discern that? Paul tells us in 2Tim3:16 "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" So is Genesis profitable for doctrine? Is it scripture? Is it authored by God? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you're implying that is not.

Also, and you may have not had time to respond to this yet, and I apologize for jumping the gun if I have done so, but what about God's claim to Moses that He made everything in six days? I'm sure by then that a day was firmly entrenched as the standard measure of time that we have today. I'm just wondering if you think this statement to Moses by God was also a poetic or figurative reference to days?

*****************************Edit**************************

Also, I wanted to ask how literally you take the order of the Genesis account. For instance, it claims that the plants were created on day three, before the sun, on day four. How could the plants survive without the sun for any extended period of time? It's just a logical question, I'm trying not to corrupt what the Bible says with my attempt at logic, but I couldn't help but wonder about that.

[Gold Dragon]

When you say the author of Genesis one "intended" a meaning, what are you really saying? Who is the real author of Genesis? Did God inspire the very wording of Genesis account? As for the intended meaning, who are we to discern that? Paul tells us in 2Tim3:16 "All scripture given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" So is Genesis profitable for doctrine? Is it scripture? Is it authored by God? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you're implying that is not.

That is an incorrect implication.

As I stated earlier. I believe the Bible is God's inspired, trustworthy and authoritative word to mankind.

Also, and you may have not had time to respond to this yet, and I apologize for jumping the gun if I have done so, but what about God's claim to Moses that He made everything in six days? I'm sure by then that a day was firmly entrenched as the standard measure of time that we have today. I'm just wondering if you think this statement to Moses by God was also a poetic or figurative reference to days?

NASB - Exodus 31:15-17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ex+31&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en)

For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased [i]from labor, and was refreshed.

The six day + sabbath model of work was modelled by the creation account in Genesis. God did work for six days and rest on the seventh. Whether those days are 24hr periods or not does not take away from this sacred model of work ordained by God.

The Jewish calendar also has the concept of the Sabbath year. So this model wasn't necessarily something that only applied to 24 hour periods.

[eldermike]

I believe in Him and I don't want to waiver from that EVER. But how do you keep from waivering if you keep hearing conflicts like this....evolution, creation, creation or evolution????? YIKES!!!!!:help:

First, Your faith is real and present in your life. Science is full of theories and pieces of puzzles. Hold on to what is real in your life. This is important advise, the bible says a double minded person will be tossed by ever wave. Get in the boat and stay in the boat!

James said: If anyone lacks wisdom, let Him ask God. Pray for wisdom Last: Science is not the source of lifes important questions. Science will not ask you: "are you saved"? Well there you go,.......... seems like mixing science with what's really important has at least one eternal flaw.

The bible tells us both how we got here and why we got here. Science is working on one aspect of something much larger than they can fully explain. They have some answers and even know which questions a few of those answers are associated with. But, "why are we here" remains the important issue. Since God told us why, I'll also trust him on How.

[novcncy]

That is an incorrect implication.

As I stated earlier. I believe the Bible is God's inspired, trustworthy and authoritative word to mankind.





The six day + sabbath model of work was modelled by the creation account in Genesis. God did work for six days and rest on the seventh. Whether those days are 24hr periods or not does not take away from this sacred model of work ordained by God.

The Jewish calendar also has the concept of the Sabbath year. So this model wasn't necessarily something that only applied to 24 hour periods.

So God makes the same claim in the NASB. I understand the sabbatical(sp?) model, but that's a bit extratopical. The claim, in very simple terms, is that God made everything in six days. Try as you might, this cannot be explained away.

I would never try to convince you of anything. I think if it's important, (and I DO think this qualifies, hence the references in scriputre) that the Holy Spirit will do the convincing. I simply make the observation that the claims of taking the Bible literally and theistic evolution simply cannot coexist because they are mutually exclusive. You have to take one or the other, based on faith. I will base my faith on the power of God, and not the wisdom of man. 1 Cor 2:5

[Gold Dragon]

So I believe in Him and I don't want to waiver from that EVER. But how do you keep from waivering if you keep hearing conflicts like this....evolution, creation, creation or evolution????? YIKES!!!!!:help:

I believe you will find that there are many things that Christians disagree about. When we get to heaven, all of us will discover that we were wrong about a ton of stuff.

It is perfectly normal to wonder about the whole creation vs. evolution debate and be confused by the whole thing. Many folks are too.

But don't let disagreement on this issue cloud the fact that these Christians agree about the identity of Christ, the status of our sinfulness and our need for the redemption that Christ give us.

[Gold Dragon]

I simply make the observation that the claims of taking the Bible literally and theistic evolution simply cannot coexist because they are mutually exclusive.

If by literally you mean non-allegorically or non-figuratively, the yes, I agree with you.

However I would suggest that insisting on non-allegorical or non-figurative interpretations is an abuse of scripture which employs many allegorical and figurative accounts.

I would also suggest that literal interpretations should take into consideration literary devices like allegory, poetry and symbolism found in the text.

In that understanding of taking the bible literally, theistic evolution is not mutually exclusive with taking the bible literally.

You have to take one or the other, based on faith. I will base my faith on the power of God, and not the wisdom of man. 1 Cor 2:5

Agreed. I too will base my faith on the power of God and not the wisdom of man found in Creationist theories.

[novcncy]

Main Entry: 1lit·er·al http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?litera02.wav=literal'))
Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=actual) <liberty in the literal sense is impossible -- B. N. Cardozo> c : free from exaggeration or embellishment ****e literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=exact), VERBATIM (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=verbatim) <a literal translation>

From Mirriam-Webster Online dictionary. Yep, that's what literal means, alright. No allegory or metaphor involved in literalness.

I realize there are symbolic passages in the Bible, and I'm not trying to make the arguement that the entire book should be taken as literal. But Genesis and Exodus are neither metaphorical or allegorical.

You are wise to nominally abstain from the wisdom of men. I respectfully submit to you that perhaps you have effectively convinced yourself this is true, but from the outside, from your writings on this thread, that is not the case.

I share your claimed disgregard for the wisdom of men. That is why I haven't based any of my statements in my, or any other, logic. (aside from my one denoted observation, which, coincidentally, I'm still observing ;) ) I have not expounded any "science" at all, because I place science secondary to God's word. I have found that best commentary on God's word is God's word. Since the issue is clarified within the scriptures, using simple, clear, unambigous language, there is no way of logically arriving at anything except a six day creation, when one's consideration is constrained to the scriptures. All the inferences, psuedo intellecualism, thinly veiled sarcasm, and emotional pleas in the world will not change the facts regarding this discussion. I understand that I have chosed to esteem the science of this world as inconsequential when compared to the word of God. Of course, I believe sound science is based in the Bible, and thus, will never contradict it. When a contradiction occurs, or should I say the appearance of a contradiction, we must rely on the scripture.

It is your choice whether to believe the plainly worded texts of scripture, or to attempt to justify humanistic science by twisting the Bible to force it to fit in your mold. As much as you may claim otherwise, this IS the crux of the dilemma.

Interpret the scriptures however you like, but don't claim literalness while insisting metaphor and allegory. To do so is to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

I know several people on the board who don't believe in a literal Genesis. I'll stop short of saying that's okay, because I don't think it is, but we've come to an understanding to just agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. My issue is that if the paradox is this obvious to me, how much more to an unbeliever, or a new believer? What I'm really saying here, is let's be honest with ourselves.

[eldermike]

Main Entry: 1lit·er·al http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?litera02.wav=literal'))
Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=actual) <liberty in the literal sense is impossible -- B. N. Cardozo> c : free from exaggeration or embellishment ****e literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=exact), VERBATIM (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=verbatim) <a literal translation>

From Mirriam-Webster Online dictionary. Yep, that's what literal means, alright. No allegory or metaphor involved in literalness.

I realize there are symbolic passages in the Bible, and I'm not trying to make the arguement that the entire book should be taken as literal. But Genesis and Exodus are neither metaphorical or allegorical.

You are wise to nominally abstain from the wisdom of men. I respectfully submit to you that perhaps you have effectively convinced yourself this is true, but from the outside, from your writings on this thread, that is not the case.

I share your claimed disgregard for the wisdom of men. That is why I haven't based any of my statements in my, or any other, logic. (aside from my one denoted observation, which, coincidentally, I'm still observing ;) ) I have not expounded any "science" at all, because I place science secondary to God's word. I have found that best commentary on God's word is God's word. Since the issue is clarified within the scriptures, using simple, clear, unambigous language, there is no way of logically arriving at anything except a six day creation, when one's consideration is constrained to the scriptures. All the inferences, psuedo intellecualism, thinly veiled sarcasm, and emotional pleas in the world will not change the facts regarding this discussion. I understand that I have chosed to esteem the science of this world as inconsequential when compared to the word of God. Of course, I believe sound science is based in the Bible, and thus, will never contradict it. When a contradiction occurs, or should I say the appearance of a contradiction, we must rely on the scripture.

It is your choice whether to believe the plainly worded texts of scripture, or to attempt to justify humanistic science by twisting the Bible to force it to fit in your mold. As much as you may claim otherwise, this IS the crux of the dilemma.

Interpret the scriptures however you like, but don't claim literalness while insisting metaphor and allegory. To do so is to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

I know several people on the board who don't believe in a literal Genesis. I'll stop short of saying that's okay, because I don't think it is, but we've come to an understanding to just agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. My issue is that if the paradox is this obvious to me, how much more to an unbeliever, or a new believer? What I'm really saying here, is let's be honest with ourselves.
Could you clarify your position on this? Just kidding;) , I share your position and for the very same reasons.

[Gold Dragon]

Main Entry: 1lit·er·al http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?litera02.wav=literal'))
Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=actual) <liberty in the literal sense is impossible -- B. N. Cardozo> c : free from exaggeration or embellishment ****e literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=exact), VERBATIM (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=verbatim) <a literal translation>

From Mirriam-Webster Online dictionary. Yep, that's what literal means, alright. No allegory or metaphor involved in literalness.

You are correct that the common usage of the word literal is the antonym of figurative (which includes allegory or metaphor). And the MW dictionary is correct since a dictionary's role is to give common usages of words.

And you are correct that if this common usage of the word literal is used to describe the correct interpretation of Genesis then yes, it is mutually exclusive from Theistic evolution.

However, I would suggest that in the field of interpretation and linguistics, the phrase "literal interpretation" is one that does not always perfectly line itself up with the common usage of the word literal as explained by Merriam-Webster and that it does allow for figurative literary devices.

I know this is confusing but here are some discussions of this phenomenon that may help, if you are interested.

Wikipedia : Literal and Figurative Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language)
The Highway : What is Literal Interpretation? (http://www.the-highway.com/literal1_Poythress.html)
Forum : English Teaching : Metaphors We Can Learn By (http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol32/no3/p2.htm)

[eldermike]

Gold Dragon,

thanks for the links.

I looked at the highway article. The writer used a parable. It's the same one Jesus used later. How would this help in explaing why literal is hard to define? He used a repeated parable and Jesus called it such. That's literal and proof of it, period.

[arunma]

Let's please also remember that there is the question of precisely how literal we should take Genesis, particularly the first chapter, which is written in the form of Hebrew poetry. Now, Novcncy brings up a good point: God told Moses that he created the world in six days. Indeed, an even better argument is that the Apostle Paul makes specific references to Adam and Eve, and their deeds in the Garden of Eden. And virtually everyone will agree that all of the apostles' letters ought to be taken literally.

However, let's remember that all of the verses which make referece to the creation account do so in order to prove theological points. In Exodus 20:11, Moses writes that God created the world in six days in order to prove that the Sabbath ought to be every seventh day. And in 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul mentions the creation account in order to prove that a man ought to be the leader of the church, rather than a woman.

Project 86 pointed out that Martin Luther suggested a literal six-day creation While I consider Martin Luther to be an important Christian theologian, I must point out that there are equally capable theologians who disagreed. Justin Martyr said this:
For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8) is connected with this subject.
That's in chapter 81, by the way. I don't know if Justin Martyr's writings are available on any website, but those of you who have E-sword should be able to look it up in context easily enough.

Anyway, the point is that not all theologians believed in a literal, six-day creation. As for John Calvin, I'd like to read his statement in context, so that I can see if we're interpreting it correctly. Project 86, do you know where the Calvin quote came from?

The reason I'm advocating a figurative reading of the creation account is not so that I can open the door for theistic evolution, but rather for old earth creationism. I think it's certainly possible to believe in creation by God, a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal Eden, without believing that the earth is 6,000 years old. It is true that we are supposed to have faith in God above any secular authorities, and that this faith is sometimes considered foolishness to those who are perishing. But even the Apostles did not forsake logic and reason. Paul, for example, quoted secular Greek philosophers when he reasoned with the Athenians.

To many people, especially those of us who are scientifically inclined, the proposition that the universe is 6,000 years old is difficult to accept. These reservations are magnified by the fact that it is possible to read an old earth interpretation into the Bible without commiting any heresy. We all agree that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The question that faces us is: does the message of the cross include a belief that the earth is 6,000 years old? In order to remove stumbling blocks to Christ, I think that Baptists should preach creation to the exclusion of evolution, but that we should not preach young earth creationism. If we leave the door open for both old and young earth beliefs, our position remains respectable. But requiring Christians to believe in young earth creationism will exclude many believers who sincerely trust in the Lord Jesus, because the young earth position is much more controversial.

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon,

thanks for the links.

I looked at the highway article. The writer used a parable. It's the same one Jesus used later. How would this help in explaing why literal is hard to define? He used a repeated parable and Jesus called it such. That's literal and proof of it, period.

The discussion in the section "Defining Literalness", the author describes three possible understandings of a "literal meaning".

1) First-thought interpretation
2) Flat interpretation
3) Grammatical-historical interpretation

#1 is the only one that excludes figurative speech from the literal understanding of a passage.

[Joykins]

Does any Baptist on this board take the following verses literally, in any of the above meanings?

Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, Matt. 26:26-27, John 6:51-59.

[eldermike]

The discussion in the section "Defining Literalness", the author describes three possible understandings of a "literal meaning".

1) First-thought interpretation
2) Flat interpretation
3) Grammatical-historical interpretation

#1 is the only one that excludes figurative speech from the literal understanding of a passage.
Thanks:wave:

To my simple mind I will stick to the biblical method of understanding scripture. The bible tells me to understand by faith, that it's meaning is revealed.

Thanks again:wave:

[eldermike]

Does any Baptist on this board take the following verses literally, in any of the above meanings?

Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, Matt. 26:26-27, John 6:51-59.
Let me take Mark 14: 22-24

Yes it's literal but you have to understand the meal and the celebration in which they were taking part.
Study the Passover (seder meal, seder means order, everything done in order and for a specific reason)
It's not about a miracle, that cup was not the miracle. It's about Christ being the sacrifice for our sins. His blood and flesh was going to take Egypt out of them (the end of a religion) and was required for our reconciliation with God.(but you have to get it) It's way to much for this simple post. I suggest you study the Passover seder meal. Once you understand it and it's order, put that in context with the OT Passover event and you will be on your way to understanding it.
The timing of cups has a reason, they (the disciples) should have understood the significance of His comments about being the blood and the flesh. We know they didn't get it, not then anyway.
We have the whole story, we can "get it".
Yes it's literal.

[Joykins]

I have participated in many Seders (I'm half Jewish), and I understand what you are trying to say, and it is a very illuminating insight. I still think the "literal" reading of the text supports consubstantiation at the very least. Not that I have any interest at all in promoting that doctrine in this forum (although I am growing to believe it), but I do find it odd that so many evangelicals put a lot of emphasis on a flat-factual-historical reading of Genesis (which is written with the symbols tags just jumping out at you) but at this passage all of a sudden everything is highly symbolic and figurative, layered with all sorts of deeply profound meanings except the obvious one, it can't actually mean what it plainly says...

[Project 86]

Anyway, the point is that not all theologians believed in a literal, six-day creation. As for John Calvin, I'd like to read his statement in context, so that I can see if we're interpreting it correctly. Project 86, do you know where the Calvin quote came from?

I certainly do. It's from Institutes of the Christian Religion pages 160-161 and page 182.

I have the book in PDF so let me post larger quotes.

For the same reason, the world was created, not in an instant, but in six days. The order of creation described, showing that Adam was not created until God had, with infinite goodness made ample provision for him.

and

We must not be moved by the profane jeer, that it is strange how
it did not sooner occur to the Deity to create the heavens and the earth, instead of idly allowing an infinite period to pass away, during which thousands of generations might have existed, while the present world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six thousandth year.

I have read other quotes by John Calvin that also support a 6 literal day creation and an earth that's about 6,000 years old.

The funny thing is Luther and Calvin had to defend against people trying to make creation 1 day. Today people have to defend against people trying to make creation billions of years.

[Gold Dragon]

Thanks:wave:

To my simple mind I will stick to the biblical method of understanding scripture. The bible tells me to understand by faith, that it's meaning is revealed.

Thanks again:wave:

No prob. And I'll stick to trying to continue understanding the biblical text literally, which keeps the historical, cultural, grammatical and literary context of the original authors and the text in check at all times.

[seebs]

When two people who try to understand the Bible by faith disagree, it can be very hard to figure out what to do. Presumably, one of these people is mistaken... I think in many cases, it is not particularly edifying to argue over such issues. I sometimes suspect that what God is really telling us at that point is "I really don't care what you think on that topic".

[Project 86]

When two people who try to understand the Bible by faith disagree, it can be very hard to figure out what to do. Presumably, one of these people is mistaken... I think in many cases, it is not particularly edifying to argue over such issues. I sometimes suspect that what God is really telling us at that point is "I really don't care what you think on that topic".

All because people who will call themselves Christians disagree doesn't mean that God doesn't care what we think about the topic. Let's not look at evolution but some the other issues people, that will say they are Christians, argue about:

1. Trinity
2. How one can be saved
3. How to love God and others

Do you really think God doesn't care what we think about the 3 topics I just listed? I know you said sometimes but then who defines what is important and what is not? I think truth, period, is important. I fellowship with people that believe in an old earth and evolution all the time. That doesn't mean I don't think it's an important topic. I certainly think evolutionists believe it is an important topic seeing how they defend it so passionately.

[novcncy]

(which is written with the symbols tags just jumping out at you)

Has never understood what about the Genesis account is a "symbol tag". :scratch:

[eldermike]

I have participated in many Seders (I'm half Jewish), and I understand what you are trying to say, and it is a very illuminating insight. I still think the "literal" reading of the text supports consubstantiation at the very least. Not that I have any interest at all in promoting that doctrine in this forum (although I am growing to believe it), but I do find it odd that so many evangelicals put a lot of emphasis on a flat-factual-historical reading of Genesis (which is written with the symbols tags just jumping out at you) but at this passage all of a sudden everything is highly symbolic and figurative, layered with all sorts of deeply profound meanings except the obvious one, it can't actually mean what it plainly says...

This is off topic, but:
Paul, James, Peter, John, one of these would have supported this idea but they didn't. Scripture is not a verse or a word, that is a trap. Jesus told us not to be trapped by the letter (not in those words but it's there). Anything this important would be throughout the letters to churches. And don't you think the pastorial letters would at least touch on it?
That's my last on this: Back on topic.

[Gold Dragon]

Of course, I believe sound science is based in the Bible, and thus, will never contradict it. When a contradiction occurs, or should I say the appearance of a contradiction, we must rely on the scripture.

It is your choice whether to believe the plainly worded texts of scripture, or to attempt to justify humanistic science by twisting the Bible to force it to fit in your mold. As much as you may claim otherwise, this IS the crux of the dilemma.

Agreed, which is why I also rely on scripture. The "plainly worded" text (one that looks at the historical-grammatical context) of scripture doesn't fit with the twisted interpretations of the man-made scientific theories of Creationism which I reject. I agree that this is the crux of the dilemma.

I simply disagree with you about what the text says and who is doing the twisting.

And I'm cool with that disagreement because I know that it is difficult for most of us to set aside our pre-concieved interpretations of bible to really look at what the text says sometimes. This is the crux of most theological disputes.

[novcncy]

.

[Gold Dragon]

novcncy, I'm not trying to say I'm right and you are wrong. I could very well be wrong and YEC may be the way God chose to create. It is certainly within his abilities. I simply believe both the biblical text and God's natural revelation disagree with YEC.

Whoever is right about this issue really doesn't matter because both of us hold the scriptures in supremely high esteem. Both of us view God's power as supreme over all of his creation. Both of us believe that he intimately and intelligently designed each and every one of us. Both of us believe in the fall, the sinfullness of man and the need for redemption that Christ gives.

But I'm trying to show you a different perspective. The YEC position that all other interpretations of Genesis are a result of twisting the bible, prioritizing science, doubting the power of God, etc is false. There are other interpretations of Genesis that I believe to be much more faithful to the text and glorifying of God's power than the YEC interpretation.

This is like the false position that KJVOs make that those who use other translations are doubting God's ability to preserve his words. While modern version users believe that modern versions are a testament to God's ability to preserve his word.

Anyway, I know this is a very personal issue for many Christian like Project 86 who have invested a lot of time into creating websites and such to defend the YEC position. I hope that these issues won't be a distraction to God's calling of us to preach the good news, and make disciples of all nations.

:wave:

[novcncy]

novcncy, I'm not trying to say I'm right and you are wrong. I could very well be wrong and YEC may be the way God chose to create. It is certainly within his abilities. I simply believe both the biblical text and God's natural revelation disagree with YEC.

Whoever is right about this issue really doesn't matter because both of us hold the scriptures in supremely high esteem. Both of us view God's power as supreme over all of his creation. Both of us believe that he intimately and intelligently designed each and every one of us. Both of us believe in the fall, the sinfullness of man and the need for redemption that Christ gives.

But I'm trying to show you a different perspective. The YEC position that all other interpretations of Genesis are a result of twisting the bible, prioritizing science, doubting the power of God, etc is false. There are other interpretations of Genesis that I believe to be much more faithful to the text and glorifying of God's power than the YEC interpretation.

This is like the false position that KJVOs make that those who use other translations are doubting God's ability to preserve his words. While modern version users believe that modern versions are a testament to God's ability to preserve his word.

Anyway, I know this is a very personal issue for many Christian like Project 86 who have invested a lot of time into creating websites and such to defend the YEC position. I hope that these issues won't be a distraction to God's calling of us to preach the good news, and make disciples of all nations.

:wave:

I find it most interesting that my insistence that the Bible means what it says that God created the earth in six days is equated with science. May I remind you once again that I haven't once advocated or offered science, and I'm not defending any theories or approaching the Bible as such. I haven't really even considered what science has to say, whether that's young earth, or old earth, or theistic evolution, or whatever. If your problem is with science, then undermine that. I see a very simple truth in the scriptures, God's repeated claim to have made the universe in six days. All the relativism in the world will not explain that away.

With respect, this issue is nothing like the version debates. This goes to the reliability of God's word, and that's why it's so important. So let me ask you a question.

Why do YOU think that the first thing God did was to create and seperate light from darkness, NAME those concepts the very human terms "day" and "night", and call them together the first day? I would like to know how that seemingly simple concept can be construed, by any logical process, to be longer than a day.

My opinion is that this is God's establishment of time, as a common reference point to all of humanity through all the ages, establishing Him as the sustainer of every aspect of our lives. It's almost as if this is too simple for folks to accept. But by this, even the most heathen or pagan of peoples, can see the sustenance of the only true God in their days and nights. Rom 1

[Gold Dragon]

I find it most interesting that my insistence that the Bible means what it says that God created the earth in six days is equated with science.

I never made this equivocation.

I simply stated that Creationism theories are also man-made scientific theories. This was simply to allow you to see my perspective on what man-made scientific theories were doing the twisting of the bible.

May I remind you once again that I haven't once advocated or offered science,

Neither have I.

I see a very simple truth in the scriptures, God's repeated claim to have made the universe in six days.

Agreed.

This goes to the reliability of God's word, and that's why it's so important.

Agreed. God's word is wholy reliable. Which is why I must reject YEC creationism.

Why do YOU think that the first thing God did was to create and seperate light from darkness,

If God felt the need to explain this to mankind, he would have done so it the text. I don't know why. I just know that is the first thing in the account.

NAME those concepts the very human terms "day" and "night", and call them together the first day? I would like to know how that seemingly simple concept can be construed, by any logical process, to be longer than a day.

If you notice throughout the bible, God uses human terms to describe very non-human things. Does the "hand of God" have bones, tendons and muscles, five digits, knuckles and crease lines? How could the "hand of God" be construed in any other way than biologically?

My opinion is that this is God's establishment of time, as a common reference point to all of humanity through all the ages, establishing Him as the sustainer of every aspect of our lives. It's almost as if this is too simple for folks to accept. But by this, even the most heathen or pagan of peoples, can see the sustenance of the only true God in their days and nights. Rom 1

Light and time are not linguistically equivalent, although the constant speed of light c does present an interesting relationship between light and time that may make your interpretation a possibility.

[novcncy]

Light and time are not linguistically equivalent, although the constant speed of light c does present an interesting relationship between light and time that may make your interpretation a possibility.

Now you're just getting silly. I already noted there are figurative and allegorical portions of the Bible. The hand of God is a good example. How do we know that it's not a fleshy hand? Because the Bible says that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him worship Him in spirit and in truth. So we have some clarification from other scripture that shows us this is a figurative reference. But this isn't one of those places. In fact, the other scriptures commenting on creation, lend credence to God's claims of six day creation. So I say again, what is it about the Genesis account, or anywhere else in the Bible, that could cause a lucid person to suspect that the creation account, and repeated claims thereof, are figurative?

I'm not quite sure where the inference that light and time are equal came from. My point is that human beings characterize, from our earliest moments, days by light and nights by darkness. Is that a conincidence? It's an extremely simple and universal concept, and that is exactly the point. If you can make a day something else, then there is no such thing as objectivity. If there is no such thing as objectivity, then there is no such thing as c or God. So I guess it really doesn't matter what we believe, as long as it makes us feel better. It is all vanity....or is it?

[Project 86]

Gold Dragon, if creation theories are just man made I would hope you would say the same thing about evolution theories. Also you say you speak out again YEC because the word of God is so important. How about the fact that the word of God teaches the following in his Word that evolutionists reject:

1. Worldwide flood.

2. A created order of things that differs from the evolution created order.

3. The first woman was created by God taking the rib of a created man.

4. The different creations took place in 24 hour days (Bible couldn't be more clear on the length of time of creation, if it could you tell me how).

It sounds like you should be speaking out against evolution, not YEC.

(2 Peter 3:5) For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

(2 Peter 3:6) by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

[Gold Dragon]

So I say again, what is it about the Genesis account, or anywhere else in the Bible, that could cause a lucid person to suspect that the creation account, and repeated claims thereof, are figurative?

This is an excellent question which you aren't asking again, since I would have been all over it the first time. :)

This could take a long time but I'll throw out a few starting points:
1) The pattern, repetition and metered writing style of the days in Genesis 1 is in line with the figurative writings of that time as opposed to the more narrative style in Genesis 2.
2) The differences in the sequence of events between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are key indicators that the sequence was not the primary purpose of the text.
3) There were no humans to scientifically/historically observe/record creation until day 6 so it was revealed by God to humans. Looking at the way God and Jesus normally communicates to humans in the bible, figurative language is far more prevalent than "literal" language.

I'm not quite sure where the inference that light and time are equal came from.

You said that "Let there be light" was when time was created. I would say that is when light was created in the account.

My point is that human beings characterize, from our earliest moments, days by light and nights by darkness. Is that a conincidence?

Nope. Days are when the sun is above the horizon and nights are when the sun is below the horizon.

It's an extremely simple and universal concept, and that is exactly the point. If you can make a day something else, then there is no such thing as objectivity. If there is no such thing as objectivity, then there is no such thing as c or God.

Interestingly, c being a constant is what lead to the Einstein's scientific theory of relativity. I just thought your your juxtaposition of words was amusing. :)

So I guess it really doesn't matter what we believe, as long as it makes us feel better. It is all vanity....or is it?

I agree with your sarcasm. We shouldn't believe theories like YEC because it makes us feel better about our ability to interpret the bible.

[Gold Dragon]

1. Worldwide flood.

A world is different from a planet. (ie. the Arabic world or the known world) The flood may have been planet-wide or it may have been the whole world as Noah and the authors of Genesis knew it.

2. A created order of things that differs from the evolution created order.

As I stated above. The created order of things between Genesis 1 differs from the created order in Genesis 2. I don't believe the creation order is the point of Genesis or else this would not have happened. Also the biological parts of the order (which is all evolution discusses) is in line with evolution.

Plants before animals. Fish and birds before mammals. Mammals before humans.

3. The first woman was created by God taking the rib of a created man.

Man and Woman are of the same flesh. Woman should be treasured by Man. Woman should be a helper to Man. Marriage and sex is God's design for the joining of flesh that was separate.

The rib story may have been literal or it may have been an image of God's design for the genders.

4. The different creations took place in 24 hour days (Bible couldn't be more clear on the length of time of creation, if it could you tell me how).

I failed to note the mention of the number 24 in the creation account.

[novcncy]

This is an excellent question which you aren't asking again, since I would have been all over it the first time. :)

This could take a long time but I'll throw out a few starting points:
1) The pattern, repetition and metered writing style of the days in Genesis 1 is in line with the figurative writings of that time as opposed to the more narrative style in Genesis 2.
2) The differences in the sequence of events between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are key indicators that the sequence was not the primary purpose of the text.
3) There were no humans to scientifically/historically observe/record creation until day 6 so it was revealed by God to humans. Looking at the way God and Jesus normally communicates to humans in the bible, figurative language is far more prevalent than "literal" language.

....so it was revealed by God to humans....

And since He wanted to confuse them, He made sure it was recorded ambigously.

But God was there, as you said, and since he inspired the scripture...everything you just said is psuedo intellectualism. So it won't take a long time because everything you mention is a house of cards, built on a presupposition that God didn't manage to get written down EXACTLY what He meant. Since I patently disagree with your relativism, we'll just have to leave it at that. The question, by the way, has not been answered, but yet again, avoided. There is nothing in the text of the Bible that defines or begins to indicate the Genesis account as figurative. In fact, the Bible reiterates a literal six day creation, yet you continue to ignore that reality. How about instead of your regurgitated learned rhetoric, you point to one scripture that would indicate other than a literal meaning? You won't do it, because you can't, as it simply doesn't exist. It is time, as they say, to put up or shut up. You can continue to accuse me of being biased by YEC (at the very least, I've learned a new acronym), but it's not the case, and your continued avoidance of specifics is typical of most myopic viewpoints. Let's think about what the rest of the Bible has to say on the issue, and not just the differences in style between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Talk about grasping at straws...

btw, I did mention it, I just didn't ask YOU specifically. I've noticed that you sure do have a tendency to be quite literal when it suits you. That's an interesting paradox all in its own.


You said that "Let there be light" was when time was created. I would say that is when light was created in the account.

I don't think I said that, but I sure didn't mean it, if I did. When God declared light day and darkness night, and established the sum of them both as the first "day", THAT was creating time.


Nope. Days are when the sun is above the horizon and nights are when the sun is below the horizon.

There you go, overdoing things again. Ask a three year old what day and night are. You've found a smart three year old who can understand horizons...


Interestingly, c being a constant is what lead to the Einstein's scientific theory of relativity. I just thought your your juxtaposition of words was amusing.

Well at least I've amused you. Thanks for telling me what c is. But Einstein must have been full of it, since we're "learning" how there is no such thing as a constant.


I agree with your sarcasm. We shouldn't believe theories like YEC because it makes us feel better about our ability to interpret the bible.

Who's being sarcastic? As far as YEC, that's a secondary issue, and you can't seem to realize that. Talk about bias. The issue is not when, as in how long ago, it's whether God created the earth in six literal days, like He says repeatedly that He did.

As my final comment, my attempts to interpret the Bible are utterly useless, as are yours. That is why we have the Holy Spirit, to teach us all things, as ElderMike mentioned.

I really don't see any point in continuing this any further. You have continued to avoid specifics, to move in circular patterns, and quite simply, I have neither the skill nor interest to try to pin you down, simply for the sake of having you actually pay attention to the issues. If you want to believe this is about YEC, then please do. Thats your own issue to deal with. Methinks you protest too much regarding this YEC, so let me assure you, that it is not about YEC, but about the reliability of the word of God.

[Gold Dragon]

but about the reliability of the word of God.

Agreed. God's word is wholy reliable.

Man's interpretation of God's word is not, both mine and yours.

[Gold Dragon]

I don't think I said that, but I sure didn't mean it, if I did. When God declared light day and darkness night, and established the sum of them both as the first "day", THAT was creating time.

Ok I see what you mean.

I think what you are trying to suggest is the assigning of light as day and darkness as night is God's defining of units of time, not necessarily creating time. While I would agree with this somewhat, I still believe that in the context of the passage, day and night do not necessarily relate to 24hr periods at this point in the account since the sun was not created yet.

[novcncy]

Ok I see what you mean.

I think what you are trying to suggest is the assigning of light as day and darkness as night is God's defining of units of time, not necessarily creating time. While I would agree with this somewhat, I still believe that in the context of the passage, day and night do not necessarily relate to 24hr periods at this point in the account since the sun was not created yet.

But don't you believe the order isn't the purpose of the passage, anyway? So really, that shouldn't matter one whit to you, right?

[Gold Dragon]

btw, I did mention it, I just didn't ask YOU specifically. I've noticed that you sure do have a tendency to be quite literal when it suits you. That's an interesting paradox all in its own.

Sorry, I missed this earlier question.

[Gold Dragon]

But don't you believe the order isn't the purpose of the passage, anyway? So really, that shouldn't matter one whit to you, right?

Correct. It doesn't matter to my interpretation. But we are talking about your interpretation in this discussion.

[Gold Dragon]

Thanks for telling me what c is. But Einstein must have been full of it, since we're "learning" how there is no such thing as a constant.

I'm not sure what you are implying about Einstein, relativity and constants.

However just a little background that the speed of light c was determined to be a constant by others. Einstein took that fact and developed relativity which is about relative velocities.

Scientists are discovering that many physical "constants" are actually variable.

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon, if creation theories are just man made I would hope you would say the same thing about evolution theories.

Yes, they are also man-made scientific theories.

Some man-made scientific theories have merit, others do not. None of them trump the Bible.

I personally believe that the man-made scientific theories of YEC are incorrect and involve twisting the scriptures to support it. I know you and others would disagree with me.

[Gold Dragon]

But God was there, as you said, and since he inspired the scripture...everything you just said is psuedo intellectualism. So it won't take a long time because everything you mention is a house of cards, built on a presupposition that God didn't manage to get written down EXACTLY what He meant. Since I patently disagree with your relativism, we'll just have to leave it at that.

I believe my aim is to look as objectively at the text as possible, not limiting the text to say something literal, figurative or any preconcieved idea of what the account should say. But seeking the meaning intended by its authors, both human and divine, by looking seriously at the context of the text.

You can call it pseudo-intellectualism or relativism if you wish, but I would disagree that this is what it is. I call it using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic which is the basis for most hermeneutical studies in seminaries.

God did get it down exactly the way he meant it. And he definitely didn't mean it to be a scientific account of his work.

[Gold Dragon]

Also, I wanted to ask how literally you take the order of the Genesis account. For instance, it claims that the plants were created on day three, before the sun, on day four. How could the plants survive without the sun for any extended period of time? It's just a logical question, I'm trying not to corrupt what the Bible says with my attempt at logic, but I couldn't help but wonder about that.

I agree that this is a conundrum of the YEC interpretation and another key reason why the sequence of events is not necessarily the point of the passage.

BTW, I keep referencing the YEC interpretation instead of your interpretation because I find criticizing an abstract concept is less emotionally offensive than criticizing a personal interpretation, in the hopes that our discussion can remain civil and objective.

[seebs]

Reading the text in English, we have no basis for commentary on whether God got things "exactly". There exists no set of English words that accurately translates Genesis; you can approximate, but you cannot duplicate. God or otherwise; this is not a question of power or competence, but of the simple lack of words in English with the same meanings as some Hebrew words.

[novcncy]

And he definitely didn't mean it to be a scientific account of his work.

Sparks two questions:

1. Who said it was supposed to be scientific? Is there really a scientific explanation for God creating anything by speaking it into existance? There is a substantial difference between a scientific statement, and a factual one. I'm willing to bet that you would say they are the same, but not necessarily so. For instance, when I tell you I went to church on Sunday, we both can be quite certain it is a fact, although the statement is by no means "scientific." Am I offering scientific evidence that I was at church? Nope. Has it been scientifically verified? Nope. But we know it's true, don't we? Why would you believe me? You weren't there. You most likely don't know anyone that was, so you have no independant way to verify it. So will you insist that I wasn't there, because you don't have a "scientific" account? Will you instead insist that I was camping, because a scientific poll of people in my area found that 82 percent of residents go camping on the last Sunday in August, so the evidence says that I was camping. So you have two choices, to believe the science, or believe my account. No matter how you spin it, you cannot twist my statement that I was at church into what I REALLY mean that I actually worship at my own church, the outdoors, and thereby fulfill both conditions.

2. Says who? Do you have a chapter and verse for that? Although the purpose may not have been a "scientific account" (perhaps intentionally so? 1 Cor. 1:20), that doesn't mean that it's not a literal, straightforward, and explicitally true account. If you're looking for a scientific explanation, you will never find it, do you realize that?

[Gold Dragon]

1. Who said it was supposed to be scientific?

Nobody did. I was simply making a statment. I'm glad you agree that we should remember not to read Genesis as a scientific text.

Is there really a scientific explanation for God creating anything by speaking it into existance?

No. That is something we must believe in faith. I'm glad you agree that we should not try to make science fit things we believe in faith. And I agree with you in faith that God spoke creation into existence.

There is a substantial difference between a scientific statement, and a factual one. I'm willing to bet that you would say they are the same, but not necessarily so.

There are many facts that are not scientific facts. I love my wife. That is a non-scientific fact.

2. Says who? Do you have a chapter and verse for that?

Science as a field of study did not exist at the time of the writing of Genesis. Scientific writing as a genre did not exist at the time of the writing of Genesis.

Although the purpose may not have been a "scientific account" (perhaps intentionally so? 1 Cor. 1:20), that doesn't mean that it's not a literal, straightforward, and explicitally true account. If you're looking for a scientific explanation, you will never find it, do you realize that?

I agree. Genesis 1 is a literal, straightforward and explicitly true account of creation inspired by God. Of course literal being one that seeks the intended meaning of the author(s) that possibiliy included figurative elements.

I'm not looking for a scientific explanation of creation from the bible. I do look for scientific explanations of the world God created from the world God created, something science is good at.

[seebs]

If my understanding of Scripture contradicts reality, I have probably misunderstood Scripture.

[novcncy]

If my understanding of Scripture contradicts reality, I have probably misunderstood Scripture.

But then again, you may have misunderstood reality. I suppose the question boils down to what reference defines reality? Is it science?

[seebs]

But then again, you may have misunderstood reality. I suppose the question boils down to what reference defines reality? Is it science?

Science does not define reality, but it does a good job of exploring its physical aspects. A theory that reliably works is probably a good theory.

The Bible was not, so far as I can tell, intended as a science textbook, and I woulda thought we'd have learned that after the flat earth and geocentrism arguments. (Which is not to say that there are not people, today, who argue that heliocentrism is incompatible with Christianity.)

[Project 86]

I failed to note the mention of the number 24 in the creation account.
I don't have much free time to give more in depth replies but where do you see the number 24 ever used to number a whole day? Do you believe Jonah was in the whale for 3 days or was it 3 billions years? Also for the flood it went over the mountains. To try to say it was local is not a good argument. Noah wouldn't need to take birds and all those animals on the ark if it was just local. The birds could have just flown to dry land where the flood didn't take place. As for the created order Genesis 2 is the creation in the garden where Adam named the animals. Anyone that reads Genesis 2 slowly can see that this is the case.

[novcncy]

Science does not define reality, but it does a good job of exploring its physical aspects. A theory that reliably works is probably a good theory.

The Bible was not, so far as I can tell, intended as a science textbook, and I woulda thought we'd have learned that after the flat earth and geocentrism arguments. (Which is not to say that there are not people, today, who argue that heliocentrism is incompatible with Christianity.)

Hi seebs.

I think maybe we should explore your point a bit here.

As far as your first statement, the theories you mentioned, both flat earth and geocentrism were indeed scientific theories of their day. Although it's true that "the church" didn't help matters much, these theories were staunchly defended by science. EVen though these "scientific" theories worked quite effectively for centuries, that didn't make them right, though, did it?

It wasn't the Bible that taught flat earth, it was science. The Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is round. Maybe the rest of the verse's figurative speech was too much for such educated people to accept it might have some literal truth as well.

The problem is that some folks seem to have an inability to seperate faith and logic. Is it coincidence that we are warned time and again throughout the scriptures about relying on the wisdom of men? We seem to think we can always resolve the two, and I wonder what that says about our opinion of ourselves and our mighty intellects? When the two don't resolve, we pretend that there's a complicated situation to sort out, to make the delicacies of the two sides agree, but that's actually not the case. It is far more simple than that, but like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes", no one will call it like it is. There's no dilemma. To deny the simplest sections of scripture, and insist on insertion of "poetic" or "allegorical" meanings that simply are not there so we can conveniently disregard the parts of the Bible that fly in the face of our "scientific" theories, is to actually put more faith in science than in God. I am quite certain that is not the conscious thought process, but obviously the decision has been made. Then, to further complicate the error, let's insist that the light shed on the subject by other scripture is equally as inapplicable.

Is the Bible a science book? No one ever said it was. But when it touches science, it is always right, and concerning reality, it does a far better job of defining it than science or reason. One would think that humanity would have figured out by now, that there's some things we can't figure out. ;)

[seebs]

As far as your first statement, the theories you mentioned, both flat earth and geocentrism were indeed scientific theories of their day.

Got a citation for that? I can show you scientific evidence of a round earth, and even a reasonable estimate of its diameter, predating Christianity.

Although it's true that "the church" didn't help matters much, these theories were staunchly defended by science. EVen though these "scientific" theories worked quite effectively for centuries, that didn't make them right, though, did it?

I am not aware of any science defending either of those theories. They were assumptions people made, but no one had any scientific evidence for them; it was the Bible that people appealed to.

It wasn't the Bible that taught flat earth, it was science. The Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is round.

Untrue.
Isaiah 40:22
Your argument here is equivocation; a circle is "round" in the shape of its edges, but is "flat" in terms of whether it is two or three dimensional. A circle is unambiguously flat. The key claim is not that the world is "round" (which is ambiguous) but that it is "spherical", which this verse contradicts.

To deny the simplest sections of scripture, and insist on insertion of "poetic" or "allegorical" meanings that simply are not there so we can conveniently disregard the parts of the Bible that fly in the face of our "scientific" theories, is to actually put more faith in science than in God.

The way I trust pictures from space more than Isaiah's reference to a flat circle?

Is the Bible a science book? No one ever said it was. But when it touches science, it is always right, and concerning reality, it does a far better job of defining it than science or reason. One would think that humanity would have figured out by now, that there's some things we can't figure out. ;)

The Bible is so consistently wrong on science as to be fairly surprising. How many legs has a grasshopper got?

The Bible is quite clear on the shape of the earth; it is a flat thing, floating on water, with a dome overhead to which lights are affixed.

That is what the Bible describes, and it is how literalists always understood it.

[newbeliever02072005]

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to say thank you all for discussing this topic. I have read through everyone's discussions. I can see that this is a huge topic and something that requires alot of study before someone can come to their own conclusions about. I am not sure if I am ready to dive into this study at this point of my walk with the Lord. A couple of people have said in here to stay strong in my faith. That is what I want to do and I know that ultimately that my faith in the Lord Jesus is what is important. I have seen and know what the power of God has done in my life and that is truth enough for me. Again, thank you for helping me along. I appreciate that I can present my thoughts, concerns and confusion to you all and I'll get some insights.

God Bless you ALL!!!
newbeliever :wave:

Luke 18:27 The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

[eldermike]

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to say thank you all for discussing this topic. I have read through everyone's discussions. I can see that this is a huge topic and something that requires alot of study before someone can come to their own conclusions about. I am not sure if I am ready to dive into this study at this point of my walk with the Lord. A couple of people have said in here to stay strong in my faith. That is what I want to do and I know that ultimately that my faith in the Lord Jesus is what is important. I have seen and know what the power of God has done in my life and that is truth enough for me. Again, thank you for helping me along. I appreciate that I can present my thoughts, concerns and confusion to you all and I'll get some insights.

God Bless you ALL!!!
newbeliever :wave:

Luke 18:27 The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Great verse. You are making a wise decision. Build your faith and let the knowledge of God be the basis from which you understand all other things.

[novcncy]