The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[BobRyan]

There are 4 senses of Scripture interpretation: Literal, Allegorical, Moral and Anagogical. They are all useful. I like that the literal sense does not mean literal as we think of it today

On the contrary -
1. The newly freed slaves at Sinai were not going to insert all sorts of symbolism and imagination to simple terms like "7 days in a week"
2. The simple fishermen listening to Christ in the gospels took things very VERY literally so that in Matt 16 "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" meant to them - don't buy bread from Pharisees.

Matt 16:11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ had to work to get them to take something as a symbol.

as the church teaches, it's not as important that a man named Noah is a historical fact

Not a fact for NT saints.??

In the NT "only eight people" survived the flood -

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

The very details -- the number 8 -- 8 people saved -
the whole world destroyed -- 2 Peter 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.

Notice the legal code in Ex 20:11 --- the very details of the creation account - 7 literal days.

Ex 20:
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:2-3
. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Even the Catholic Church admits this fact about the Sabbath being the 7th day in the Bible -- Saturday and not Sunday.

IN 16 "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath" and for 40 years NO manna on THE seventh day - the entire nation hard-wired to a literal, exact 7th day... the very day.

BTW...I still believe Noah did actually exist . God bless

IN fact that is the only way these Bible texts work.

 

[Diamond7]

He told his disciples to teach others what He taught them (Matt 28:20)

Jesus lived His life as an example for us to follow. For example He went about teaching, preaching and healing. So that is what we are to do also. Teach and be able to demonstrate the power of God though healing.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus lived His life as an example for us to follow. For example He went about teaching, preaching and healing. So that is what we are to do also. Teach and be able to demonstrate the power of God though healing.

Indeed --

(Interesting video along those lines)

Christianity Today calls that group "The fifth largest Christian denomination in the world" in a 2015 article - but other than that a lot of details in that video are pretty close.

And the issue of the Christians having a health message/component to the Gospel presentation is included in that video.

 

[JoyAlton]

On the contrary -
1. The newly freed slaves at Sinai were not going to insert all sorts of symbolism and imagination to simple terms like "7 days in a week"
2. The simple fishermen listening to Christ in the gospels took things very VERY literally so that in Matt 16 "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" meant to them - don't buy bread from Pharisees.

Matt 16:11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ had to work to get them to take something as a symbol.

Not a fact for NT saints.

In the NT "only eight people" survived the flood -

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

The very details -- the number 8 -- 8 people saved -
the whole world destroyed -- 2 Peter 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water.

Notice the legal code in Ex 20:11 --- the very details of the creation account - 7 literal days.

Ex 20:
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:2-3
. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Even the Catholic Church admits this fact about the Sabbath being the 7th day in the Bible -- Saturday and not Sunday.

IN 16 "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath" and for 40 years NO manna on THE seventh day - the entire nation hard-wired to a literal, exact 7th day... the very day.


IN fact that is the only way these Bible texts work.

For sure there are verses that can be taken in a 'literal' literal sense but that still falls under the sense of 'what the author intended'. Some things, taken in context with all of Scripture can be taken that way. For example 'Jesus got into a boat and went to the other side'. However, the are also verses that we should be careful interpreting literally literal. For example, we are told God is Spirit, however, in Genesis, we read of Him walking in the garden knowing spirits don't have feet. Better examples are 'I am the door or vine' or 'the trees clapped their hands. My main point I wanted to share is that it's very useful to read Scripture using the deeper senses. Otherwise, many passages can be mere words on a page especially in the OT. Once I discovered the deeper senses, Scripture came alive for me. Still, I do agree with you that there are many passages that can be taken literally literal.

 

[BobRyan]

For sure there are verses that can be taken in a 'literal' literal sense but that still falls under the sense of 'what the author intended'.

Agreed. Not every verse is intended by the author to be taken literally by his primary, contemporary audience.

Some things, taken in context with all of Scripture can be taken that way. For example 'Jesus got into a boat and went to the other side'.

yep. Nothing in that text would insist that the contemporary readers imagine there was no boat

However, the are also verses that we should be careful interpreting literally literal. For example, we are told God is Spirit, however, in Genesis, we read of Him walking in the garden

both are literal in that case.

knowing spirits don't have feet.

Actually we don't have any such info

Angels are spirits in the Bible and are described as having feet, hands, eyes, mouth etc
God is also seated on his throne and his hair is described in Dan 7.

We "make stuff up" about what it means for angels and God to be "spirit" - but in fact we do not have an exhaustive description other than having very contradictory statements in the Bible against the idea that they "have no form".

In fact in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers God is most specifically saying that a few men beheld the form of YHWH but were not allowed to see His face.

Better examples are 'I am the door or vine' or 'the trees clapped their hands.

Agreed. Jesus was speaking to his disciples in Matt 10 and said "I am the door". The readers of Matt 10 did not then suppose that the disciples suddenly saw Jesus turn into a wooden door.

In John 6 Jesus said He was the living bread that came down out of heaven - but the readers of John 6 did not suppose that the disciples were seeing Jesus fall out of the sky looking like bread.

 

[JoyAlton]

Agreed. Not every verse is intended by the author to be taken literally by his primary, contemporary audience.


yep. Nothing in that text would insist that the contemporary readers imagine there was no boat

both are literal in that case.


Actually we don't have any such info

Angels are spirits in the Bible and are described as having feet, hands, eyes, mouth etc
God is also seated on his throne and his hair is described in Dan 7.

We "make stuff up" about what it means for angels and God to be "spirit" - but in fact we do not have an exhaustive description other than having very contradictory statements in the Bible against the idea that they "have no form".

In fact in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers God is most specifically saying that a few men beheld the form of YHWH but were not allowed to see His face.

Agreed. Jesus was speaking to his disciples in Matt 10 and said "I am the door". The readers of Matt 10 did not then suppose that the disciples suddenly saw Jesus turn into a wooden door.

In John 6 Jesus said He was the living bread that came down out of heaven - but the readers of John 6 did not suppose that the disciples were seeing Jesus fall out of the sky looking like bread.

Yes, we speculate on a lot. We only have our earthly human experience to draw from in an attempt to paint a picture of something that we now hope in but have not seen. Something even the Scripture authors did. Thanks

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, we speculate on a lot. We only have our earthly human experience to draw from

Then that leads us to even more incentive to let the Bible serve as boundary-limits to our speculation.

So we see "God is spirit those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" - John 4
And just when we suppose we could run wild in a sort puff-of-smoke speculation about "spirit" -- then the Bible reigns us back in with its insistence that God has form and also the property of location-reference (seated on his throne, our Father in heaven ..) and so do Angels have form and location reference in the Bible rather than being ominpresent..

We should let the Bible be that boundary, set limits on our speculation in that direction.

 

[HarleyER]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of Gods Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka "Day-Age Creationists", another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to Gods plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that *whatever* you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening randomly. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above, although the most recent and influential of these have been Theistic Evolutionists (ie, they accept that species evolved over billions of years, including man, but that God directed the process all the way, it was not random or wholly naturalistic).

So, where do you fit in? I dont necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

I would have to place myself into #3. Every book in scripture (except Esther) refers to the first eleven chapters of Genesis as history. Our Lord Jesus referred to the first seven chapters as historical fact including a literal Adam. Luke, Paul and Jude also talks about Adam.

1. Matthew 19:4
   And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
   
   
2. Mark 10:6
   But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Where am i on creation, I believe God's creation account given in The Bible.

...A flat stationary earth. Which was created in Genesis 1:1 in a moment of time. A creation which was the home to the angelic host God created. Until satan sinned and persuaded other angels to follow in his revolt against God.
...Then God judged the earth and flooded the earth and cut out the light Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1 verse 3 is seen God restoring the earth He created in Genesis 1:1. This time for human occupation in which is seen 6 days of creation/restoration, Genesis 1:3 through 31

 

[Diamond7]

So, where do you fit in?

There is truth and error in all of them. I tend to believe in dispensationalism A day is 1.000 years. So if you go back 13,000 years there was a massive extinction and the earth was covered with water. This was the beginning of the age we now live in.

 

[davetaff]

There is truth and error in all of them. I tend to believe in dispensationalism A day is 1.000 years. So if you go back 13,000 years there was a massive extinction and the earth was covered with water. This was the beginning of the age we now live in.

Hi Diomond7 thank you for your post I'd like to know where do you get 13000 years from please

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[Diamond7]

Hi Diomond7 thank you for your post I'd like to know where do you get 13000 years from please

I get it from Science. I live in an area that was very effected by the glaciers in a lot of different ways. So when they are building a bridge or building an expressway we see all the different geological layers. Look at the grand canyon and all of the layers and all of the many years it would have taken for those layers to be created. The rocks cry out to us. Jesus talks about this.

 

[BobRyan]

quoting Ex 20, Gen 2:2-3 etc.

For sure there are verses that can be taken in a 'literal' literal sense but that still falls under the sense of 'what the author intended'.

Agreed. "Exegesis". What the author meant to convey and it is clear even to the atheist scholars in world class universities that neither Moses nor his readers were at all -- "darwinist"

Some things, taken in context with all of Scripture can be taken that way. For example 'Jesus got into a boat and went to the other side'.

And the virgin birth
Miracles of Christ,
bodily resurrection of Christ
etc.

However, the are also verses that we should be careful interpreting literally literal. For example, we are told God is Spirit, however, in Genesis, we read of Him walking in the garden

True. But we have no detail beyond that so as to view it as any way in conflict.

Better examples are 'I am the door or vine' or 'the trees clapped their hands.

Indeed there are obvious symbols.
Jesus was not a literal lamb - but he was literally slain on the cross. etc.

My main point I wanted to share is that it's very useful to read Scripture using the deeper senses.

No doubt - but one cannot leave the author of the text behind in doing so. This means when John tells us that Jesus said "I am the door" in John 10 , we take that as a symbol knowing that John himself did not think Jesus was a wooden door. Nor did John's readers think Jesus was a wooden door.

Ex 20 says to keep the 7th day holy because God rested on the 7th day in Gen 2:2-3 and made it a holy day, sanctified it. The Jews literally kept the 7th day holy for that reason. It is clear they understood it to mean the real, literal 7th day so that you have a real literal 7 days in Gen 1 and 2

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I do not take Genesis accounts as literal at all though I am ok with the small possibility that they are.
There is so much more to be concerned about in my daily life, like "love on another as I have loved you."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I get it from Science. I live in an area that was very effected by the glaciers in a lot of different ways

But why only 13,000?

The Cenozoic period alone goes back 65 Million years.

 

[Diamond7]

The Cenozoic period alone goes back 65 Million years.

I am talking about dispensationalism, you are talking about OEC.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do not take Genesis accounts as literal at all though I am ok with the small possibility that they are.
There is so much more to be concerned about in my daily life, like "love on another as I have loved you."

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am talking about dispensationalism, you are talking about OEC.

This is about the actual reality. Reality is very resistant to belief.

 

[HarleyER]

Jesus lived His life as an example for us to follow. For example He went about teaching, preaching and healing. So that is what we are to do also. Teach and be able to demonstrate the power of God though healing.

Perhaps I'm misreading this but Jesus did not live his life as an example for us to follow. He came to died for us so that we might believe in Him and be raised to life with Him.

Believing that Christ was "a good guy" isn't going to cut it before the throne of God. Nor are we capable of demonstrating the power of God through healing. We're not apostles. Our message is for people to repent of their sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ so they might be saved.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Perhaps I'm misreading this but Jesus did not live his life as an example for us to follow.

1 Peter 2:21-23
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
"Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;