Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
If you intended to convey that these were literal days, how would you have been more specific?
make the universe look that way, not bother with SN1987A, not bother with the CMB, not make bushes that date to 10,000 years, that sort of thing.
If you intended to convey a non literal day, what is the point of 'And there was evening, and there was morning'?
it makes a nice song. songs and poetry are far easier to remember than pages of prose. apparently alot of this gets lost in translation to English, I suggest going into a synagogue and listening there.
Matthew 19.4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
all humans have always been male and female... apart from the odd ones. why does he not mention hemaphrodites, Kleinfelters syndrome and things like that. If you want to go out of your way to take this literally, then matthew there was lying because there are alot of people who are not male or female.
Science has not disproven special creation. Actually the major strategy of Dawkins et al is to ignore creationism ('head in the sand science' I guess)
Aside from the bible, what reason does the 'theistic evolutionist' have for suggesting a Creator? Are you suggesting that humans are fallible when recording scripture, but infallible when interpreting empirical data?
no, we are fallible at both of course, which is why we continually refine our interpretations of both. Aside from the bible, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe in the creator.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
If you intended to convey that these were literal days, how would you have been more specific?
If you intended to convey a non literal day, what is the point of 'And there was evening, and there was morning'?
Can you give an example of a non literal day (yom) that is associated with a specific number (first, second, third)?
Matthew 19.4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Matthew 23.35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Luke 17.26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."
There is nothing in these scriptures to falsify the idea that God has communicated Creation directly to the writers as a metaphor. Jesus uses the metaphor all the time, he could be referring to metaphor in the context of these scriptures as well, in order for the people to connect with the theology.
Originally Posted by bevets
He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do... we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit. ~ Martin Luther
Perhaps he should take his own advice and remain as a pupil of the Holy Spirit instead of making his 'assertions' about the true meaning of Genesis. In the first part of his statement Luther makes his own assertions on the meaning of scriptures. Does Luther claim to have God's mind on the subject? He is as fallible as the rest of us Bevets. Or do you claim otherwise by quoting him?
Originally Posted by bevets
Are you suggesting that humans are fallible when recording scripture, but infallible when interpreting empirical data?
He is suggesting that our interpretations of scripture are as fallible as our interpretations of empirical data.
Originally Posted by bevets
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.
Psalm 18.30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless.
Matthew 24.35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
So the writers wrote what God commanded them to write. Why is this relevant? How can we presume to know that God does not speak in metaphor to the writers? Certainly Jesus communicates on several occasions using this approach. Could it be that, as science suggests, creation was far to complex for God to have communicated it literally to the writers at that time? None of these scriptures falsifies this interpretation bevets.
Originally Posted by bevets
You switched terms. Man can glimpse God through science -- and know god through scripture.
This is incorrect, and as a Christian you should know better than to make such proclamations. Let me give you an example: How do you interpret this scripture?
Romans 3:11
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
The Bible is quite clear: there is no way toknow and understand God, whether you are a literalist or not (just read God's words in Job, for example). In your biblical interpretations, you can only glimpse Him as well, correct? You believe that you understand how God created the universe because in your mind it is stated quite plainly in the bible. But you cannot know the mind of God...You cannot know if God was simply telling a series of parables to the writers in the creation account or not (for example). You cannot know, and neither can anyone else. This is why the bible cautions us not to judge people based on their opinions of such things.
So we can glimpse God both in science and in the Bible...but we cannot understand Him either way bevets. If we find that the universe was not created in 6 literal days, then this can give us insight regarding our interpretations of scriptures. God has created both nature and the Bible, and he can speak to us through both. One does not disqualify the other. However, one may shed some light on the correct interpretation of the other. The problem is that most YECs can't come to grips with the fact that they are interpreting the scriptures just like everybody else...and this interpretation is human and fallible, just like everyone else.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 17th November 2003 at 01:03 AM.
I like fairy tales...I think my favorite is "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe." What's everyone's favorite? Oh wait, nevermind this is a creation/evolution forum. For a second I was confused by that original post. I just love how "Christian scientists" use things like that try to explain away evolution. As if that story has anything to do with science. And the moral of the story, how many more pennies will he keep pulling out of his pockets before he looks more and more like a billionaire? As the facts continue to mount towards evolution, it looks like they could be billionaires. Creationists just have to hope they come up short in the end though. The real question is: Which view point offers the biggest rewards in the end? IF you are right about evolution, then all you were was right. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. That's it. IF the creationists were right, then it might have greater ramifications. Of course I am talking about atheist evolution. I fully recognize that people can believe in both God AND evolution. The original post though assumed from the viewpoint that evolutionists were atheists. My advice, if you are gonna believe in evolution, you might want to cover your back and still believe in God...
I like fairy tales...I think my favorite is "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe."
Thats an interesting choice, C.S. Lewis uses the context of a children's story to examine Christ's victory on the cross. Why that one jarrett?
Lewis has written a whole slew of other books as well, I believe they contain some of the most profound Christian theology ever penned.
Originally Posted by jarrett91582
My advice, if you are gonna believe in evolution, you might want to cover your back and still believe in God...
Personally, I don't 'believe' in evolution. I accept it, however, on the most plausible theory on the origin of the species. If we find another theory that better fits the data, then I would accept that instead. Faith is not akin to accepting a theory because it fits the facts, however.
And BTW, believing in God in a Christian context has very little to do with 'covering your back' as you put it, although some Christians seem to sell it this way.
Which God? The bottom line in any religious ideology is that the relationship you have with God is ultimately a personal one, and there are ways to qualify if that relationship is functional. You can try worshipping a piece of wood or a rock if you like, let us know if you notice any spiritual maturation in the process.
Linear Mode
