Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
People seem to keep saying things like Creationists can only reject evolution because they see the genesis account as being literal. Conversely, theistic evolutionists accept evolution, because they see Genesis as being mythical or non-literal.
But can't there be an inbetween position? (not that I myself can figure any of it out properly)
What if Genesis was literal in a broad sense, or in some specifics, but used analogies or metaphors in other ways?
For example (and I'm certainly not saying this is a correct interpretation...I can't be dogmatic about any of it)...it says that God place A an E in the Garden of Eden and they could eat from any of the trees, apart from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Well, what if all the trees were literal APART from the Tree of the Knoledge of G and E?
What about the Tree of Life? Was that literal?
Also, people say, well of course a snake can't talk...but then, neither can a donkey, and yet a donkey speaks later on in the Bible..to Balaam, if I remember correctly? Now, I believe that the incident with Balaam and the donkey was an actual literal happening....EXCEPT that I suspect that the donkey didn't actually use his vocal chords to speak...I suspect that God somehow spoke through him (aloud). So, I think t's entirely possible, that Satan could have used a serpent in the same way..not that the serpent actually started chatting away, withou t a muth designed to speak.
Not that any of this proves or disproves evolution...but I do wonder if we keep getting hung up on EITHER an absolute literal interpretatio n of Genesis, OR an entirely mythical or allegorical interpretation.
And really, I suspect the whole truth does not lie in either of those positions. I really think there's an awful lot more behind Genesis than meets the eye, which none of us has knowledge of...it only gives us a basic framework.
I think you'll find many evolutionary creationists subscribe to the idea that some of the opening chapters of Genesis do, indeed, have a historical basis, even if they're written largely as myth or legend. The idea that a Near Eastern man once saved a boat-load of animals from a local flood isn't entirely unheard of. The Genesis creation account may be a little more difficult to account for scientifically, however.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
It's just difficult (for me at any rate) to figure out which bits are literal history, and which bits are history couched in other terms.
Now, according to my understanding, havent they traced scientifically, all humans back to one woman...mitochondrial Eve? If so, would that be the literal Eve....also if so, what of Adam?
Also, what, if anything was before that mitochondrial Eve?
I'm sure my questions are simplistic, if not ill-informed, but I'd like to try and get an understanding
It's just difficult (for me at any rate) to figure out which bits are literal history, and which bits are history couched in other terms.
I guess my question for you would be: does it really matter? Are the historical lessons from the creation account(s) really more important than the spiritual lessons? Is it more important to know whether Adam literally existed, or that humanity is a creation of a loving God and has fallen into sin?
Now, according to my understanding, havent they traced scientifically, all humans back to one woman...mitochondrial Eve? If so, would that be the literal Eve....also if so, what of Adam?
Also, what, if anything was before that mitochondrial Eve?
Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first woman. She is simply the last common female ancestor of all living humans. There are no doubt extinct lineages of humans that predated or were never descended from Mitochondrial Eve. More here: Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm sure my questions are simplistic, if not ill-informed, but I'd like to try and get an understanding
No one here minds answering even the simplest sounding questions, so long as they asked in earnest. I wish everyone were as genuine as you!
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Quite a lot of TEs believe in a literal Adam and Eve, I don't, not because of evolution but because of the biblical metaphors that seem to fill the story, God as a potter making people from clay, a serpent who is a beast of the field (albeit a talking one) in Genesis, but we are told in the book of Revelation actually is Satan. Basically you can take as much or little of the account literally as you feel comfortable and right with. I know Glenn Morton has a very literal take on the story, with God creating Adam from the dead body (eg 'dust') of an ape with a fatal fused chromosome Theory For Creationists
You get a lot of Old Earth Creationists who read Gen 1 as a day age description of the earth's 4.5 billions years, now while OECs traditionally reject evolution, there in nothing in the OEC day age interpretation that says God could not have used evolution. It is just an OEC tradition. The same goes with other variants like intermittent days, or analogical days. TEs tend to be more framework hypothesis or myth, but there is nothing about the theory of evolution that says you have to interpret Genesis that way
Incidentally the description of the flood in Genesis says nothing about it being global. You do need to realise that the word translated 'the earth' in the account ha'erets, is most commonly translated 'the land' in other parts of the bible, even the phrase 'the whole earth' is used in the description of the Exodus to refer to the whole land of (of Egypt) being covered with locusts. While we tend to read 'under the whole heaven' as 'spanning the whole globe, the phrase was used in the bible simply to mean from horizon to horizon. Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you. Does this mean the Maori, Incas and Aborigines would tremble in fear when they heard of Moses and the Israelites? Or did it mean the Edomites Moabites Amorites and Canaanites? Incidentally, nowhere in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10, or anywhere else in the bible, does it suggest Maoris, Incas and Aborigines are descended from Noah.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I guess my question for you would be: does it really matter? Are the historical lessons from the creation account(s) really more important than the spiritual lessons? Is it more important to know whether Adam literally existed, or that humanity is a creation of a loving God and has fallen into sin?
I just wish that, if it was meant to be mainly allgorical, to put over something spiritual, that it didn't come over so much as historical. It's not that I can't necessarily tell the difference between poetry, or metaphor etc, normally speaking - but the way it's put over in Genesis, really does come over to me as fact....of course, they probably say that that is an ancient literary device or something.
I do think that the spiritual lessons are more important ultimately, but mymain difficulty is that Scripture talks of the First Adam and the Last Adam, which APPEARS to mean two individuals...though I can see that that is not necessarily so.
The other difficulty I have is that if evolution's true, then somewhere way back, the original "true human" had a parent or parents who were not truly human...that is to say - would the parents have been capable of communion with God - would they have a spirit? Also, way back before then, outr ancestors would presumably have been unrecognisably human in any way, and as I said in a thread in a different place, I'm not sure that I like the thought of having my greatgreatgreat etc grandparents being creatures that I could not relate to as humans
But quite possibly I'm viewing this in the wrong way, and not being objective.[quote]
Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first woman. She is simply the last common female ancestor of all living humans. There are no doubt extinct lineages of humans that predated or were never descended from Mitochondrial Eve. More here: Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, right, I see - do you think then, that some people might say that Mitochondrial Eve could have been Noah's wife, if it is taken that all humanity was wiped off the face of the earth apart from them?
No one here minds answering even the simplest sounding questions, so long as they asked in earnest. I wish everyone were as genuine as you![
Thank you....I'm just trying to get my head round everything - not sure that I ever will, though.
Thing is, before I actually became a Christian, I didn't think evolution was right anyway..but never thought about it much.
Then, having become a Christian, it seemed to be an important issue, because of squaring or not squarin Genesis with the rest of the Bible.
In fact, I wonder if I might have had more difficulty in accepting Christ, had I actually believed that evolution were true.
Now, I honestly don't know what to think.
Fortunately, I came to know God, before these issues came up./quote].
I just wish that, if it was meant to be mainly allgorical, to put over something spiritual, that it didn't come over so much as historical. It's not that I can't necessarily tell the difference between poetry, or metaphor etc, normally speaking - but the way it's put over in Genesis, really does come over to me as fact....of course, they probably say that that is an ancient literary device or something.
I think that, as Christians, we've been blinded by tradition and biased towards thinking Genesis 1 and 2 are historical accounts of the world's origin. But why? On the surface, the story is about a pair of people who were placed in a mystical garden with a talking snake and some trees with magical powers. Why are we so predisposed to thinking this is an historical account, whereas, say, Aesop's fables or Mother Goose's nursery rhymes are not? Are they really so different from one another on the surface? I don't think so. It's the lessons they contain that sets one apart from the others. The creation accounts are a polemic against the polytheism that was so rampant in the ancient Near East.
The other difficulty I have is that if evolution's true, then somewhere way back, the original "true human" had a parent or parents who were not truly human...that is to say - would the parents have been capable of communion with God - would they have a spirit? Also, way back before then, outr ancestors would presumably have been unrecognisably human in any way, and as I said in a thread in a different place, I'm not sure that I like the thought of having my greatgreatgreat etc grandparents being creatures that I could not relate to as humans
These are questions that science can't answer because science has no access to the spirit, and so it cannot say when the human spirit originated. It's a mystery. Is it any more of a mystery than, say, the origination of the spirit in a developing embryo? Does a human become infused with the spirit at zygote formation? Does the egg have 1/2 spirit, and the sperm the other 1/2? Are both gametes fully infused with the spirit? These questions are no less mysterious, and yet we've learned to live with them.
Ultimately, I would have to ask again: what does it matter? What matters is that we know that we are sinful, regardless of when the Fall might have occurred, and that we are in need of a saviour.
Ah, right, I see - do you think then, that some people might say that Mitochondrial Eve could have been Noah's wife, if it is taken that all humanity was wiped off the face of the earth apart from them?
I don't think I would go that far. For one, there is no evidence whatsoever that the human population was ever so bottlenecked by a global flood. For another, Noah's wife wasn't the only woman on the ark.
Thank you....I'm just trying to get my head round everything - not sure that I ever will, though.
Our relationship with God will always be an ongoing struggle. The important thing is that we rely on Him and on one another to help each other through it.
Thing is, before I actually became a Christian, I didn't think evolution was right anyway..but never thought about it much.
Most people don't.
Then, having become a Christian, it seemed to be an important issue, because of squaring or not squarin Genesis with the rest of the Bible.
In fact, I wonder if I might have had more difficulty in accepting Christ, had I actually believed that evolution were true.
Now, I honestly don't know what to think.
Fortunately, I came to know God, before these issues came up./quote].
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Tansy, this website just came out this week and I think you might find it interesting: The BioLogos Foundation
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Quite a lot of TEs believe in a literal Adam and Eve, I don't, not because of evolution but because of the biblical metaphors that seem to fill the story, God as a potter making people from clay, a serpent who is a beast of the field (albeit a talking one) in Genesis, but we are told in the book of Revelation actually is Satan. Basically you can take as much or little of the account literally as you feel comfortable and right with. I know Glenn Morton has a very literal take on the story, with God creating Adam from the dead body (eg 'dust') of an ape with a fatal fused chromosome Theory For Creationists
You get a lot of Old Earth Creationists who read Gen 1 as a day age description of the earth's 4.5 billions years, now while OECs traditionally reject evolution, there in nothing in the OEC day age interpretation that says God could not have used evolution. It is just an OEC tradition. The same goes with other variants like intermittent days, or analogical days. TEs tend to be more framework hypothesis or myth, but there is nothing about the theory of evolution that says you have to interpret Genesis that way
Incidentally the description of the flood in Genesis says nothing about it being global. You do need to realise that the word translated 'the earth' in the account ha'erets, is most commonly translated 'the land' in other parts of the bible, even the phrase 'the whole earth' is used in the description of the Exodus to refer to the whole land of (of Egypt) being covered with locusts. While we tend to read 'under the whole heaven' as 'spanning the whole globe, the phrase was used in the bible simply to mean from horizon to horizon. Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you. Does this mean the Maori, Incas and Aborigines would tremble in fear when they heard of Moses and the Israelites? Or did it mean the Edomites Moabites Amorites and Canaanites? Incidentally, nowhere in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10, or anywhere else in the bible, does it suggest Maoris, Incas and Aborigines are descended from Noah.
Thank you for your reply. Now that is interesting about the translations of words....if ONLY one could read and understand the Bible in the original languages..it might help clear up a lot of misunderstandings. Even then, of course, I know it wouldnt be foolproof, as one also has to understand the culture etc etc. Look at the bit about camels going through the eye of a needle...I always thought that was a bit of a strange thing for Jesus to say - I had mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through that little tiny hole..boggled the mind. Then of course, I heard about the narrow gateways through the city walls, being termed eyes of needles, and it was apparently tricky to get laden camels through them. Suddenly it made perfect sense.
The trouble is, if ever I'm in a discussion with a non-believer about Christianity, and it ends up getting onto Genesis, I find myself floundering, saying well, soem Christians say this, and some say that...and finding I haven't got any solid basis on which to proceed. I really need to think of a way of approaching it, which does justice to the whole thing.
Th e thing is, I really think that Genesis is integral to the whole bible, and in particular, to the gospel. I need to know how to give cogent biblical answers (or pointers) at least, to agnostics who believe in evolution, and those who haven't really thought about it - but all without losing the integrity of Scripture, or maybe my own integrity.
I can't solemnly state that one or the other position is correct, if I am not sure myself....but then I find myself getting bogged down with difficulties in either camp, as it were.
The trouble is, if ever I'm in a discussion with a non-believer about Christianity, and it ends up getting onto Genesis, I find myself floundering, saying well, soem Christians say this, and some say that...and finding I haven't got any solid basis on which to proceed. I really need to think of a way of approaching it, which does justice to the whole thing.
This is very good!
The thing is, I really think that Genesis is integral to the whole bible, and in particular, to the gospel. I need to know how to give cogent biblical answers (or pointers) at least, to agnostics who believe in evolution, and those who haven't really thought about it - but all without losing the integrity of Scripture, or maybe my own integrity.
There's a lot of hope for you, I believe the Holy Spirit still has a chance to show you the truth. Trust Him and no one else to reveal the truth to you. You're post is very encouraging to read. Thanks!
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
I wish everyone were as genuine as you! 
Linear Mode
