It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly.

[Willtor]

That's not what you said, Willtor. You're just being dishonest now.

[citation needed]

 

[Willtor]

That's not what you said, Willtor. You're just being dishonest now.

For the sake of readers who don't know me, I've gone back through our discussion to distinguish whether I said I was actually a YEC or just conceding it for the purpose of discussion. Apparently, I had to repeat myself a couple of times to you:

I don't want to talk about the age of the earth. If Genesis is to be interpreted literally the age of the earth may follow from that. But until it's resolved between us it's another discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, I will concede that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old.

Deep time arguments are not especially relevant. I've conceded (for the sake of this discussion) that the world is 6000-10,000 years old. Again, think of me, now, as a YEC, who thinks that the figurative interpretation is preferred.

... for the purposes of this discussion, don't think of me as an "old earther." Since we're discussing Biblical interpretation, let's just deal with the text, itself.

These are unambiguously the words of someone who has conceded a young earth for the purpose of discussion, and not someone actually claiming to be a YEC. You can click on the links to see the original posts, and you can see that I haven't edited those posts.

 

[BobRyan]

What?! I said I conceded for the purpose of discussion that the earth was young, not that I actually believed that it was young. And I did it so we could talk about how the ECFs interpreted the Bible and leave science out of it.
.

Check mate.

both Bible believing Christians and also the atheist evolutionist professors of Hebrew and OT studies can see clearly -- apparently.


We had some T.E. posts trying to 'wish this away' recently - but the facts remain.


Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

"for the purposes of the discussion" of course.

 

[Calminian]

For the sake of readers who don't know me, I've gone back through our discussion to distinguish whether I said I was actually a YEC or just conceding it for the purpose of discussion. Apparently, I had to repeat myself a couple of times to you:

These are unambiguously the words of someone who has conceded a young earth for the purpose of discussion, and not someone actually claiming to be a YEC. You can click on the links to see the original posts, and you can see that I haven't edited those posts.

They're very ambiguous and your views of an old earth very obviously influence your interpretation of Genesis. Your view is not based on the Bible nor ancient theologians. This is why you only want to talk about early fathers that interpreted the days figuratively and refuse to talk about:

Theophilus of Antioch
Methodius
Victorinus of Pettau
Ephrem the Syrian
Epiphanius of Salamis
Basil of Caesarea
Cyril of Jerusalem
Ambrose of Milan (Augustine's mentor)

These guys don't count because they don't support your old earth views. It's a silly meaningless conversation.

 

[Willtor]

They're very ambiguous and your views of an old earth very obviously influence your interpretation of Genesis. Your view is not based on the Bible nor ancient theologians. This is why you only want to talk about early fathers that interpreted the days figuratively and refuse to talk about:

Theophilus of Antioch
Methodius
Victorinus of Pettau
Ephrem the Syrian
Epiphanius of Salamis
Basil of Caesarea
Cyril of Jerusalem
Ambrose of Milan (Augustine's mentor)

These guys don't count because they don't support your old earth views. It's a silly meaningless conversation.

Not sure what this has to do with calling me a troll or a liar... or going out of your way to do so in a totally unrelated thread. I suppose an apology is too much to ask for...

St. Basil counts a great deal, but that's obviously not the point. If any of these people you mention had anything to do with anything, why throw up a smokescreen? Obviously, I didn't refuse to talk about any of them:

I don't know what source you got this list from, but I'm sure St. Basil took Genesis literally. You don't have to believe me. Again, this is the great thing about primary sources! The Hexaemeron is online and you can read it for yourself. I have. I'd be happy to discuss anything you'd like about it.

So, I have to ask, again, why the smokescreen? You basically self-destructed in this thread, here. At this point, I'm happy to discuss St. Basil, but if you're going to lash out when your preconceptions get challenged, I don't want to discuss him with you. If we discuss him, let's do away with the ad hominems and other nonsense, okay? Think more Diane Rehm, and less Sean Hannity.

Another condition, too: You actually have to read the Hexaemeron. It isn't especially obtuse language, and I think you will find it spiritually edifying. It will also change your views about Genesis.

 

[Calminian]

Not sure what this has to do with calling me a troll or a liar... or going out of your way to do so in a totally unrelated thread. I suppose an apology is too much to ask for...

St. Basil counts a great deal, but that's obviously not the point. If any of these people you mention had anything to do with anything, why throw up a smokescreen? Obviously, I didn't refuse to talk about any of them:



So, I have to ask, again, why the smokescreen? You basically self-destructed in this thread, here. At this point, I'm happy to discuss St. Basil, but if you're going to lash out when your preconceptions get challenged, I don't want to discuss him with you. If we discuss him, let's do away with the ad hominems and other nonsense, okay? Think more Diane Rehm, and less Sean Hannity.

Another condition, too: You actually have to read the Hexaemeron. It isn't especially obtuse language, and I think you will find it spiritually edifying. It will also change your views about Genesis.

I'm not following what you're accusing me of here. I posted the above fathers because they all believed in literal days a young earth, and Genesis as historical narrative. I'm merely pointing out that old earthers seem to never bring them up. Only augustine. why do you think that is?

 

[Willtor]

I'm not following what you're accusing me of here. I posted the above fathers because they all believed in literal days a young earth, and Genesis as historical narrative. I'm merely pointing out that old earthers seem to never bring them up. Only augustine. why do you think that is?

I'm accusing you of self-destructing, publicly, for reasons that only you know. The ECFs you brought up have nothing to do with you coming into another thread to tell other people that I am a troll and a liar. But people who are actually concerned about the truth do not do this. It is a smokescreen designed to draw peoples' attentions away from the issues being discussed to the people discussing them. I don't want to play that game and I'm embarrassed for people who play it.

Regarding the ECFs you brought up: We were discussing ECFs who took Genesis figuratively because their existence was a point of contention, not ECFs who took it literally. If you want to discuss someone who took it literally, I'm happy to do that, too. I'm beginning to see some value in doing so (with the stipulation that you have to read one of them). You say that "old earthers" seem never to bring up anyone but Augustine? Recall that it was you who first brought him up in our discussion. If it had been up to me, I would have talked about Athanasius.

Why is Augustine a popular topic? He wrote volumes about why the figurative interpretation was to be preferred... and he criticized people who took it literally. Most ECFs who took it figuratively didn't do that. It makes him useful for refuting the arguments of creationist organizations. Again, I prefer Athanasius, who had a more significant impact on my own interpretation of Genesis. But when you say, "[Augustine] wasn't right about everything, but he was a young earth creationist and literalist," (link) how am I not going to respond?

 

[mark kennedy]

Honestly, there's just so much evidence for evolution and an old earth and all that stuff; to be a creationist, you have to deny radioactive decay, half-life dating (e.g. potassium-argon or strobidium-brontium dating), relative dating, everything we know about astrophysics and the formation of the universe, and almost all of biology, including observed instances of speciation. In essence, you must deny the large majority of astrophysics, regular physics, biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, medicine... a huge amount of observable facts that directly disprove the claims of those who believe that Genesis is a literal, historical account.

All the Bible literally says is that the heavens and the earth were created, 'in the beginning'. So for all we know the universe and the globe we inhabit was made billions of years ago and it is perfectly comparable with Scripture. The creation of life in general and man in particular is another story given the genealogies that are not only an unbroken timeline but feature prominently in the prophetic oracles.

Biology has never been an issue, it is the study of living systems not dead ancestors and genetics clearly supports adaptive evolution. Darwinism on the other hand is grossly contrary to Mendelian genetics insisting on mutations as a vehicle for change impossible to support empirically.

The thing is, it's up to the one making the positive claim to substantiate it*; science disagrees with the Bible, and since the Bible can't come up with anywhere near as many things as physical evidence of its claims than science can, in a contest of science versus the Bible, science wins.

I have never known them to be in conflict in any substantive way.

*You have to prove the positive claim simply because you can't disprove something without a contradicting positive. I don't believe in an invisible unicorn because there is no evidence for such, and I don't believe in a literal Genesis account because there is both no to support it and a great deal of evidence which contradicts it.

Dealing with the evidence isn't that difficult and strangely, the one thing Darwinians never do. Creationists don't start with empirical evidence but the logical overlap is consistent with related scientific disciplines.

At this point, creationism has been virtually destroyed within the scientific community due to the vast amount of data. The Devil in Dover (about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial re: teaching evolution in schools in '06), Your Inner Fish (about how we're all just evolved fish), and Dawkins' Why Evolution Is True all make really great arguments, if anyone wants to read them; I'm not a fan of his anti-religion stuff, but he makes some great arguments and is an evolutionary biologist, and he really knows his stuff when he's talking about the field he has a doctorate in.

Creationism has been dismissed by the courts because it is religious and the Dover discussion made no statement whether it was true or false. The only question was whether the intelligent designer was God and clearly it had to be. This has actually created a logical connection between the scientific work of Intelligent Design and the substantive framework of Creationism making both much more formidable then Darwinians want to think about, let alone deal with.

I really love this quote from Pope Francis, though I am not a Catholic and disagree with a huge amount of their doctrines: "God is not a magician with a magic wand." He works within our universe; he may have created the world ex nihilo, but that doesn't mean that His works in the world after that were all done in a similar fashion. He doesn't have to create everything in such a fashion; rather, he seems to set up systems to work independently of him, such as the weather cycle, and because he interacts and changes things within the universe, we can see his effects on said universe.

Rome cannot deny the doctrine of creation and traditionally has always embraced some kind of Intelligent Design. Ultimately the distanced themselves from the empirical work of science but the Big Bang theory for example was developed in a Catholic university and is perfectly consistent with Creationist, ID or Darwinian evolution. That never has been nor can it be an issue.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, per se, because I think that evolution and theology are completely separate subjects; rather, I think God put in place the system that caused humanity to be created, including the processes of evolution and abiogenesis.

Theistic evolution is the same thing as Darwinian evolution, they make the exact same naturalistic assumptions going back to and including the Big Bang, God doesn't even get credit as designer.

The best place to start exploring the issues of evolution as it relates to the Christian doctrine of creation is the Nicene Creed and a comparative study of the related Scriptures. Then you should learn something about genetics and mutations. Following this exploring the differences in the timelines, Darwinian and Creationist is very informative since that is the only difference.

The real question is whether or not God can be credited with a miraculous creation rationally. If you decide you can you are opposed to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution and should conduct your self accordingly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

All the Bible literally says is that the heavens and the earth were created, 'in the beginning'. So for all we know the universe and the globe we inhabit was made billions of years ago and it is perfectly comparable with Scripture. The creation of life in general and man in particular is another story given the genealogies that are not only an unbroken timeline but feature prominently in the prophetic oracles.

Actually the "in the beginning" quote is referring to the creation of the heavens and earth which is a phrase meaning the entire universe. This phrase appears both before and after the six day account forming a context sandwich of sorts.

It's literally exegetically impossible to attach the term beginning (re'shiyth) in Gen. 1:1 to anything but the six days. And this idea of naming a beginning followed by the details of that period is very common in the OT. If you look at how it's used in other places, we often see a beginning period followed by details that happened within that period. Example: Jeremiah 26. This is one of the many major problems with the new gap theories that are pipping up.

Plus Christ himself identified the beginning of creation as the period of time Adam was created.

Matt. 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’

Grace and peace

 

[Calminian]

I'm accusing you of self-destructing, publicly, for reasons that only you know.....

Fair enough. I just think that kind of rhetoric is trollish and pointless. And I've totally refuted everything you've said about Augustine. I think we're done. I'm moving on.

 

[Willtor]

Fair enough. I just think that kind of rhetoric is trollish and pointless. And I've totally refuted everything you've said about Augustine. I think we're done. I'm moving on.

That's not my recollection. I have posted point-by-point rebuttals to everything you've said -- using Augustine's own words, and citing the texts in which he says them so that you can see for yourself that they fit with the context.

Re: "trollish rhetoric": Again? Seriously? You know that anybody can click on the links I made to our posts and see that either you are lying or you have a different definition of "troll" than the rest of us?

 

[Calminian]

Yeah, if it actually happened historically, but, once again, I'll defer to St. Augustine to show that people that have a historical and respected authority to interpret the bible do not interpret Genesis literally as it is written. .....

And yet as allegorical as Augustine was, he was still a young earther that took Genesis as historical narrative. He even believed in the historical global flood.

IOW's you've picked out the most liberal father you could find and he still doesn't agree with your interpretation of Genesis. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?

 

[Marvin Knox]

"It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly"

The creation story goes hand and glove along with the gospel itself.

As that first created man, Adam, brought death and pain to the world - so the 2nd or last Adam brought redemption through His shed blood.

The gospel message is simply a way of preaching that message.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19)

Of course creation seems foolish and silly to you.

You should probably be asking yourself why that is.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually the "in the beginning" quote is referring to the creation of the heavens and earth which is a phrase meaning the entire universe. This phrase appears both before and after the six day account forming a context sandwich of sorts.

Let's see, your claiming the phrase, 'In the beginning', is at the beginning and end of Genesis 1. The word for beginning is (re'shiyth, רֵאשִׁית Strong's H7225) translated 'beginning', not used again until the beginning of Bable:"And the beginning H7225 of his kingdom was Babel" (Gen. 10:10).

Wrong statements are not such a big deal, unless you can't accept the correction.

It's literally exegetically impossible to attach the term beginning (re'shiyth) in Gen. 1:1 to anything but the six days.

Absolutely not true, because everything in the opening verse is literally absolute and I do mean that is a distinctive literary feature of Genesis 1:1. Everything in it is absolute, it is unique not only in the chapter but in all of Scripture there is no stronger statement. The word for 'created', bara, as I have shown you before is another term that is absolute and used only of God's creation. Used once for the creation of the universe, once again for the creation of life and used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve.

Your statement about what is exegetically possible or impossible is baseless hyperbole.

And this idea of naming a beginning followed by the details of that period is very common in the OT. If you look at how it's used in other places, we often see a beginning period followed by details that happened within that period. Example: Jeremiah 26. This is one of the many major problems with the new gap theories that are pipping up.

No, the statement is simply that God created the heavens and the earth, in the beginning. There is no problem, there is no gap, there is no inextricable link, there is simply the statement that God created the heavens and the earth. Then the story turns to the surface of the earth where the Spirit of God is hovering over the waters in utter darkness that covers the deep, aka the primordial waters that covered the earth.

That's all it says, there is no direct reference to time thus far. If you want to infer one that's your choice but the only reason to insist the text says that is because you want creationists to argue for the irrelevant. I still think you are a Darwinian playing a creationist role. You never argue for anything else but a young earth, there is no Biblical reason for doing so except to divert the argument down a blind hole.

Plus Christ himself identified the beginning of creation as the period of time Adam was created.

I'm well aware of what Christ and the New Testament teaches about Adam. In eight references Adam is described as the first parent of humanity. In over 400 references to Adam in the OT Adam is synonymous with humanity for the same reason Jacob, AKA Israel, is synonymous with the nation of Israel.

Matt. 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’

A direct quote from the Genesis account, the triple parallelism at the end of Genesis 1. You are equivocating that vital doctrinal statement with a young earth cosmology which is not only absurd, but borderline heresy. At best its a weak exposition and a logical fallacy. No harm, no foul, unless you insist on equivocating a baseless contention with an actual exposition.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

"It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly"

The creation story goes hand and glove along with the gospel itself.

Indeed, the opening verses of John 1, Hebrews 1 and the Nicene Creed come to mind.

As that first created man, Adam, brought death and pain to the world - so the 2nd or last Adam brought redemption through His shed blood.

Which is the Romans 5 exposition of original sin by the Apostle Paul, with you so far...

The gospel message is simply a way of preaching that message.

Indeed, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19)​

Of course creation seems foolish and silly to you.

You should probably be asking yourself why that is.

You noticed that to huh? They always argue against creation with such passion, either not realizing or not wanting you to know it's inextricably linked to the Gospel. The Incarnation, Resurrection, new birth and the translation of believers at the end of the age are the same miracle in a different context. Is it really that hard to understand?

I sometimes wonder, if I can't take the first creation in Genesis 1 literally am I supposed to take the one in Revelations 22 literally? If I'm not, what does that say about the many miracles in the middle?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

"It seems to me that the creationist argument is just... silly"

The creation story goes hand and glove along with the gospel itself.

As that first created man, Adam, brought death and pain to the world - so the 2nd or last Adam brought redemption through His shed blood.

The gospel message is simply a way of preaching that message.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19)

Of course creation seems foolish and silly to you.

You should probably be asking yourself why that is.

Good point

In fact New Testament authors and the LAW of God affirm the very literal "details" that evolutionists claim are "most untrue".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And yet as allegorical as Augustine was, he was still a young earther that took Genesis as historical narrative. He even believed in the historical global flood.

IOW's you've picked out the most liberal father you could find and he still doesn't agree with your interpretation of Genesis. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?

Augustine 'imagined' that 7 days was wayyyyy too long for God to create the world and it must have all been done in 1 literal day so then he imagined ways to bend the Bible to fit is a priori imagination.

Not unlike the outside agenda that some believers in blind faith evolutionism choose to bring to the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Actually the "in the beginning" quote is referring to the creation of the heavens and earth which is a phrase meaning the entire universe. This phrase appears both before and after the six day account forming a context sandwich of sorts.

It's literally exegetically impossible to attach the term beginning (re'shiyth) in Gen. 1:1 to anything but the six days. And this idea of naming a beginning followed by the details of that period is very common in the OT. If you look at how it's used in other places, we often see a beginning period followed by details that happened within that period. Example: Jeremiah 26. This is one of the many major problems with the new gap theories that are pipping up.

Plus Christ himself identified the beginning of creation as the period of time Adam was created.

Matt. 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’

Grace and peace

There is a 7 day week between the opening Gen 1:1 statement and Gen 2:4 as is even stated in legal code in Ex 20:11.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SkyWriting]

Augustine 'imagined' that 7 days was wayyyyy too long for God to create the world and it must have all been done in 1 literal day so then he imagined ways to bend the Bible to fit is a priori imagination.

Not unlike the outside agenda that some believers in blind faith evolutionism choose to bring to the text.

in Christ,

Bob

One literal instant would be more logical.

But if time didn't "begin" until Adam sinned
then there is no good reference for us
to grasp anyway.