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

[BobRyan]

Indeed many people do down size the Bible to the level of "Bridget Jones Diary" we get that from atheists all the time.

Interesting that Barr admits that the author of Genesis writes the historic account - given as is - to be accepted and believed by those readers of the Genesis account.

Barr dismisses all attempts to evolutionize/darwinize the text - pointing out that this is not at all what was going on there.

So when the Christian comes along and finds that even the atheists admit - the text is giving us an historic account that does not fit atheism - well the Christian has 'another choice' not open to the atheist.

Trying to evade the point by focusing on something else?

Not at all - it goes right to the point. The author is giving us an historic account. Certainly we know atheists will not choose to believe the author.

But shall we as Christians "join them"?

Each person has to make up their own mind - now that we all agree that the author was in fact presenting an historic account.
Not darwinism.
Not evolutionism.
Not mythology.
Not mysterious symbols.

Matter of fact - history.

Oh, I agree with him entirely on these points. He was writing to his own audience in terms that he and they understood to be history.

Very often Christians call this "Exegesis".

Determining the intended meaning of the text - as the author intended.

Attempts to find evolution in the text of the Bible are completely off the mark.

Agreed. The author was not seeking to find some weak palsied account of origins that "would also be a perfect fit for darwinism" -

Rather he was giving an historic account -

And as Christians many believe that God is the one that inspired that account - making it trustworthy.

Similarly, the bible speaks of the angels of heaven, but never of galaxies.

Which is neither here nor there. The Bible is not saying "Angels are really galaxies" nor does it say "Angels do not exist -- I just made that up". Nor are angels in the Bible doing anything that "Galaxies" do in modern life.

So also with the "Virgin birthers"

And the "bodily resurrection of Christ - truthers".

All those "funny Christian" ideas that the Bible can be believed.

It speaks of the movement of the sun, but never the movement of the earth.

And even Einstein argues that this is scientifically accurate - describing motion in terms of frame of reference.

So then the Bible is telling the truth after all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gluadys]

Not at all - it goes right to the point. The author is giving us an historic account. Certainly we know atheists will not choose to believe the author.

But shall we as Christians "join them"?

We as Christians must always respect the truth, whatever its source. We must respect the truth of scripture and the truth of the created world. We must respect the truth that the wisest people of the past did not know some of the facts about the material world we do; and that they probably knew as much or more about matters of faith and love and a relationship with God as we do. We must let them speak from their position, and respect the wisdom they offer us, but also understand their limitations and not let ourselves be bound by untruth because of them.

Each person has to make up their own mind - now that we all agree that the author was in fact presenting an historic account.

Not quite. We all agree the author was presenting an account of creation which he probably believed was history. We are not agreed that it is factual history. Why would we expect him to know the actual history of creation when he knew nothing of the big bang, the origin and burnout of stars, the origin of the earth or its billions of years of natural history before humanity existed and the tens of thousands of years of human history before the beginnings of agriculture and civilization? He knew the stories of his people, but those stories could only have begun well after the first existence of humanity, and could not be an actual history of the beginning of earth and heaven.

Not darwinism.
Not evolutionism.
Not mythology.
Not mysterious symbols.

You know, symbols and myths are only mysterious when they are not part of your own culture. No doubt you would be mystified by the symbol of Ganesha, because Ganesha only makes sense within Hindu culture. But you are not mystified at all by the symbol of the stars and stripes of the American flag, because that is a symbol of your own culture.

Our task today is not to impose our symbolic meanings on scripture but to figure out what symbolic meanings the original audience would understand and not find mysterious at all.

And as Christians many believe that God is the one that inspired that account - making it trustworthy.

Even in inspiration, God meets us where we are at and does not try to give us factual information appropriate to a far future culture. What is trustworthy is the meaning that transcends time. What is limited to its time need not distract us, even if we no longer consider it factual.

Which is neither here nor there. The Bible is not saying "Angels are really galaxies" nor does it say "Angels do not exist -- I just made that up". Nor are angels in the Bible doing anything that "Galaxies" do in modern life.

Exactly. There is nothing in scripture which was unknown to those who wrote it, even though they wrote under inspiration. But that does not give us leave to deny the factuality of galaxies, nor of the actual age of the earth, nor of evolution. And, of course, it would be quite silly to try and "reconcile" modern knowledge of galaxies with biblical accounts of angels.

And even Einstein argues that this is scientifically accurate - describing motion in terms of frame of reference.

So then the Bible is telling the truth after all.

Oh, no you don't. You have just argued, and I have agreed, that we should not stuff modern knowledge the biblical authors knew nothing about into scripture. We should not claim the scriptures support evolution: they don't. We should not claim the days of Genesis 1 are symbols of long ages; they are not. For the same reason, we cannot put concepts of relativity and frames of reference into the bible. Those ideas were unknown to author and his audience and would make no sense to them.

The motion of the sun spoken of in scripture is a motion across the sky during daylight hours and back to its dawning position during the night hours, understood to be a real motion, not a reflection of the motion of the earth. After all, as far as the biblical authors were concerned, the earth did not spin on its axis--indeed had no axis to spin on.

The motion of the sun Einstein speaks of is an entirely different motion and relative to the galaxy, not to the earth. That has no reference point in scripture because, as we just agreed, scripture has no reference to galaxies.

So, be consistent. Don't deny that modern knowledge is in the bible when you don't agree with modern knowledge and then claim modern knowledge is in the bible when it is convenient for you. That is violating all the parameters of honest exegesis.

Rather acknowledge the truth that no modern scientific information is in the bible--both what you agree with and what you disagree with.

 

[Willtor]

Not quite. We all agree the author was presenting an account of creation which he probably believed was history. We are not agreed that it is factual history. Why would we expect him to know the actual history of creation when he knew nothing of the big bang, the origin and burnout of stars, the origin of the earth or its billions of years of natural history before humanity existed and the tens of thousands of years of human history before the beginnings of agriculture and civilization? He knew the stories of his people, but those stories could only have begun well after the first existence of humanity, and could not be an actual history of the beginning of earth and heaven.

That whole post was spot-on. I wonder about this one part, though. I'm not sure how factual it was perceived to be. For example, imagine you went back in time and spoke to Moses. Suppose you told him the Earth was round and traveled around the Sun. I suspect he would be less inclined to ask you how you knew these things, but rather what you were trying to tell him about God and Heaven. I don't think anybody especially cared about the fact-of-the-matter regarding such things, so long as it communicated theology and philosophy clearly and concisely. Applying the lens of "factual history" (for any context more than a few generations removed) in that context seems anachronistic.

As society became more knowledgeable about nature, I think the emphasis on fact increased. I'd cite the scientific revolution as the thing that caused a sort of divorce between fact and meaning. Copernicus, for example, altered his thinking about the universe a number of times as he made more observations. This was at the expense of his formulations of purpose for why things were the way he had thought. He's generally credited as the first person to do this, systematically.

Today, most people use the terms symbolic and mythological disparagingly, as opposed to fact. Creationists don't want to know why the Sun was created on the fourth day. Irrelevant. It's just the way God decided to do it. But I think the author was trying to say something else, and the facts didn't especially matter -- not merely because he didn't know the facts, but because presenting the facts was not on his mind.

 

[gluadys]

That whole post was spot-on. I wonder about this one part, though. I'm not sure how factual it was perceived to be. For example, imagine you went back in time and spoke to Moses. Suppose you told him the Earth was round and traveled around the Sun. I suspect he would be less inclined to ask you how you knew these things, but rather what you were trying to tell him about God and Heaven. I don't think anybody especially cared about the fact-of-the-matter regarding such things, so long as it communicated theology and philosophy clearly and concisely. Applying the lens of "factual history" (for any context more than a few generations removed) in that context seems anachronistic.

As society became more knowledgeable about nature, I think the emphasis on fact increased. I'd cite the scientific revolution as the thing that caused a sort of divorce between fact and meaning. Copernicus, for example, altered his thinking about the universe a number of times as he made more observations. This was at the expense of his formulations of purpose for why things were the way he had thought. He's generally credited as the first person to do this, systematically.

Today, most people use the terms symbolic and mythological disparagingly, as opposed to fact. Creationists don't want to know why the Sun was created on the fourth day. Irrelevant. It's just the way God decided to do it. But I think the author was trying to say something else, and the facts didn't especially matter -- not merely because he didn't know the facts, but because presenting the facts was not on his mind.

Thanks. I think Moses would have been disturbed by the idea the earth moves around the sun. Certainly the contemporaries of Copernicus and Galileo were. The concept would not have fit into what John Walton calls his "cosmic geography". And that, no doubt, is why God does not use inspiration as a vehicle of revealing a new scientific paradigm. Why upset Moses' whole cosmic geography--which includes some of his understanding of God--when the point is for God to reveal himself to Moses as creator and the only creator of the cosmos, whatever its perceived geography? Genesis does enough heavy lifting in standing against polytheism and the notion of gods as natural functions to ask it to do more.

You are quite right about the modern disparagement of "symbol" and "myth". Quite the reverse was the case prior to the scientific revolution and the inroads it made into how we determine fact and evaluate what is true. In ancient times, myth WAS the science and history of the time. It was the natural mode of human communication. It was not mysterious or arcane. People can readily think in terms of symbols--after all every people has developed a system of mythological symbols that informs how they think of the origin, meaning and purpose of existence. Even young children quickly learn to think symbolically. I have used before the illustration of my daughter when she could barely string two words together yet. One day my husband came home very moody--I forget why. But after he spoke roughly to her, she turned to me and said "Daddy--Oscar". I am sure you get the Sesame Street reference. That is symbolic thinking and myth is just the same sort of thinking on a grander, more mature scale. It is different from scientific thinking, but just as legitimate as a mode of communication.

The error comes when we try to make the two ways of understanding equivalent in type: when, because we disparage myth, yet value its truth, we try to treat it as if it were making scientific statements, or as if its symbology was referring to what we call scientific fact. No, we have to relearn the respect our ancestors had for myth, allegory and symbol--without turning our back on the gains in knowledge given us by science.

 

[Willtor]

Thanks. I think Moses would have been disturbed by the idea the earth moves around the sun. Certainly the contemporaries of Copernicus and Galileo were. The concept would not have fit into what John Walton calls his "cosmic geography". And that, no doubt, is why God does not use inspiration as a vehicle of revealing a new scientific paradigm. Why upset Moses' whole cosmic geography--which includes some of his understanding of God--when the point is for God to reveal himself to Moses as creator and the only creator of the cosmos, whatever its perceived geography? Genesis does enough heavy lifting in standing against polytheism and the notion of gods as natural functions to ask it to do more.

You are quite right about the modern disparagement of "symbol" and "myth". Quite the reverse was the case prior to the scientific revolution and the inroads it made into how we determine fact and evaluate what is true. In ancient times, myth WAS the science and history of the time. It was the natural mode of human communication. It was not mysterious or arcane. People can readily think in terms of symbols--after all every people has developed a system of mythological symbols that informs how they think of the origin, meaning and purpose of existence. Even young children quickly learn to think symbolically. I have used before the illustration of my daughter when she could barely string two words together yet. One day my husband came home very moody--I forget why. But after he spoke roughly to her, she turned to me and said "Daddy--Oscar". I am sure you get the Sesame Street reference. That is symbolic thinking and myth is just the same sort of thinking on a grander, more mature scale. It is different from scientific thinking, but just as legitimate as a mode of communication.

I think Moses would have been disturbed by a heliocentric model, too. The objection that it diminishes our value is intuitive to me, even in 2015. Sometimes, today, one hears scientists and science popularizers use the position of the Earth in the universe as a lesson in humility. Likewise, sharing common ancestry with chimpanzees seems to either raise up chimpanzees or bring down humans in value. One hears this explicitly from creationists from time to time.

The pull towards symbolical thinking, especially as regards our identity and place in the grand scheme of things, is very strong. Your Oscar story makes that quite evident.

The error comes when we try to make the two ways of understanding equivalent in type: when, because we disparage myth, yet value its truth, we try to treat it as if it were making scientific statements, or as if its symbology was referring to what we call scientific fact. No, we have to relearn the respect our ancestors had for myth, allegory and symbol--without turning our back on the gains in knowledge given us by science.

Lime'd for truth. (I think that's Lime -- the UI no longer presents that information)

 

[BobRyan]

Not at all - it goes right to the point. The author is giving us an historic account. Certainly we know atheists will not choose to believe the author.

But shall we as Christians "join them"?

Each person has to make up their own mind - now that we all agree that the author was in fact presenting an historic account.
Not darwinism.
Not evolutionism.
Not mythology.
Not mysterious symbols.

Matter of fact - history.

We as Christians must always respect the truth, whatever its source. We must respect the truth of scripture and the truth of the created world.

That was the point - the "Created World" and the fact that "God's Word is Truth".

But as Christians we are free to do that whereas atheists merely have the "word of Darwin and Dawkins" for their "truth".

No matter how many world class frauds/hoaxes/fakes are used to prop up evolutionism for decade upon decade .. and then fall like fluff.

We all agree the author was presenting an account of creation which he probably believed was history.

Which is also Barr's point.

We are not agreed that it is factual history.

True and we all agree that very few atheists would argue for the Bible as a trustworthy reliable document when it comes to facts of history.

Again - all agree on that.

And we all on this board - agree that GOD was "fully informed" on all the details that many atheists would like to think "they alone" know about.

And we all agree that 2Peter 1:19-21 is in the Bible.

19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So the question is not "how much did Moses know" rather the question is "how much did GOD Know"

 

[theFijian]

So the question is not "how much did Moses know" rather the question is "how much did GOD Know"

No the question is "What and how much did God reveal?"

 

[BobRyan]

No the question is "What and how much did God reveal?"

Not really a question once we read the text He inspired. The text tells us a thing or two about what He revealed and as Barr points out - the text is a historic account. A literal 7 day week. a literal world wide flood.

One may (as does Barr) choose to reject the facts given in the text - but that is not the same thing as giving the text a wax nose trying to point it 180 degrees away from the statements in the text, as if it is just as accurate to try and make the text join you in rejecting it. Moses was no Darwinist.

 

[theFijian]

Not really a question once we read the text He inspired.

Exactly, he told us exactly what he needed to know

 

[Willtor]

Exactly, he told us exactly what he needed to know

Right on. One might even say...

"The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
-- Caesar Baronius

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68404317, member: 235244"]Not really a question once we read the text He inspired. The text tells us a thing or two about what He revealed and as Barr points out - the text is a historic account. A literal 7 day week. a literal world wide flood.

One may (as does Barr) choose to reject the facts given in the text - but that is not the same thing as giving the text a wax nose trying to point it 180 degrees away from the statements in the text, as if it is just as accurate to try and make the text join you in rejecting it. Moses was no Darwinist.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, he told us exactly what he needed to know

happy to see agreement when it exists.

 

[theFijian]

happy to see agreement when it exists.

That wasn't so hard was it?

 

[Straightshot]

A response to the OP

The creation account revealed in scripture is 100% correct

The Lord has given enough information for man to understand, but not all of the details .... and there are time lapses about which nothing is written

If all was recorded over a vast period of unbroken time continuum you would need a mac truck to carry your Bible around

The statement "in the beginning" is the starting point for His revelation [Genesis 1:1; Job 38:1-7] .... He does not give the dating so no man can know how much time has lapsed from the "beginning" to this day

Human observation would indicate that the earth and universe are of extreme aging by many testings .... perhaps billions of years

We can know that some time after the beginning there was a rebellion against Him by a portion of His created angels [Job 1:6-7; 38:7; Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-18; Revelation 12:3-4; 12:7-9]

So what went on in the Lord's universe, that was initially created in perfection, and the Genesis account of what appears to be a much more recent reconditioning of the earth for the habitation of new life forms noted in [Genesis 1:2] is sketchy with little detail given

It appears that the earth was void of life forms and was covered with waters on the surface and shrouded in total darkness by the thick water vapors above

Look at the next verses beginning in verses 1:3 thru 1:26 from the perspective of being positioned on the earth and observing His reconditioning to recover the earth from His judgment which was enacted against the previous satanic rebellion against Him and His creation

We can see today that the earth is very different from the other planets in the immediate solar system .... all are in a state of condition that does not support life forms and are of extreme aging

Is this the result of the Lord's prior judgment against against Satan and his fallen angels? .... I believe it is, and the earth would have been subjected to the same

Was the Lord's purpose to punish the rebel angels and to destroy the original pristine condition of His universe thereby leaving them in total darkness and without any habitations?

I think so

The Genesis account of this changing and the recent introduction of mankind made in His image gives about 6000 years of human existence by the testing of the genealogical record in scripture

If true, then this reconciles the Genesis account of the initial creation and later reconditioning of the original earth about 6000 years ago

His universe including the aged earth have been around since the original creation .... and the current setting of the earth, its related environment, and the presence of mankind is the answer to the Christian belief on origins

 

[miamited]

Hi guys,

How is it that we get into debate on a sticky? Based on the parameters of the OP's definitions, I'm a young earth creationist.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[BobRyan]

Well since you mentioned the OP

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).

My view of it is that the universe and the rocks/water on earth are older than 6000 years but I don't know that the guesswork we have today is correct as to exactly how much older it is - than 6,000 years the Bible does not say and the rocks don't say. Guessing is guessing.

But all life on earth , the sun the moon well - that is all about 6000 years old according to the Bible. God's Word is telling us that - so I am happy to trust Him on that point.

And also the literal 7 day creation week for Earth, the sun and the moon.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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 God’s Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation.

I challenge the word 'literal'.

When commonly used, the word means 'exactly how I think it should be understood' and tends to ignore the actual meaning of the wording.

How do I stand? I'm not sure; I probably fit into one of your graduations but quibble with a word or phrase somewhere.

I do understand God envisioned, designed, built (created) the Universe from nothing. (Nothing meaning 'empty space without the space part'.) I understand God created all the physical things and all the laws of physics - known or unknown by mankind. I think this is the main thrust of the beginning of Genesis and the point behind why God so instructed Moses. I do not think any part of the Bible is a explanatory text on how to build a Universe or any of what we call 'science'.

I understand the Universe was started some 13.74 billion years ago. The Earth (our planet and Solar System, more or less) was 'assembled' from matter created by God in the ultimate beginning of the Universe, about 4.6 billion years ago. I am reasonably sure of the knowledge of scientists, as much as they are sure. (Oddly, scientists are very careful about qualifying their statements depending on instrumentation and observations. Most of the 'statements' of scientists are quite careful and limited.)

All of the transitional stages of the Universe so far - and in the future - are part of God's plan for the function of the Universe.

The same for the Earth and 'life'. The best physical evidence for the earliest living 'critters' of any sort dates back to - give or take - one billion years after the formation of the Earth. Humans show up in the historical record roughly 2.8 million years ago. To be fair, there is some scientific debate over which 'critters' are merely two legged, upright non-humans and which 'critters' are determinable to be 'humans' in the modern sense.

But all these discoveries and conclusions are done with respect to the 'rules' or 'laws' already observed in nature; those laws created by God when He created the Universe.

Other than that, I can't say further. Regarding Adam and Eve, I'm not sure. The story may be allegory, but I tend to consider it literal; although I cannot figure out the details. Without question, mankind at some rather early point made the decision to rebel, to reject God's commands and directions; causing all the evils derived therefrom.

One other note. About 2,000 years ago, the same Creator God who started the Universe decided to come to Earth as a human baby. By living as a human and dying unfairly, He paid the penalty of mankind's rebellion and all sin. By then raising from the dead, He demonstrated mastery over all physical and spiritual laws. Before His human death, He made it clear He wanted a personal and individual relationship with all humans. And He charged His followers to tell everyone the good news.

I don't know why God created our Universe to be the particular blend of space-time and then had Albert Einstein discover it. Nor do I know why gravity bends light waves. No doubt, I will someday find out.

It will be worth the wait.

Oh, if anyone works out how I 'score' on this, let me know.

 

[TaiKamiya720]

I don't believe in a single answer of how life arose on Earth.My belief is that life arose on Earth from either theistic evolution (second alternative as described in this link, http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html) or Old Earth Creationism (the Earth is billions of years old and there were prehistoric creatures but humans did NOT evolve from apes).

 

[food4thought]

My views are evolving, but as of now I am still an old earth creationist that leans toward the Gap Theory. Genesis 1:1 is God's original creation some billions of years ago, and there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 of indeterminable length. Most of the fossils we see on earth are from a previous earthly creation, which was judged by water. The sun, moon, and stars/galaxies were recreated recently, but the earth was only revitalized (note that God never created the land in Genesis 1, He only called the waters together to "reveal" the land from beneath the waters). To summarize, space-time and the earth were created billions of years ago, then the earth was judged by water sometime in the distant past, and everything in space-time but the earth was created, or re-created, as part of God's current creation of the universe in Genesis 1, some 6000-10000 years ago, done in 6 literal days.

It would not surprise me if this has happened several times already, nor would it surprise me to see God start anew somewhere else while we dwell with Him in the new heavens and on the new earth.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't believe in a single answer of how life arose on Earth.My belief is that life arose on Earth from either theistic evolution (second alternative as described in this link, http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html) or Old Earth Creationism (the Earth is billions of years old and there were prehistoric creatures but humans did NOT evolve from apes).

Neither of which are in the Bible.

Evolutionism... vs .. creationism
atheism ... vs... virgin birthism
atheism ... vs ... bodily-resurrection-ism.

Seems to be a pattern

 

[BobRyan]

Fairhaven Baptist College Online offers a very informative course on creation science

Good on them!! (As they say)