Ham's Creation Museum

[theFijian]

This is NOT a misunderstanding. TEist on this site are referring to Genesis 1 as "allegory" all the time!

Noun1.allegory - a short moral story (often with animal characters) apologue, parable, fable
story - a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events; "he writes stories for the magazines"

Case in point, misunderstanding propagated.

 

[keyarch]

Case in point, misunderstanding propagated.

Theistic evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Theistic Evolution
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which the story line is considered as an explanation for the why and who of creation, but not the exact method.

------
I fail to see the misunderstanding on my part. So in your definition of a TEist, if you don't treat Genesis 1 as allegorical or literal, how do you interpret it???????

 

[crawfish]

I fail to see the misunderstanding on my part. So in your definition of a TEist, if you don't treat Genesis 1 as allegorical or literal, how do you interpret it???????

I think the text was written quite literally from the point of view of the original author. That author wasn't trying to tell the exact story of how the world was created, but to provide an antithesis of the Babylonian story that was familiar with the people of the time. It is an incredibly subversive text, given the Babylonian account - basically, it takes responsibility from the various Babylonian gods to creation and puts them all under the realm of the one, true God.

For instance, if I said "God put the bang in the Big Bang", or "God was the one who made organic material evolve from inorganic material", you'd understand that I was putting God in charge of the natural processes that some people attribute to other forces. This is the same thing done by the creation account; the people of the time understood creation in terms of what the Babylonians/Sumerians had been teaching for hundreds of years, and it was taking those stories and applying them to God.

They only become allegorical through time as we read them, as the original meaning becomes lost due to cultural changes.

 

[Markus6]

Depends, I am not sure about this and how it relates. I could look in to it.

Do. That's my main problem with people calling the bible "God's word" or "God's love letter to us". The Psalms are humans addressing God with praise, repentance etc. etc. You HAVE to ascribe ultimate authorship of the Psalms to the human writers.

That makes no sense, and where did I say it did? I said I use it to show respect to God, as I believe it's His Word. Whether I am right or wrong in this, is of exactly zero consequence.


I thought I was showing respect to a book not God? I think you are confused.

Probably. I guess my point was: why do you show such respect for one creation of God and yet not the rest?

Same question I asked another user. How do you about God?

Digit

A lot of it through the bible. Though God has taught me plenty about him, and how he works, through life experiences.

The bible tells me how to have a relationship with God but plays no part in that relationship. It is my relationship with God that I long to be the foundation of my life, not the instruction manual. You probably agree with me and I'm just playing semantics.

 

[theFijian]

I fail to see the misunderstanding on my part. So in your definition of a TEist, if you don't treat Genesis 1 as allegorical or literal, how do you interpret it???????

(I can't believe we are having to go back to such basic premises.) Do you believe the parables should be interpreted literally? Was the parable of the Pearl of great price a story about Jesus's neighbour? Is he retelling an actually historical account? Or is he telling a non-literal account about a non-historical woman (ie she didn't actually exist) to teach a spiritual truth about the Kingdom of Heaven? If you have answered yes, then you do believe the parable was a story, but not just a story. Get it?

 

[shernren]

In fact, all of Christianity is essentially a great story: the story of how God deals with man. You may come to Christianity because Christ's death and resurrection is history. But you cannot grow in it by dwelling on it as history. You grow in it by dwelling on it as story.

There is a profound difference there.

 

[gluadys]

Do you really want me to look these up? I would have figured by now, we have established that nearly all these issues come from either one of two things:

• A poor translation - or...
• Taken out of context.

Yeah, sure.

So who killed Goliath?
Were plants created before or after man?

I have seen too many poor excuses for dealing with such inconsistencies. They are atrociously artificial and ad hoc in most cases.

They only speak to people who need to convince themselves that scripture is inerrant.

What, you mean like the pillars of the earth? It was hardly anything at all to figure out that they were spiritual pillars, as defined by the actual word used. Again, a poor translation.

No, I mean something more along the lines of asserting that the creation of the animals in Gen. 2 was a second creation, or that the verb means "had formed" not "formed".

This saves the "inerrancy" of the text by twisting the text out of shape. We would be better off simply acknowledging that the contradiction in the order of creation exists and leaving it at that.

Or, as I like to think of it, by going and researching the originals. Rather than simply acception what is handed to you, and adjusting everything around it.

Strange. Seems to me that is the only basis on which to accept inerrancy. You have to simply accept what is handed to you---including the interpretations that your religious authorities offer you--and adjust everything around you to it.

Wait, what?

You mean, flawless instructions, are useless, because we cannot be sure of what they mean?

So do the "flawless" instructions concerning baptism permit or forbid baptising the children of believers?

So for example, when I open my computers instruction manual and it tells me to pair up some DIMMs in memory banks 0 and 1, I will be confused because I won't know what it's talking about.

Exactly. I find computer manuals extremely confusing precisely because I don't know what they are talking about.

And I expect any explanation of creation that requires a 21st century knowledge base of geology, physics and biology would be as confusing to Bronze Age prophets as computer manuals are to me.

Whereas if it weaved a poetic story, with lots of metaphors and similies, I would be better equipped to fathom out where I can plug in my 'pulsing knowledge banks', and where I find the 'recepticles of history'.

Well I have no idea what pulsing knowledge banks or recepticles of history are, but the poetic story is a very efficient communicator of basic theology.

What is the foundation of God you talk about?

Hmmm. I am tempted to ask you the same question Jesus asked Nicodemus. (John 3:10) Do you not understand that we worship a living God and a risen Christ? We are not dependent solely on ancient texts to know them. Indeed, an ancient text, however valuable, cannot be a substitute for knowing God. It can only tell us about God and about long ago encounters of God with his people.

Absolutely incorrect.

I had faith in God before I realised the Bible was without flaw.

I am glad to hear that. But then, what does inerrancy add? Especially an inerrancy to which we have no access, lacking the original documents and lacking an agreed interpretation of the text? I find it an abstract and meaningless concept. I reject it for much the same reason I reject the doctrine of transubstantion. It tries to explain too much on the basis of too little evidence and turns the mystery of inspiration/sacrament into a mere mechanism.

The reason that I feel it is important, is because if there was something which is in error, or directly contradicted, how is it we can assume other things are correct?

We don't assume. We study and search and investigate. We pray for guidance and we follow our best logic and our best instincts in trust that we are rightly guided. And we remain open to the possibility that it is those who disagree with us that are in the right.

That's a good quote. To be honest I there are areas I find that true, so I really don't have much issue with it, other than the definite article. But I still support inerrancy. In fact, I can relate speaking to people about possible issues in the Bible, where they feel it's incorrect or wrong, and to see their eyes light up when I point out the real truth, is quite reassuring for them. Suddenly it all becomes possible. That would never happen if I had to agree with them, and still try and relate faith. It is of the utmost importance in sharing God with others.

Well, we each have our own experiences. I still think it is building faith on an incorrect foundation, and so leaves people vulnerable, though I wouldn't slight their present faith on that basis. I would just hope that they can come to a more sure foundation before this one gives out on them. Because one day they may in fact come up against an error or contradiction in scripture they can't wave away.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yeah, sure.
[...]
I have seen too many poor excuses for dealing with such inconsistencies. They are atrociously artificial and ad hoc in most cases.

They only speak to people who need to convince themselves that scripture is inerrant.

Gasp!

You mean to tell me 4,000 stalls doesn't equal 40,000 stalls:

1 Kings 4:26 (NKJV)
Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen

2 Chronicles 9:25
Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, please explain further as you have me interested then.

Digit

Well, what do you mean by "a story, and no more"?

Why do you assume that when we say "story" we mean "a story and no more"?

I am reminded of two similar examples that often crop up in debates like these.

One happens when someone refers to Jesus' humanity. Invariably, someone treats that as a denial of his divinity even though nothing like that was suggested in the original reference and even though the consistent teaching of the church is that in his incarnation Jesus was, in fact, fully human.

A reference to Jesus' humanity is well within the parameters of biblical and church teaching, yet almost invariably it is perceived as saying "only human and therefore not divine" when in fact it merely said "human".

The second instance, very pertinent to this board, is any reference to humans as animals. It is often incorrectly stated by anti-evolutionists that the theory of evolution says we are "just animals" or "no more than animals".

It says no such thing. It does affirm that we are animals. So what? That has been known and understood for millennia, including by biblical writers. But stating that we are animals is not at all the same as stating that we are no more than animals.

I feel that if I take such a writing as Genesis as a story, and no more then I will have to rely on present-day science and evidence, which as we have discussed and agreed upon, is constantly changing.

And exactly what is wrong with that? As long as it is always changing in the direction of more accuracy. You do not find science backtracking and saying "we were wrong to dump that phlogisten theory of fire" or "gee, maybe the sun really does go around the earth".

When science changes it is in the direction of refining what is already known to some extent. Or it takes into account new evidence not known before. Either way, we now have a fuller and more accurate picture of nature. So exactly what is wrong with that?

 

[vossler]

Contrary to what many may think, the Creation Museum is having a wonderful impact on people and here are just two quotes that summarize that quite well.

"I wanted to hit my knees after I saw The Last Adam film and walking through. The level of excellence in everything brought on a new sense of worship and doing everything my best. My friends got answers to all their questions and [name] a nonbeliever, requested a Bible when we returned and she’s reading it now. (Please pray for her salvation because she is right on the line, the Holy Spirit just has to move her.)"​

"The attention to detail blew my mind. With the miniature model of Noah’s Ark, somebody even painted the little black specks on the orange lilies the size of my pinkie! Unbelievable! I have never seen such lifelike models of animals or humans, especially the humans. I was impressed by the attitude of every staff member; there was an abundance of smiles and Christ likeness. Nothing was tacky or too technical. God is supernaturally working there to call more people to His Son."​

I don't know how those results could ever be viewed negatively. For those who wonder whether 27 million is too much to spend on something that glorifies God, all I can say those quotes and others just like them give us the answer. This appears to be money well spent.

Hallelujah!

 

[shernren]

Contrary to what many may think, the Creation Museum is having a wonderful impact on people and here are just two quotes that summarize that quite well.

"I wanted to hit my knees after I saw The Last Adam film and walking through. The level of excellence in everything brought on a new sense of worship and doing everything my best. My friends got answers to all their questions and [name] a nonbeliever, requested a Bible when we returned and she’s reading it now. (Please pray for her salvation because she is right on the line, the Holy Spirit just has to move her.)"​

"The attention to detail blew my mind. With the miniature model of Noah’s Ark, somebody even painted the little black specks on the orange lilies the size of my pinkie! Unbelievable! I have never seen such lifelike models of animals or humans, especially the humans. I was impressed by the attitude of every staff member; there was an abundance of smiles and Christ likeness. Nothing was tacky or too technical. God is supernaturally working there to call more people to His Son."​

I don't know how those results could ever be viewed negatively. For those who wonder whether 27 million is too much to spend on something that glorifies God, all I can say those quotes and others just like them give us the answer. This appears to be money well spent.

Hallelujah!

As much as I disagree with the philosophy and approach of AiG, I'm glad to hear this. I can only pray, from where I stand, that their faith will not collapse upon contact with the real world as easily as it started - but then again, such matters are not really in my hands anyway.

 

[shernren]

Beliefnet.com reviewed the museum here. The last few paragraphs were especially evocative for me. The sociological message of creationism was never put more bluntly, and it never sounded so silly.

But while the respectable museums have standardized and harmonized their messages to accurately portray our state of scientific knowledge, the smaller-scale museums have always continued to percolate their mess of idiosyncratic specimens and ideologies. In the 20th century, the difference between respectable and suspicious institutions is usually signaled by money. Oddball museums typically don't have much money, so the rhetoric or persuasiveness of their message is usually tarnished by the seedy patina of low-budget constraints. But the $27-million dollar Creation Museum, which continues to pick up steam in big-budget patronage, is poised to bring new celebrity to unorthodox curating.

Those of us who take a guilty pleasure in quackery of all kinds will be wont to keep this Creationist oddity on board the ark of museology, despite its illegitimacy. As long as we know what it's about, we can enjoy its aesthetic and even its peculiar logic. Said Looy: "An independent marketing group out of Indiana says that a 'sizable minority' of visitors to the museum will be skeptics, atheists, and non-Christians. Our museum is going to be even more evangelical than what we intended two or three years ago." And this rhetorical melodrama will of course make the museum visits all that much more fun for me and my twisted ilk.

When I think, however, of the young children who are unprepared to critically assess the museum, my sense of humor fades. It is one thing to offer alternative histories, but to link huge branches of science with moral corruption is not going to be good for the cultivation of open-minded, curious citizenry. The socially conservative political stance of the museum is prevalent in almost every exhibit, but the coup de grace is the "Culture in Crisis" exhibit. Here the museum gives us a "natural history" of the breakdown of the American family. Visitors are invited to look through three windows of a contemporary American home. Videos loop to show two young boys looking at porn on the computer and experimenting with drugs. Another window shows a young girl crying, surrounded by abortion pamphlets. And finally the parents are shown arguing. A recreated church facade stands at the other end of the room, but the foundation of the church has been damaged by a large wrecking-ball labeled "millions of years." The signage explains that the cause of all this misery is our move away from Genesis and toward the scientific ideas of geology and evolution. Ideas about an old earth make people feel small and insignificant, so naturally they do drugs and have abortions.

It is sad to imagine what kind of attitude people will have toward science and the empirical study of nature when they have been raised to believe that such studies cause nihilism and immorality. I guess the dinosaurs really are on the ark with us. Let's hope they're vegetarian after all.
​

 

[vossler]

I’ve never heard of BeliefNet before and upon going to the web-site and poking around from what I can gather it is an ecumenical site which tries to cover all the bases and in the process doesn’t seem to accomplish much of anything. The more I poked the less true content I found, it appears they consider themselves a spirituality website for all persuasions.

Any site that promotes Yoga and Angel Meditation while covering religions from Bahai to Zoroastrianism shouldn’t be considered by Christians as a viable and accurate source for information pertaining to our faith. Let’s face it, this is a very secular site and is certainly not a place for Christians to go to for reviews or information concerning Christian material.

Christians should never be looking to the world in order to ascertain whether something is or isn't beneficial to their faith.

 

[shernren]

Yes, BeliefNet is an ecumenical site. That doesn't mean they don't engage their brains once in a while. Don't you find the following statement challenging to scientific creationists? It resonates with what we were throwing back and forth recently:

A recreated church facade stands at the other end of the room, but the foundation of the church has been damaged by a large wrecking-ball labeled "millions of years." The signage explains that the cause of all this misery is our move away from Genesis and toward the scientific ideas of geology and evolution. Ideas about an old earth make people feel small and insignificant, so naturally they do drugs and have abortions.

 

[vossler]

Yes, BeliefNet is an ecumenical site. That doesn't mean they don't engage their brains once in a while.

We don't have a problem engaging our brains around here, it's the Holy Spirit that needs to be engaged more often.

Don't you find the following statement challenging to scientific creationists? It resonates with what we were throwing back and forth recently:

A recreated church facade stands at the other end of the room, but the foundation of the church has been damaged by a large wrecking-ball labeled "millions of years." The signage explains that the cause of all this misery is our move away from Genesis and toward the scientific ideas of geology and evolution. Ideas about an old earth make people feel small and insignificant, so naturally they do drugs and have abortions.

I don't know about "scientific creationists" but for me this statement should be challenging for everyone.

 

[crawfish]

We don't have a problem engaging our brains around here, it's the Holy Spirit that needs to be engaged more often.

Tough for us more intellectual types that the Holy Spirit doesn't work through our brains.





(p.s. I'm kidding here - a bit - but I do get annoyed at the assumption by some that to be "led by the spirit" works in real-time only, and deep thinking prevents the spirit from working through you. I believe the Holy Spirit can inspire us into study of Bible and other things relevant to Him - which is, pretty much, everything. I'm not necessarily referring to you, either - I have no idea what your stance is on this)

 

[vossler]

Tough for us more intellectual types that the Holy Spirit doesn't work through our brains.

(p.s. I'm kidding here - a bit - but I do get annoyed at the assumption by some that to be "led by the spirit" works in real-time only, and deep thinking prevents the spirit from working through you. I believe the Holy Spirit can inspire us into study of Bible and other things relevant to Him - which is, pretty much, everything. I'm not necessarily referring to you, either - I have no idea what your stance is on this)

Where is the notion that the Holy Spirit works only in real-time only being portrayed? I rarely, if ever, even hear about Him being mentioned much.

Of course He can and does inspire us to do many different things, that is as long as we're open to His guidance.

 

[Dannager]

Any site that promotes Yoga and Angel Meditation while covering religions from Bahai to Zoroastrianism shouldn’t be considered by Christians as a viable and accurate source for information pertaining to our faith. Let’s face it, this is a very secular site and is certainly not a place for Christians to go to for reviews or information concerning Christian material.

Sure it is. Because they're right. I can understand that you don't like what's being said, but the fact remains that a site dedicated to religious belief in general has a pretty good stake in reviewing a museum based on religious belief. In fact, I think I would be far more hesitant to trust a Christian website's review, as a large number of popular Christian websites out there are supported by ministries with young-earth creation views. That would be like getting your movie reviews from the production company.

 

[vossler]

Sure it is. Because they're right. I can understand that you don't like what's being said, but the fact remains that a site dedicated to religious belief in general has a pretty good stake in reviewing a museum based on religious belief. In fact, I think I would be far more hesitant to trust a Christian website's review, as a large number of popular Christian websites out there are supported by ministries with young-earth creation views. That would be like getting your movie reviews from the production company.

I'm not surprised that you find such a site as viable and useful to Christians. I myself will never allow the world to tell me whether something has spiritual value or not.

As I think about this it would be no different than someone who is a non-scientist telling a scientist the value of some data he is pushing to support his scientific theory. Surely you can relate to that.

 

[Dannager]

I myself will never allow the world to tell me whether something has spiritual value or not.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you missed the point of the whole review thing. It was hardly to tell you whether the museum has spiritual value or not. But I'm glad you felt comfortable slipping in that "I'm-above-the-world" mentality you've got going on there.