Discussion of Beliefs [Non-Debating Thread]

[gluadys]

I take it you are refering to Leviticus and unclean fowl? I would agree with you that it is catagorized as a bird, but I don't think they had the level of taxonomy we currently have back then. (Even today organisms are constantly being rearanged and put in different classifications. Fuguses used to be considered plants by the scientific community, as was algae. And where do viruses even fit in? <- don't answer that, I already know the answer, I'm just stating the confusion of classification in the scientific community) I don't really think anybody cared, it's just listing it as an unclean animal.

Does it really need interpretation to determine THAT point? (which I believe was the point)

Actually, interpretation is exactly what you just did. And Kepler too. You interpreted that "they didn't have the level of taxonomy we currently have back then." And Kepler interpreted the meaning of the Hebrew to be "winged creature" not "bird" as the KJV translates it.

And you are both right.

So is Dannager. If we take the bible as literally saying "bird" and if we apply the level of taxonomy we currently use today, then, in this instance, the bible is factually wrong.

But if we make allowances for a different and less developed taxonomy, which is then reflected in a different translation of the Hebrew terms, then it is not factually wrong.

It is a matter of interpretation.

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys, I know u said that u could pursuade me about evolution with time, but I don't think so. Cuz I'm fully pursuaded in my own mind (Romans 14:5). I stand firm in YEC. Sorry, Lo Siento. I don't feel right trying to incorporate evolution into creation regardless of other people's interpretation of scripture with evolution.

I know. Just joshin' in a semi-serious way. If you were really interested, I do think I could show you both that evolution is a fact and that it poses no difficulty for Christian faith.

But, you are the one who has to be ready for the experiment. I'm not willing to drag you into when you are not ready.

The only thing I ask of creationists is to accept that even if you are convinced of creationism, those of us who accept evolution are also Christians saved by grace who deeply reverence the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Dannager]

Maybe not you, but Dannager has made it very clear that he believes it is. Not its interpretation, but the bible itself.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. Whenever I say that the Bible is fallible, or contains errors, I mean that it contains errors when read literally. When read with an eye for allegorical, figurative or metaphorical/symbolic language, the factual errors become part of the literature and help to further the message.

 

[alphacheese]

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. Whenever I say that the Bible is fallible, or contains errors, I mean that it contains errors when read literally. When read with an eye for allegorical, figurative or metaphorical/symbolic language, the factual errors become part of the literature and help to further the message.

Don't forget to throw out the genealogy listed in Genesis. They just wrote that down and felt the need to include it for kicks and giggles right?

 

[KEPLER]

The only thing I ask of creationists is to accept that even if you are convinced of creationism, those of us who accept evolution are also Christians saved by grace who deeply reverence the Holy Scriptures.

Indeed, sister! I have many friends & family members who are YEC, and it really doesn't bother me one iota, because they never imply that I'm a "second class" Christian because I don't take Genesis as they do. I offer them the same respect.

OTOH, a YEC who starts to make it a matter of salvation to believe in a literal reading of Genesis has actually made "right interpretation" a condition for salvation, thereby creating a form of works righteousness. In essence, using junk science to promote a false gospel.

 

[Dannager]

Don't forget to throw out the genealogy listed in Genesis. They just wrote that down and felt the need to include it for kicks and giggles right?

Actually, the genealogies are probably accurate in terms of who was descended from whom, but at the time it was very common to exaggerate ages as a matter of respect. There's also some contention that the ages were represented in a different number system, though I don't know the particulars of that one. There might be some here who could shed more light on that than I can.

 

[FranciscanJ]

My view of the chronologies is:

They are closely related to the ancient Akkadian king lists. They seem to list important people more so there are likely gaps.

However, let us say there are no gaps and that Adam or a representative people group that the narrative is describing lived 4000 to 10,000 years ago.

God could have been accomidating to their semite culture (the same way Christ's incarnation accomidated to humanity, coming in human flesh, in a way we would understand him) by showing them figurative truths about humanity's past through their own cosmologies, and what Adam and Eve did could be representative of what the early humans must have done.

Thus there are mythical elements that God is teaching them through their own cultural middle eastern heritage.

 

[MrSnow]

This thread was made for the express purpose of myself learning more about what others (expressly Dannager and other Evolutionary-Creationists) believe. If you can't keep from debating, please don't come on here. This is a one-topic thread, meaning that I don't want people to come in here and start weaving some conversation about salvation in around what myself and Dannager are talking about. If you don't want to speak about our topic, please don't post. However, anyone is welcome to read our posts in order to further their own knowledge of our beliefs. Thank you.

Dannager, tomorrow, if I have time, I'm going to read some more of that Berkeley site. I'm trying to do this with an open mind, though that doesn't mean that you can expect me to start believing in evolution. I believe what the Bible teaches, as a literal interpretation taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The main purpose of this thread is for me to learn more about what I am fighting and thus not be ignorant. I'll probably post lots of questions on here about the site and stuff. Thanks, by the way, for doing this with me.

~Doubtless

I believe that Scripture is not a science text book. I believe that a concise scientific breakdown of the history of the universe/earth is beyond the scope and intent of Genesis. Thus I do not dogmatically hold to any particular origins view, although I tend to lean towards TE.

I believe that the "literary framework" view of Genesis is the best view, which I believe could encompass other views into it, whether that be YEC, OEC, Gap, TE, or what have you. That is basically that there is a poetic structure to Genesis, with the various days coming in pairs: 1/4, 2/5, 3/6, and then 7.

It is true that God divided light and darkness. It is true that God divided the waters from the waters. It is true that God divided the land and the water. It is true that God made the bodies that give us light. It is true that God made the life forms that inhabit the waters below and the waters above. It is true that God made the life forms that inhabit the land. It is also true that God made man as the pinacle of creation. It is true that man fell into sin. It is true that God has provided a way to save us from our sin.

I believe that that is the scope and intent of the opening pages of Genesis. I believe that to make it say more than that is to read into it a frame of mind that is just not there. Perhaps in the end we'll discover that it is all 6,000 years old. Perhaps we'll discover that it's 15 bil years old. Perhaps we'll discover that it's none of the above. Either way, I don't think that that matters, nor do I think that that is what Genesis is teaching us.