Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?

[Mallon]

I don't understand the difficulty in understanding this. I stated "I'm not 100% concerning my own interpretation of everything yet, but I'm working on it." So, it wouldn't be difficult to see that I may be 100% certain of something from that statement, right?

I think I get it now. You're not 100% certain of everything concerning the your biblical interpretation, but you are 100% certain that your interpretation of Genesis is correct.

It appears that you like to rather flippantly mix terms, I made a statement regarding common descent and you, without a second thought, used the term 'evolutionary biology' to somehow mean the exact same thing. For someone as exact as you typically are this is simply unacceptable. Do you actually believe the two are the same? Evolutionary biology, to me, simply means that change happens over time. Common descent says something entirely different and is far more radical.

Sorry. Among biologists, evolution and common descent are sometimes used synonymously since we don't envision the same boundaries to inheritance/selection that neocreationists do.
So, just to clear any doubt, are you open to the concept of common descent or not? If you're 100% certain that your literal interpretation of Genesis is correct, there can be no empirical evidence to the contrary that could ever change your mind concerning common descent. Your interpretation has priority over the evidence (and yes, Young Earth Creationism is an interpretation like any other). Is that right?

 

[gluadys]

Just because evidence may be physical doesn't necessarily make it more compelling than if it were spiritual. Spiritual evidence can be very difficult to deny. The difficulty usually arises from one's preconceived ideas of what is evidence and what isn't. Worldly people deny the spiritual realm, especially when it confronts their pride.
I don't believe evidence from God's Word to be people centric, it is God centered.

Spiritual evidence is very easy to deny when it is not one's own experience. That is why my spiritual experience does not convince you and vice versa.

And that is why spiritual experience is subjective and not objective.

 

[vossler]

I think I get it now. You're not 100% certain of everything concerning the your biblical interpretation, but you are 100% certain that your interpretation of Genesis is correct.

Not necessarily everything in Genesis but with regard to the area that talks about God specifically creating man and the animals, that part I am.

Sorry. Among biologists, evolution and common descent are sometimes used synonymously since we don't envision the same boundaries to inheritance/selection that neocreationists do.

That's rather surprising for me considering the difference between them.

So, just to clear any doubt, are you open to the concept of common descent or not?

No I'm not.

If you're 100% certain that your literal interpretation of Genesis is correct, there can be no empirical evidence to the contrary that could ever change your mind concerning common descent. Your interpretation has priority over the evidence (and yes, Young Earth Creationism is an interpretation like any other). Is that right?

It isn't that my interpretation has priority, it is God's Word that does. I mean this isn't something that is all that difficult to understand, His Word is rather clear and unambiguous. It's only when we interject our personal opinions and beliefs that clarity is removed.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for your honest answer, vossler. I still think you sound like Luther responding to Copernicanism, though.

 

[vossler]

Thanks for your honest answer, vossler.

No problem. Have a great Labor Day weekend!

 

[busterdog]

Spiritual evidence is very easy to deny when it is not one's own experience. That is why my spiritual experience does not convince you and vice versa.

And that is why spiritual experience is subjective and not objective.

To whom?

The General Assembly of the PCUSA just voted on the spiritual issues of homosexuality. Now, it may be subjective to them whether the Holy Spirit is truly saying to their neighbor to vote yea or nay. However, standing before God, what makes us so sure the standard is the same? That is not a democracy.

Luk 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

I dont know that the PCUSA issue is or is not a Luk 12:10 issue. But the point is that democracy is the creation of practical difficulties in human governance, and for that reason, it uses a subjective standard. There is very limited license for some subjective standards in how one is judged before God.

Hbr 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

That is an objective standard. Whether one thinks it is a good idea to harden or not is a subjective standard. Whether one should go to hell for it is an objective standard.

 

[Tinker Grey]

One's perception of the objective is subjective.

 

[busterdog]

One's perception of the objective is subjective.

No doubt about it. I said as much.

The question is, what is God's standard? My perception has nothing at all to do with what His standard is. The liberal/modern critical view seems to be that unless God interrupts the Hegelian dialectic by fire from heaven that everything is as we perceive it to be -- namely, relative and subjective. Rather shortsighted, I argue. Whether there is objectivity outside of us is something the dialectic process cant grasp.

It isn't that my interpretation has priority, it is God's Word that does. I mean this isn't something that is all that difficult to understand, His Word is rather clear and unambiguous. It's only when we interject our personal opinions and beliefs that clarity is removed.

The corollary is that Vossler needn't be bothered by the notion of an objective standard outside his own. We all understand that God's perspective is not our perspective and the hypothetical possibility of fire from heaven to put a check on Vossler's view is not doubt in any reasonable sense. It is apples and oranges.

Mallon can always determine the parameters of a hypothetical as he likes. Why is such freedom in a critic (in the good sense) the grounds for "doubt"?

I dont see any reasonable grounds for doubt on my view of Genesis. I think I agree with Vossler in that sense. Why is my imagination of a possible intervention from heaven of any value in deciding whether I need doubt in my life? Like Vossler, I crave the voice of the Lord in whatever way he needs to speak it.

The surface text of Genesis is in itself a definition of reasonable belief, when compared to what ungrounded and completely unlimited human imagination is capable of. Belief in the Word does not require a response to all imaginary circumstances that might confront a believer. As a measure of "doubt", the latter is an appeal to "double-mindedness", if not at times, mental disturbance and insanity.

Does that mean that we are not ready confront a challenge from God to our beliefs? That position does not follow at all. Our enormous rigidity and inflexibility (by some measures) may in fact make us best equipped to deal with new and challenging information. "Open-mindedness" is in many ways, a myth of the modern age. I think my lack of doubt is a better position from which to deal with new information from God and far superior to a cautious 80/20 split whereby I reserve a measure of unbelief in the WOrd as a hedge against my own confusion. The latter is not the grace or freedom the Lord has promised.

 

[Assyrian]

The surface text of Genesis is in itself a definition of reasonable belief, when compared to what ungrounded and completely unlimited human imagination is capable of.

I wonder how that works with other passages in scripture...

The surface text of the geocentric passages is in itself a definition of reasonable belief, when compared to what ungrounded and completely unlimited human imagination is capable of. The church interpreted the geocentric passages literally before Copernicus, but dropped their literal interpretation when science supported the theory imagined by Copernicus.

The surface text of Revelation is in itself a definition of reasonable belief, when compared to what ungrounded and completely unlimited human imagination is capable of. The church throughout it's history has shown no lack of imagination when it comes to interpreting the book of Revelation, but that does not mean make taking it literally is a reasonable alternative.

Does that mean that we are not ready confront a challenge from God to our beliefs? That position does not follow at all. Our enormous rigidity and inflexibility (by some measures) may in fact make us best equipped to deal with new and challenging information. "Open-mindedness" is in many ways, a myth of the modern age. I think my lack of doubt is a better position from which to deal with new information from God and far superior to a cautious 80/20 split whereby I reserve a measure of unbelief in the WOrd as a hedge against my own confusion. The latter is not the grace or freedom the Lord has promised.

Your problem comes when God gives you the new information through science. That was how he showed the church and the whole world that it was the earth that went round the sun. A rigid insistence on the surface text of all the geocentric passages would not have equipped you to deal with the new information from science.

How do you think this lack of doubt in your literal interpretation equips you to deal with new information from God? How could God even give you the new information? Through prophecy or revelation? No I think you would test it against your view of scripture and simply reject it as unbiblical. Through discovering another lost book of the bible? I take it your church does not preach from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, I am sure finding another book of Moses is unlikely to convince you. Could God speak to you though science the way he showed the church geocentrism was wrong? No your interpretation is immune to any scientific evidence. So, how could God give you this new information you think you are in such a good position to deal with?

 

[gluadys]

To whom?

To everyone. Each person's spiritual experience is personal to them. It is not accessible to anyone else.

The General Assembly of the PCUSA just voted on the spiritual issues of homosexuality. Now, it may be subjective to them whether the Holy Spirit is truly saying to their neighbor to vote yea or nay. However, standing before God, what makes us so sure the standard is the same? That is not a democracy.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Every delegate to the General Assembly knows the issue, knows the differences in perspective, knows the scriptures used for and against each position. Presumably, each delegate is taking all this in with prayer and seeking the counsel of the Holy Spirit. Each is voting as they believe themselves to be moved by the Spirit.

And obviously, those who vote one way are not persuaded that those who voted the other way were genuinely moved by the Holy Spirit. One person's spiritual experience is not convincing to a person whose spiritual experience led them to vote differently. So how is this not subjective?

I dont know that the PCUSA issue is or is not a Luk 12:10 issue. But the point is that democracy is the creation of practical difficulties in human governance, and for that reason, it uses a subjective standard. There is very limited license for some subjective standards in how one is judged before God.

I think you miss the point. I am not denying that God's standards are objective. Nor that God will judge by those standards.

But our perception of those objective standards, as Tinker Grey says, are subjective. We can only obey in faith what we are called to and leave the judgment to God.


(Incidentally, that the Holy Spirit leads the church to a deeper understanding of scripture through such means as a democratic vote, is part of Reformed theology. I spent a good year researching the archives of the PC of Canada going over such items as the ordination of women, the abolition of capital punishment and the changing relation of the church to aboriginal people. It was most interesting to see how attitudes changed over time in the direction---many would say---the Holy Spirit was leading. It will be equally interesting, I think, 40 years from now, to see how the question of homosexuality has panned out.)

 

[busterdog]

I wonder how that works with other passages in scripture...

The surface text of the geocentric passages is in itself a definition of reasonable belief, when compared to what ungrounded and completely unlimited human imagination is capable of. The church interpreted the geocentric passages literally before Copernicus, but dropped their literal interpretation when science supported the theory imagined by Copernicus.

The surface text of Revelation is in itself a definition of reasonable belief, when compared to what ungrounded and completely unlimited human imagination is capable of. The church throughout it's history has shown no lack of imagination when it comes to interpreting the book of Revelation, but that does not mean make taking it literally is a reasonable alternative.

Your problem comes when God gives you the new information through science. That was how he showed the church and the whole world that it was the earth that went round the sun. A rigid insistence on the surface text of all the geocentric passages would not have equipped you to deal with the new information from science.

How do you think this lack of doubt in your literal interpretation equips you to deal with new information from God? How could God even give you the new information? Through prophecy or revelation? No I think you would test it against your view of scripture and simply reject it as unbiblical. Through discovering another lost book of the bible? I take it your church does not preach from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, I am sure finding another book of Moses is unlikely to convince you. Could God speak to you though science the way he showed the church geocentrism was wrong? No your interpretation is immune to any scientific evidence. So, how could God give you this new information you think you are in such a good position to deal with?

I think if I go much further, it will sound self-righteous. That's not what I want and no one is getting convinced anyway.

 

[shernren]

I think if I go much further, it will sound self-righteous.

Yes, I think that's generally the point of reductio ad absurdum arguments.

 

[marktheblake]

but clearly you're not interested in chewing the cud with me. I want to discuss the merits of our contrasting claims by weighing the evidence for them.

No you dont, you want to catch me out by asking incriminating questions. If you had of asked, 'why do you beleive in a literal 6 days' or something like that i would have answered.

 

[Iosias]

But if evolution is true, Genesis is not.

That is a false dichotomy that you would do best to drop.

 

[marktheblake]

Certainly they were the only ones in the story. But if the man and the woman means a specific man and woman, then the snake means a specific snake.

taken literally, thats obvious, cos this being talks, is highly intelligent, knows God, is well known, is unique, and doesn't crawl on his belly. So by all accounts, based on your literal interpretation, what was he?

It does not mean that it wasn't a snake.

I never said that he wasn't a snake (and have said that many times)

The bible called it a snake and a beast of the field before it was made crawl on its belly.

The scripture does not say he was a beast of the field, it only says he was more shrewd/crafty/sly than any of the beasts of the field.

 

[Mallon]

No you dont, you want to catch me out by asking incriminating questions. If you had of asked, 'why do you beleive in a literal 6 days' or something like that i would have answered.

marktheblake, do you believe there is a necessary accordance between science and Scripture? If so, why so? If not, why not?

I don't know how else to ask the question without sounding "incriminating." If you're offended by the above, I'm sorry.

 

[Assyrian]

taken literally, thats obvious, cos this being talks, is highly intelligent, knows God, is well known, is unique, and doesn't crawl on his belly. So by all accounts, based on your literal interpretation, what was he?

Can't be that unique because God talks of the snake's offspring being hostile to the woman's offspring. Of course the snake was known. Didn't Adam name and speed date all the animals God brought to him to try to find a suitable partner? As for being highly intelligent, able to talk, and knowing God, the Olive tree and the Vine in Judges 9 knew God, were able to talk and were smart enough not to get involved in politics.

Judges 9:8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said to the olive tree, Reign over us.
9 But the olive tree said to them, Should I leave my fatness, with which by me they honor God and man, and go to wave back and forth over the trees?

Judges 9:12 The trees said to the vine, Come and reign over us.
13 The vine said to them, Should I leave my new wine, which cheers God and man, and go to wave back and forth over the trees?

They could talk and they knew God, but in the story they are just trees, they are not trees plus something else, or very a special kind of talking tree, they are just trees and its in a story. The snake is just a snake in the story too, a beast of the field who ends up slithering on its belly licking the dust.

I never said that he wasn't a snake (and have said that many times)

Well you said:

Snakes dont talk and its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake.

But then you denied saying the snake wasn't a physical snake

By claiming that the snake wasn't a physical snake, you're doing exactly that which you've just chided evolutionary creationists for doing: allegorizing the account.

I clearly never said that, so where did you get this interpretation from? You appear to be imposing what you want to believe on the text you read.
I simply said you cannot claim it was a snake exclusively, which you did by mocking the 'talking snake' account.

So first you say it isn't a physical snake then you say it is a physical snake plus something else. Then you then seem to deny the serpent was a snake at all.

We are never told that the serpent was a snake.

The scripture does not say he was a beast of the field, it only says he was more shrewd/crafty/sly than any of the beasts of the field.

That is not a great translation, The ESV puts it Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field... We find the same construction in Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. The thing chosen is part of the group it is chosen from. They were to chose fruit from the trees that were in the garden not from somewhere completely different. The wives the sons of God chose were daughters of men. The animals that went on the ark were the same kinds of creature that were living on the earth. And the snake, though the most clever of all the beasts of the field, was still one of the beast of the field.

 

[busterdog]

Yes, I think that's generally the point of reductio ad absurdum arguments.

Well, then bless you.

 

[busterdog]

Didn't Adam name and speed date all the animals God brought to him to try to find a suitable partner?

A little too risque. Needs better phrasing.

Well you said:


But then you denied saying the snake wasn't a physical snake

How about a dinosaur? Leviathan?

So first you say it isn't a physical snake then you say it is a physical snake plus something else. Then you then seem to deny the serpent was a snake at all.

That's how I read it.

Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

As for present company, I don't know that anyone knows what talking animals really are. Things indwelt? Apparently.

Here are more indwelt animals acting out spiritual problems, and suffering the curse:

Mar 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.

Now, had the feeding of the multitude NOT preceded Mat. 8:32, some might conclude that this swine episode is really a euphemism for a massive pig roast. (Yes, vicious, I know. But in a good way.) But, if we take Mat. 8:32 (parallel to Mar. 5:13) seriously and literally, we are dealing with surprising animal behavior. Why should Gen. 3 not surprise us?

That is not a great translation, The ESV puts it Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field... We find the same construction in Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. The thing chosen is part of the group it is chosen from. They were to chose fruit from the trees that were in the garden not from somewhere completely different. The wives the sons of God chose were daughters of men. The animals that went on the ark were the same kinds of creature that were living on the earth. And the snake, though the most clever of all the beasts of the field, was still one of the beast of the field

Well said.

And, why did God let that snake on the ark anyway?

 

[Assyrian]

A little too risque. Needs better phrasing.

Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

How about a dinosaur?

Nah, extinct for too long.

Leviathan?

Isn't Leviathan aquatic? How does that fit with crawling on its belly and eating dust all the days of its life? That can't be literal.

But of course you are right really. The Israelites could read a good metaphor and realised the snake in Genesis 3 spoke of God's ancient apocalyptic enemy. Psalm 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters. 14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. God's defeat of the Egyptian Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea was a partial fulfilment of the promise of Gen 3, crushing the head of the serpent. A greater defeat of the serpent was to come as Isaiah promised. But it only works if you take the snake in Genesis as a physical snake in the story, but the story is a metaphor for Satan temptation of mankind and our promised redemption.

Jesus defeated Satan on the cross and fulfilled the promise of Genesis 3, but Satan does not eat dust or crawl on his belly. 1Pet 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Note: prowling not slithering and it is not dust he devours. Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." Not slithering on his belly here either. Basically the snake is a real snake in the story the same way the birds of the air are real birds in the parable of the sower. But both are talking about Satan. In the story, it is a snake that the Redeemer steps on and has his heel bruised. It is actually about Jesus defeat of Satan through his death on Calvary.

That's how I read it.

Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

As for present company, I don't know that anyone knows what talking animals really are. Things indwelt? Apparently.

Here are more indwelt animals acting out spiritual problems, and suffering the curse:

Mar 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.

Now, had the feeding of the multitude NOT preceded Mat. 8:32, some might conclude that this swine episode is really a euphemism for a massive pig roast. (Yes, vicious, I know. But in a good way.) But, if we take Mat. 8:32 (parallel to Mar. 5:13) seriously and literally, we are dealing with surprising animal behavior. Why should Gen. 3 not surprise us?

Lets see, there is no suggestion Balaam's ass was possessed, and while the the possessed swine may have gone wee wee wee all the way down, they didn't say anything. Legion did their talking from a human host.

Then it was the Lord opening the ass's mouth, snakes are even more difficult, they don't have vocal cords, so you have to ascribe creative power to Satan in giving it the ability to speak. Then there is the problem that there is no mention of Satan or any demon possessing the snake, Genesis explaining the snakes' ability to speak and pull the wool over Eve's eyes in terms of it being the cleverest of all the beasts, God thinking the snake was the one responsible for the temptation and blaming the snake 'because you have done this', this would also be really unfair if it was a dumb mouth piece and Satan was the one who did the tempting by speaking through the snake, we have God punishing the snake while real perpetrator goes unpunished, the problem that we are not redeemed yet because Messiah was supposed to step on the snake who tempted Adam and Eve, which Jesus never did. And last of all the problem Revelation got it wrong when it says the ancient serpent is Satan.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
The bible doesn't say Satan possessed the serpent, the serpent is Satan.

Well said.

And, why did God let that snake on the ark anyway?

You just said it was levathan a sea serpent.