POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[rakovsky]

What? You believe in a geocentric solar system?

Based on the theory of relativity Yes. The seasonal, regular orbits of the planets can be graphed intelligently in relation to the earth.

By the way, the sun didn't really have to stop in Joshua even though the author obviously thought so, the day light just had to be prolonged.

This is a keeper.
My vote was for #4. Which did you vote for?

That was important as an observation by you, but I still find your comments about Calvin even more interesting:

Calvin knew a good deal about the Scriptures, even in the original, but was was not an exegetical scholar. It was a very new approach and diametrically opposed to Rome. They had Texus Recepticus but they certainly didn't have modern lexicons and the issue of God creating the heavens and the earth was not a real question. So now we are looking at Calvin saying he thought the sun, moon and stars on day four.

You can stop saying Calvin was not an exegete if you want, but this is a free discussion.It was very amusing for me to hear. So if you want to amuse me, you can keep writing about that.

But I am interested in thought and how your mind works. It seems to me you fight tooth and nail about some things that you think that the Bible says, like proposing that the Bible does NOT say that the sun is made on Day 4, even though you cite as an authority a passage saying that the sun was made on Day 4 due to the parallel involving bara. I am not sure why you so strongly fight against that.

 

[StanJ]

I'm not dodging anything, the text could not be clearer. If Calvin had done exegetical work it would be in his commentaries, it's just not. Do you know anything about Calvin because the Geneva Bible was a very big deal for the early Protestants. It was the work of William Tyndale and I doubt seriously he gave the creation of the sun, moon or stars a lot of thought. He certainly didn't have access to a modern lexicon.

Oz has a propensity for playing The Devil's Advocate a lot. Sometimes it's best not to play along.

 

[rakovsky]

Genesis does not use anywhere near what we would term as "scientific language." Also, miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread.

What?
God's making of man directly from clay was NOT a miracle and supernatural things belong in a separate thread?

Can you please cite any foundational 17th c. Reformed writer like Calvin saying something like miracle events or the Creation are not supernatural and are ONLY natural?

I know Calvinism is a naturalistic, materialistic system, but I didn't know they were that open in admitting it.

 

[StanJ]

Please keep writing about this. You are on a roll. It is so refreshing to hear. This is one of the best messages so far.

As the OP, you should be trying to keep this thread on topic.

 

[rakovsky]

Number one, miracles are what we are talking about and I have reminded you repeatedly, nonnicene posters are not welcome here. Creation is a miracle.... So why don't you think about the words you throw around as if you had seriously thought about their meaning.

I think that modern educated Calvinists/Reformed like Hoghead do not realize the full implications of their unique teachings when it comes to the supernatural.

 

[StanJ]

Woah! What is your basis for making that claim about Calvin? It appears way, way off base. However, I am curious what your source is here. I am the translator of two published volumes of his sermons, and I sure didn't find him ignorant about Scripture. Matter of fact, he generally reads from the original text.

As I said to Oz, please stay on topic. The issue here is not about Calvin and I addressed rakovsky based on his post. Feel free to start your own thread on that subject then I'll be more than happy to participate.

 

[rakovsky]

As the OP, you should be trying to keep this thread on topic.

OK, your claims are:

• Every "Day" in Genesis 1 before humans were made must be 24 hours by a modern human stopwatch.
• About half of the Creationists polled do not reject "Young Earth" theory.
  
• The Sun was made on Day 1, not on Day 4, which is what the Bible says according to Calvin.
• Hence: "Calvin... was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible."

These are all relevant topics for discussion regarding the poll.

It is interesting for me because it reflects one's mentality and how good a judge one is of scripture.
It raises plenty of important questions. For example, if Calvin was not very accurate for understanding the bible, what does that say about the beliefs of the mass movement of millions of Reformed who have followed in his wake when they claim to know the "Biblical" teaching?

 

[StanJ]

Yes, there is very serious question about that. Modern biblical scholarship would seriously challenge just about everything you have to say here.

I'd say then show it but then we'll get into a whole bunch of cross posting of links. If you can articulate something that proves that Moses didn't write the Torah then go ahead and start your own thread, but for the most part it would be off topic here to pursue this here.
This thread is about the literalness of Genesis 1.

 

[StanJ]

OK, your claims are:

• Every "Day" in Genesis 1 before humans were made must be 24 hours by a modern human stopwatch.
• About half of the Creationists polled do not reject "Young Earth" theory.
  
• The Sun was made on Day 1, not on Day 4, which is what the Bible says according to Calvin.
• Hence: "Calvin... was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible."

These are all relevant topics for discussion regarding the poll.

It is interesting for me because it reflects one's mentality and how good a judge one is of scripture.
It raises plenty of important questions. For example, if Calvin was not very accurate for understanding the bible, what does that say about the beliefs of the mass movement of millions of Reformed who have followed in his wake when they claim to know the "Biblical" teaching?

.

You continue to paraphrase what I say in a way that is not accurate and a deliberate misinterpretation. Either state what I say properly or I won't respond to your posts.
Should I ask for a moderator to intervene?

 

[rakovsky]

.

You continue to paraphrase what I say in a way that is not accurate and a deliberate misinterpretation. Either state what I say properly or I won't respond to your posts.
Should I ask for a moderator to intervene?

Which of the following does not accurately reflect your beliefs, and how would you rephrase it:

• Every "Day" in Genesis 1 before humans were made must be 24 hours by a modern human stopwatch.
• About half of the Creationists polled do not reject "Young Earth" theory.
  
• The Sun was made on Day 1, not on Day 4, which is what the Bible says according to Calvin.
• Hence: "Calvin... was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible."
  
  

 

[Hoghead1]

Isn't this the same thing you posted twice already h er e and that I was answering? It's as if you haven't even noticed what I just said said about the meaning of plants in the field.

Next time you post that, please put it in a quote box using bb code at least.

No, you did not appear to answer anything I said. I don't think you even bothered to read anything I said.

 

[StanJ]

Which of the following does not accurately reflect your beliefs, and how would you rephrase it:

• Every "Day" in Genesis 1 before humans were made must be 24 hours by a modern human stopwatch.
• About half of the Creationists polled do not reject "Young Earth" theory.
  
• The Sun was made on Day 1, not on Day 4, which is what the Bible says according to Calvin.
• Hence: "Calvin... was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible."

Yeah I'm not playing that game... quote me properly using the quote facilities on this forum and I'll reply accordingly.

 

[rakovsky]

No, you did not appear to answer anything I said. I don't think you even bothered to read anything I said.

I find the JDEP debate and the question of Mosaic authorship to be outside the thread. Whether or not the author was Moses, the Bible still says what it says, and we are left asking whether it teaches the 5 things I listed in the opening poll.

In your excessively long letter, you wrote that there are two separate stories of the same exact Creation, but that in Story #2 the plants are made AFTER Man. I replied that if you look at Genesis 2, it does not say that all the world's plants were made after man, it says that the "plants of the field" were made after man, a reference to the kinds of plants that man cultivates in fields. This makes perfect sense because humans are needed to cultivate the "plants of the field". Take for example maize. Did you know that this variety of crop was specially bred by humans? That is what Genesis 2 is saying. Thus I have provided a reasonable solution to what you presented as a paradox of when the plants were made.

Your response was to just re-quote your long letter and ask me to address your letter. Please discontinue posting your letter and just provide a link to it for sake of ease in reading the thread.

 

[rakovsky]

Yeah I'm not playing that game...

Is it difficult to answer which of those you agree or disagree with?

 

[Hoghead1]

I find the JDEP debate and the question of Mosaic authorship to be outside the thread. Whether or not the author was Moses, the Bible still says what it says, and we are left asking whether it teaches the 5 things I listed in the opening poll.

In your excessively long letter, you wrote that there are two separate stories of the same exact Creation, but that in Story #2 the plants are made AFTER Man. I replied that if you look at Genesis 2, it does not say that all the world's plants were made after man, it says that the "plants of the field" were made after man, a reference to the kinds of plants that man cultivates in fields. This makes perfect sense because humans are needed to cultivate the "plants of the field". Take for example maize. Did you know that this variety of crop was specially bred by humans? That is what Genesis 2 is saying. Thus I have provided a reasonable solution to what you presented as a paradox of when the plants were made.

Your response was to just re-quote your long letter and ask me to address your letter. Please discontinue posting your letter and just provide a link to it for sake of ease in reading the thread.

Given the complexity of the subject matter, I believe my remarks were a bit too short. I could have go0ne into much more detail. If you think I am long-winded, God help you when you go to read anything in biblical scholarship. Also, as I said, the plants have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

[Hoghead1]

What?
God's making of man directly from clay was NOT a miracle and supernatural things belong in a separate thread?

Can you please cite any foundational 17th c. Reformed writer like Calvin saying something like miracle events or the Creation are not supernatural and are ONLY natural?

I know Calvinism is a naturalistic, materialistic system, but I didn't know they were that open in admitting it.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Calvinism is a naturalistic, materialistic system? Also Calvin lived in the 16th century, not the 17th. His dates are 1509-1564. I would suggest you read some Calvin before jumping the gun as you did here.

 

[rakovsky]

Also, as I said, the plants have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Yes, they are related because the supposed conflict in the order of the plants' creation was a major proof you used to claim that the stories conflicted.
Oz has also provided you with a decent answer.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'd say then show it but then we'll get into a whole bunch of cross posting of links. If you can articulate something that proves that Moses didn't write the Torah then go ahead and start your own thread, but for the most part it would be off topic here to pursue this here.
This thread is about the literalness of Genesis 1.

Yes, I know that and that also means talking into account who wrote it and when.

 

[rakovsky]

Where on earth did you get the idea that Calvinism is a naturalistic, materialistic system?

Here is a great example:
"miracles aren't the issue here. The issue is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Miracles and the supernatural belong in a separate thread."

Mark K. was correct to disagree and to assert that creation was a "miracle". By denying the miraculous in the creation, you instead posit a naturalistic creation.
Personally, Hoghead, I am as an academic drawn to this premise of Calvinism and am very interested to see whether major Calvinists have explained their premises to this effect.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, they are related because the supposed conflict in the order of the plants' creation was a major proof you used to claim that the stories conflicted.
Oz has also provided you with a decent answer.

I said the order of the animals. Gen. 1, first animals, then Adam and Eve together. Gen. 2, first Adam, then animals, then Eve. Either Adam was created before the animals (Gen. 2) or after the animals (Gen. 1) and together with Eve (Gen, 1) or Eve was created later (Gen2 2).