Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Douvie]

No, science can't prove any of that and doesn't claim to. Science works by inductive logic which can offer no proof. Only deductive logic can prove things. Of course, science can "prove" things in the colloquial sense of the term, but formally speaking it cannot.

Science is empirical - if you know what that means. Evolution is not observable therefore it is not empirical. Your reasoning is false because you say that science works by inductive logic. Do you know what the word INDUCTIVE means? And who knows what logic you mean?

 

[Douvie]

Not sure what you are asking. Let me try to spell out the challenge that I think I face as someone who:

(1) believes that evolution happened;
(2) believes in the authority of scripture (but allows for some texts to be interpreted as literary device).

Here is the challenge of trying to integrate my views (above) with your hypothesis (as I understand it) that there was a real Adam who introduced sin into the world even though there were "pre-humans" before him:

1. I think the Biblical case is clear that it is specifically the introduction of sin into the world that brought mortality to humans (it is not at all clear that there is a way to "allegorize our way out of this".
2. If Adam introduced sin, then wouldn't all of his predecessors still be alive at the time Adam sinned (they may well have died afterward as a consequence of Adam's sin). Many of them would be thousands and thousands of years old.
3. This seems implausible.

It seems that you believe that Adam's predecessors still died even though death had not yet been introduced into the world. And that seems to not make sense. Can you please clarify.

Which proves that you are inconsistent. You waver between two opposite diametrically opposed systems....like every wave of the sea blown by different winds...this way and that. And Scripture mentions those like you.

 

[Douvie]

As I said before, I don't think anyone here does that. You YECs don't, because you don't belief in Apostolic tradition. Those of us who do believe in Apostolic Tradition don't think it transmits a particular interpretation of Genesis.

Your Apostolic tradition is a tradition founded on the Papacy. Peter was not the first Pope and nor was Clement. That so-called apostolic tradition, you claim, is based on the Mysteries of the Babylonian religion (Pagan). It came from Babylon, went via Troy, and became the Pagan Mysteries of Roman Empire. The ceasars were descendents of Aeneas of Troy. The Peter Roma is the book of stone, which what the name means, and contains the rites and mysteries of the Babylonian Religion.
There is no proof that Peter the Apostle was in Rome. It is only a tradition. Peter's Epistle actually states he was in Babylon. There is no biblical base to your tradition.
I'd rather believe God than mere men. This is a concept you cannot seem to get. And besides, I follow God's Word where the Apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, were the pens. Not a fake tradition.

 

[Douvie]

Well, evolution happened. Evidence says so. For example, look at your little toe. It has no use. Its a vestige from a previous species in which it had a use.

Evidence does not prove evolution. It is your presupposition that makes you say that. It is the way you interpret the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

Just cut your toe off and see how it affects your balance. That is a medical fact.

 

[Douvie]

As I understand it, Dispensationalism views the OT as an accurate, unbroken timeline of history from creation to Jesus.

You definitely are totally incorrect. I suggest you need to go back to seminary to learn the Difference between Eschatology and Plenary Inspiration.

You are wrong. Fundamentalist believe that. Not Dispensationalists.

And I am not Dispensationalist.

 

[Speedwell]

Your Apostolic tradition is a tradition founded on the Papacy. Peter was not the first Pope and nor was Clement. That so-called apostolic tradition, you claim, is based on the Mysteries of the Babylonian religion (Pagan). It came from Babylon, went via Troy, and became the Pagan Mysteries of Roman Empire. The ceasars were descendents of Aeneas of Troy. The Peter Roma is the book of stone, which what the name means, and contains the rites and mysteries of the Babylonian Religion.
There is no proof that Peter the Apostle was in Rome. It is only a tradition. Peter's Epistle actually states he was in Babylon. There is no biblical base to your tradition.
I'd rather believe God than mere men. This is a concept you cannot seem to get. And besides, I follow God's Word where the Apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, were the pens. Not a fake tradition.

Your anti-Catholic sentiments are noted. We wouldn't expect anything else from a Fundamentalist. But I hope you realize that by invoking a non-canonical apostolic author like Barnabas you are invoking the very Apostolic Tradition you pretend to despise.

 

[Speedwell]

You are wrong. Fundamentalist believe that. Not Dispensationalists.

So Fundamentalist also believe that the OT is supposed to be an accurate, unbroken timeline of history from creation to Jesus? Why would you want to believe such a thing?

 

[expos4ever]

Which proves that you are inconsistent. You waver between two opposite diametrically opposed systems....like every wave of the sea blown by different winds...this way and that. And Scripture mentions those like you.

What, specifically in inconsistent in:

1. Accepting scientific fact;
2. Reading the creation account as "inspired myth".

Here is the elephant in the room for the creationist. It is simply not possible for them to not be aware of the fact that some Scripture entails the use of literary device. So they must be aware of the possibility that the creation account is an example of this.

So please tell us: given the clear precedent of the use of literary device in both scripture and in the broader Jewish literary tradition, on precisely what basis do you reject the possibility that the creation account is not to be taken literally?

 

[expos4ever]

Science is empirical - if you know what that means. Evolution is not observable therefore it is not empirical.

We have been through this before. Just to be sure you are not propagating the falsehood that since evolution is not subject to "testing" in the sense of reproducing the evolution of animals in a lab, that it is therefore not science. From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

 

[expos4ever]

Evidence does not prove evolution. It is your presupposition that makes you say that. It is the way you interpret the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

This is, frankly, a word salad that says nothing and obfuscates the truth. The clear, simple truth is that evolution is a superb explanation for evidence.

Again, science does not deal in matters of proof. So to concede that "evidence does not prove evolution" cuts no ice at all with respect to damaging the credibility of the theory of evolution.

You deeply misrepresent the nature of scientific inquiry with this phrase "It is the way you interpret the evidence that leads you to that conclusion".

 

[expos4ever]

Science is empirical - if you know what that means. Evolution is not observable therefore it is not empirical.

False! And it is only because the moderators do not have the mandate nor the time to deal with such egregious misrepresentations that such untruths are allowed.

If anyone is actually interested in the truth, please refer to post 1010 where the outrageous falsehood mooted by Douvie is put to rest.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, maybe the folllwing quote will help you:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith.

“Religious Humanism is not merely an armchair religion, but one that seeks to provide “proselytizers of a new faith” and to “utiliz[e] a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach,” according to the humanist Dunphy in the periodical The Humanist:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in thepublic school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministersof another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values inwhatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism …

‘… It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.’”

j. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, at pp. 23, 26 (emphasis added); as cited by Wendell R. Bird, Origin of the Species—Revisited, Vol. II, p. 257.

The above quote charts it out nicely. One of the PILLARS that up holds Humanism is evolution...but go ahead and disagree.

Just because you have this hangup on humanism and think evolution is tied to it doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with that kind of weird thinking. Evolution happened. We have discovered that and have a theory to explain it. And that's the way it is.

Teachers don't get taught how to indoctrinate kids into humanism in school. They just learn how to teach in school.

 

[Douvie]

Your anti-Catholic sentiments are noted. We wouldn't expect anything else from a Fundamentalist. But I hope you realize that by invoking a non-canonical apostolic author like Barnabas you are invoking the very Apostolic Tradition you pretend to despise.

So the Book of Hebrews is non-canonical...is it?

The Author of Hebrews is uncertain...some say Paul and some say Barnabas, and others say that one of Paul's companions. I, generally, consider Paul to be the author but some do believe it is Barnabas. In The Acts of the Apostles, Barnabas is highly commended - even though he and Paul separated.

As for the other spurious books attributed to be written by Barnabas - they are not canonical and I disregard them. There is no proof that Barnabas wrote any of the apocryphal texts.

 

[Douvie]

So Fundamentalist also believe that the OT is supposed to be an accurate, unbroken timeline of history from creation to Jesus? Why would you want to believe such a thing?

Because it is so. The integrity of OT maintains it. And it speaks for itself.

 

[Douvie]

Just because you have this hangup on humanism and think evolution is tied to it doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with that kind of weird thinking. Evolution happened. We have discovered that and have a theory to explain it. And that's the way it is.

Teachers don't get taught how to indoctrinate kids into humanism in school. They just learn how to teach in school.

Yeah, well consider what Hitler and his Nazis did to the youth of Germany! There is more than enough proof.

And how many schools have you visited in the last, say, 30 years?

 

[Douvie]

False! And it is only because the moderators do not have the mandate nor the time to deal with such egregious misrepresentations that such untruths are allowed.

If anyone is actually interested in the truth, please refer to post 1010 where the outrageous falsehood mooted by Douvie is put to rest.

Oh and Scientific American is faultless and without bias...Please!!!

Look who is quote-mining now?

 

[Douvie]

False! And it is only because the moderators do not have the mandate nor the time to deal with such egregious misrepresentations that such untruths are allowed.

If anyone is actually interested in the truth, please refer to post 1010 where the outrageous falsehood mooted by Douvie is put to rest.

Have you actually witnessed a transitional type happen? Have you actually seen one of those ancestoral types undergoing change?

 

[Douvie]

What, specifically in inconsistent in:

1. Accepting scientific fact;
2. Reading the creation account as "inspired myth".

Here is the elephant in the room for the creationist. It is simply not possible for them to not be aware of the fact that some Scripture entails the use of literary device. So they must be aware of the possibility that the creation account is an example of this.

So please tell us: given the clear precedent of the use of literary device in both scripture and in the broader Jewish literary tradition, on precisely what basis do you reject the possibility that the creation account is not to be taken literally?

The Creation Account is not a myth! I take the creation account as actual history.

 

[HenryM]

The Creation Account is not a myth! I take the creation account as actual history.

Douvie, here's something I came to realize rather recently. In perishing world, word that stands for perishing world is always last, always rules. You can't prevail standing against perishing world in perishing world. Your word counts in some other place. Here, you lose.

 

[Speedwell]

Y

And how many schools have you visited in the last, say, 30 years?

At least 100, in different parts of the country. I subbed my way through grad school in the '90s and have worked in schools in various parts of the country since. You are spouting paranoid nonsense. In fact, there are public schools in the Bible Belt where creationism is taught quite openly.