I don't understand the point of creationism

[Tree of Life]

Which doesn't answer my question. What excesses?

Every piece of red ribbon symbolizing the blood of Christ. Every piece of wood symbolizing the cross. Every drop of water symbolizing baptism. Have you never read ECF exegesis?

 

[Speedwell]

Every piece of red ribbon symbolizing the blood of Christ. Every piece of wood symbolizing the cross. Every drop of water symbolizing baptism. Have you never read ECF exegesis?

Very colorful. (yes, as a matter of fact. Read them, taken courses in them when I was an undergraduate at a catholic university) But what has that to do with a literal Genesis? Even Protestants indulge in typology, surely?

 

[Tree of Life]

Very colorful. (yes, as a matter of fact. Read them, taken courses in them when I was an undergraduate at a catholic university) But what has that to do with a literal Genesis? Even Protestants indulge in typology, surely?

Yes typology can certainly be warranted but there are big differences between typology and allegory. Typological interpretation includes historical-grammatical interpretation.

I am not aware of any outlandish allegorical interpretations of Genesis 1-2. I am speaking more generally of the principle of historical-grammatical interpretation. I try to interpret every text according to the author’s intention. So I interpret Genesis using the same principles.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes typology can certainly be warranted but there are big differences between typology and allegory. Typological interpretation includes historical-grammatical interpretation.

I am not aware of any outlandish allegorical interpretations of Genesis 1-2. I am speaking more generally of the principle of historical-grammatical interpretation. I try to interpret every text according to the author’s intention. So I interpret Genesis using the same principles.

So do I, yet I don't assume that the author's intent in this case was merely to provide us with a bald factual statement of creation events. Why do you?

 

[Tree of Life]

So do I, yet I don't assume that the author's intent in this case was merely to provide us with a bald factual statement of creation events. Why do you?

The genre of Genesis seems to be historical narrative. Reading chapters 1 and 2 accordingly is the most straight forward reading. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, lacks all the hallmarks of Hebrew song and poetry. It lacks the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. I don’t see anything from the text itself that would invite me to read it differently than as historical narrative.

 

[Astrophile]

The circular argument "solution" works out like this --

God creates man on day 6 in Genesis 1. Atheist sees that the man is an adult and so "extrapolates back" with some level of inference based on the circular assumption that god-does-not-exist - and concludes that the man was born 25 years earlier - but the mother of that person has not yet been "discovered" and no other humans exist on planet earth at this point.

Then claims that the inference alone disproves the statement that God created Adam yesterday.

Did God also create star clusters on day 4 and give them different populations of main-sequence stars, red giant or supergiant stars, and white dwarfs, so that astronomers would infer that the clusters were formed tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, or thousand of millions of years ago?

By the way, I wasn't an atheist when I learnt about the different ages of star clusters and about the fact that the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old. That came later, but not as a result of my scientific research.

 

[Speedwell]

The genre of Genesis seems to be historical narrative. Reading chapters 1 and 2 accordingly is the most straight forward reading. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, lacks all the hallmarks of Hebrew song and poetry. It lacks the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. I don’t see anything from the text itself that would invite me to read it differently than as historical narrative.

Not the cadence structure of Gen 1? Not Hebrew poetry by any means, but some have suggested hymnody. Why is such a notion an existential threat to Christianity? What about Gen 2? What about the puns and other wordplay? The highly anthropomorphized non-human characters? Magic trees? Just at first glance, it looks to me like a written version of an etiology originally crafted to survive in oral tradition. OK, you don't believe it and that's fine with me, as we both derive the same doctrine from the text. But why is my view a threat to yours? We've gone 'round and 'round about this, but I still don't get why you see a literal Genesis as a hill to die on.

 

[Tree of Life]

Not the cadence structure of Gen 1? Not Hebrew poetry by any means, but some have suggested hymnody. Why is such a notion an existential threat to Christianity? What about Gen 2? What about the puns and other wordplay? The highly anthropomorphized non-human characters? Magic trees? Just at first glance, it looks to me like a written version of an etiology originally crafted to survive in oral tradition. OK, you don't believe it and that's fine with me, as we both derive the same doctrine from the text. But why is my view a threat to yours? We've gone 'round and 'round about this, but I still don't get why you see a literal Genesis as a hill to die on.

It’s not an existential threat to Christianity and I don’t see it as a hill to die on. I’m not sure where you got that from.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It’s not an existential threat to Christianity and I don’t see it as a hill to die on. I’m not sure where you got that from.

Well, it is the topic of the thread. Certainly, what @Speedwell posted is reflective a quite a few YECs.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, it is the topic of the thread. Certainly, what @Speedwell posted is reflective a quite a few YECs.

I thought the query of the thread had to do with the point of believing in YEC.

 

[Job 33:6]

Personally, whether the scripture was meant to be taken allegorically or literally, I think is kind of irrelevant.

Even if the original authors intended genesis to be taken literally, at the end of the day they lived some 2,000 years ago and really would never be able to comprehend the depth of creation. Be them inspired by God or not. And so there is no reason to treat their works as objective literal truth, even if the authors meant it to be such.

And with that, along with contradictions between a literal interpretation of scripture and objective conclusions about creation itself discovered through the scientific method, is enough for me to conclude that belief in YECism just isn't justified.

 

[Tree of Life]

It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.

 

[Tree of Life]

Personally, whether the scripture was meant to be taken allegorically or literally, I think is kind of irrelevant.

Even if the original authors intended genesis to be taken literally, at the end of the day they lived some 2,000 years ago and really would never be able to comprehend the depth of creation. Be them inspired by God or not. And so there is no reason to treat their works as objective literal truth, even if the authors meant it to be such.

And with that, along with contradictions between a literal interpretation of scripture and objective conclusions about creation itself discovered through the scientific method, is enough for me to conclude that belief in YECism just isn't justified.

This sounds nice until we see that the same reasoning can be used to say that belief in Jesus’ physical, literal, historic resurrection is unjustified. So I must reject that reasoning.

 

[BobRyan]

Did God also create star clusters on day 4 and give them different populations of main-sequence stars, red giant or supergiant stars, and white dwarfs,

Which of the "two great lights" made on day 4 are you referring to??

Gen 1
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night - the stars also (govern the night). 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

[BobRyan]

"And, if it challenges the truth of a physical and literal resurrection, then let it be what it is."

I think if Christians really can't reject young earth creationism, without simultaneously losing faith in all of Christianity, then I think that the Christian faith would then be doomed. .

Part I.


Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

my comment: And that poses a problem for Christians who need the bible to "say something else"


================

Part II. Many Christians even today think the Bible is true.

 

[Speedwell]

Part I.


Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

my comment: And that poses a problem for Christians who need the bible to "say something else"

Whoever they may be. For my part I am entirely in agreement with those scholars. I don't see any difficulty at all.

Part II. Many Christians even today think the Bible is true.

All Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired and authoritative word of God. Your point?

 

[Speedwell]

It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.

Because it's a plausible, well-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. There is no reason not to accept it provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted.

 

[pitabread]

It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.

Modern evolution theory (including common ancestry) is an applied science. It underpins methodologies in genomics for example.

 

[hedrick]

The genre of Genesis seems to be historical narrative. Reading chapters 1 and 2 accordingly is the most straight forward reading. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, lacks all the hallmarks of Hebrew song and poetry. It lacks the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. I don’t see anything from the text itself that would invite me to read it differently than as historical narrative.

There are a number of genres that aren't poetic, symbolic, or apocalyptic, and that are straightforward narrative, e.g. legend or satire. I think the existence of two completely different creation stories shows that the final editor was not trying to create a simple history, but instead was trying to pass on all of the traditions handed down to him.

The story comes from a period before any historical records could possibly exist, but the Hebrew people's understanding of their origins is important to understanding their whole perspective and religion. So it makes sense that an editor would include legends from the period before history.

 

[Job 33:6]

It occurs to me that a similar question could be posed to the evolutionist. What’s the point of believing in evolutionary history? It’s not really necessary in order to practice science or medicine.

I saw others respond to this, but for me:

I study fossils and it is necessary to understand the fossil succession in order to actively investigate patterns of fossils. To predict where fossils will be, and what fossils you may find where.

It just happens to be the case that common descent is the only logical explanation for these patterns, and is therefore accepted as such.