Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

[Job 33:6]

I disagree. Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that does not use figurative language. Every word in this portion of Scripture is intended to be understood literally. For example, “the windows of the heavens” in Genesis 7:11 are to be understood as real, physical windows or flood gates that God actually opened and closed. However, literalness and historical accuracy are not at all the same thing. The story of Noah and the ark is a classical epic tale expressing spiritual truths clothed in a fictitious story very much like the parables in the gospels.

I'm fine with your definitions and would generally agree. There is literal, as in how the authors intended it to be understood, and literal in the sense of something like a camera-recorder empiricism (which is typically how the word is thought of in lay-terms).

 

[David Lamb]

Did Jesus lie when he told parables? Of course not? But someone is telling a huge whopper of a lie in your post. Moreover, boldfaced lies such as these coming from the pens and mouths of professing Christians are doing much more harms to the gospel message and the Christian witness than all of the atheists put together.

What is the lie that, in your view, Aussie Pete told in his post? People on forums like this disagree on all sorts of matters. Just because somebody's point of vie disagrees with your, that doesn't mean they're telling lies.

 

[Job 33:6]

What is the lie that, in your view, Aussie Pete told in his post? People on forums like this disagree on all sorts of matters. Just because somebody's point of vie disagrees with your, that doesn't mean they're telling lies.

People here, fundamentalists or YECs in particular, are suggesting that the only way in which something can be true is if it is something that historically could have been scientifically verified. As though, in order for "7-days" to be true, it would have to be as though the sun rotated around the earth 7 times, and as though someone living back then could have physically witnessed that passage of time and events in earth history.

Rather than understanding that truth, much like the referenced parables, can take many forms. And one thing that AussiePete says, and packages in his words, is patently untrue, that God's word must be empirically or scientifically historical, or God is a liar.

 

[David Lamb]

People here, fundamentalists or YECs in particular, are suggesting that the only way in which something can be true is if it is something that historically could have been scientifically verified. As though, in order for "7-days" to be true, it would have to be as though the sun rotated around the earth 7 times, and as though someone living back then could have physically witnessed that passage of time and events in earth history.

Rather than understanding that truth, much like the referenced parables, can take many forms. And one thing that AussiePete says, and packages in his words, is patently untrue, that God's word must be empirically or scientifically historical, or God is a liar.

I am a young earth creationist, and as I am sure you know, I do write things similar to what Aussie Pete wrote. I still say that when he and I do so, we are not telling lies, just because what we believe about Creation doesn't match what you and other believers in an old earth believe. It's no more lying than a credo-baptist saying that he/she believes baptism to be for believers according to the bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am a young earth creationist, and as I am sure you know, I do write things similar to what Aussie Pete wrote. I still say that when he and I do so, we are not telling lies, just because what we believe about Creation doesn't match what you and other believers in an old earth believe. It's no more lying than a credo-baptist saying that he/she believes baptism to be for believers according to the bible.

That's fine. But in response, I would say that repeating rhetorical strategies like "God's Word is literally true (or scientifically concordant) or He is a liar" in and of itself is just intellectually dishonest. It presupposes that the Bible is black and white in how it was written.

Theology and hermeneutics just can't be built on this kind of foundation. It's unstable and destructive for the church.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Did Jesus lie when he told parables? Of course not? But someone is telling a huge whopper of a lie in your post. Moreover, boldfaced lies such as these coming from the pens and mouths of professing Christians are doing much more harms to the gospel message and the Christian witness than all of the atheists put together.

Not every word that Jesus spoke was a parable. So why do you dismiss the Genesis account of creation and what followed? There is ample evidence for a world wide flood. Sure, no one can verify that now, but neither can they prove it did not happen. Jesus referred to the days of Noah. Was Jesus confused about the events of that time? Tell me what lie is in my post. I'm happy to defend my claims. If I am proven wrong, I will admit that I'm wrong.

 

[Aaron112]

Sure, no one can verify that now

In the world, in the society that is death-dealing (pernicious; from Galatians, et al) ...

In the midst of any assembly of the faithful, as in Malachi (where YHVH calls for a heavenly scribe to record all the words when the faithful are gathered talking about Him)
it is clear, simple, and easy to know, to realize, and yes, even to prove. (because the enemy is not permitted and information that is untruthful, ungodly, or harmful likewise is not permitted).

 

[Aussie Pete]

I am a young earth creationist, and as I am sure you know, I do write things similar to what Aussie Pete wrote. I still say that when he and I do so, we are not telling lies, just because what we believe about Creation doesn't match what you and other believers in an old earth believe. It's no more lying than a credo-baptist saying that he/she believes baptism to be for believers according to the bible.

Just to clarify, I am a subscriber to the pre Adamic creation theory. I expect you know what that is, but for anyone else: The word "was" can readily be translated "became". So some, including me, believe that the creation in Genesis was a restoration of what was destroyed by a universal flood. That flood was the judgement that was the consequence of Satan's fall from heaven.

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other." Isaiah 45:18

So it seems to some that God did not create the earth covered in water. A water covered earth is not what I would call habitable.

Larry Ollison goes into this in some depth. Watchman Nee and others also were proponents.

 

[Aaron112]

cannot be true. contradicts God's Word and Plan of Salvation many times, many ways - not to argue nor debate as that is not comely nor appropriate for followers of Jesus.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just to clarify, I am a subscriber to the pre Adamic creation theory. I expect you know what that is, but for anyone else: The word "was" can readily be translated "became". So some, including me, believe that the creation in Genesis was a restoration of what was destroyed by a universal flood. That flood was the judgement that was the consequence of Satan's fall from heaven.

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other." Isaiah 45:18

So it seems to some that God did not create the earth covered in water. A water covered earth is not what I would call habitable.

Larry Ollison goes into this in some depth. Watchman Nee and others also were proponents.

Why believe in a global flood before the flood of Noah? Genesis 1 comes before Genesis 6.

 

[BobRyan]

Exodus 20:8-11 has nothing to do with science.

Some assume that our Creator God knows nothing about origins, spoke nothing about it but instead prefers myth, legend and various forms of untruth.

But Christ Himself stated "I AM the way the TRUTH and the Life" in John 14, rather than "the untruth" the "myth", non-accurate-legend.

Scripture itself declares the literal nature of Gen 1-2 in the literal language of legal code in Exodus 20 where the reality of the literal 7 day creation week affirmed in Ex 20:11 pointing directly to Gen 2:2-3.

An inconvenient fact not easily swept under a rug

The ultimate point being that the Bible routinely expresses concepts in figurative ways,

But never expresses literal legal code in mythical terms of easter bunnies and fairy tales.

and so we shouldn't be reading the text "literally".

nonsense

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

NASB

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Genesis doesn't say how long the earth was formless before

True. IT could have been in the "formless and void state" for quite a while

 

[BobRyan]

Just to clarify, I am a subscriber to the pre Adamic creation theory. I expect you know what that is, but for anyone else: The word "was" can readily be translated "became". So some, including me, believe that the creation in Genesis was a restoration of what was destroyed

there is no "Was destroyed" language at all in Genesis 1 prior to day one.

by a universal flood. That flood was the judgement that was the consequence of Satan's fall from heaven.

Not according to Genesis 6 and 7. In the actual Bible the flood is a consequence of mankind's rebellion on Earth against the Law of God

So it seems to some that God did not create the earth covered in water. A water covered earth is not what I would call habitable.

Genesis 1 shows the transition from "not habitable" to "habitable" Earth

 

[BobRyan]

Not every word that Jesus spoke was a parable. So why do you dismiss the Genesis account of creation and what followed?

Good point.

Just because one symbol exists, or because one parable exists does not mean we can declare open season on all of scripture and then bend and wrench the text to any preference that atheistm or evolutionism or ... may wish.