Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

[eleos1954]

Well, I am a Creationist. I looked at the beliefs of Evolution and honestly, I kind of made fun of them because they were saying they thought the universe was billions of years old. I thought to myself that that sounded absurd and betrayed all my logical thinking. Think about it: how can something, logically, be that old? It should be impossible. It probably would have crumbled into dust after only a few million years. The whole notion is absurd.

Evolution is only a theory anyway. Some people treat it like its the gospel truth though. Let me just sit here in my computer chair and roll my eyes and have a good laugh.

Time itself is an illusion

Time being the fourth dimension is not a "proven fact"

In order for the idea of evolution to be considered ... one must accept time as a forth dimension and it is not proven fact.

time is the essential framework for evolution, without it ... it falls flat.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Genesis one and two are written in the form of historical narrative narrative.

Why do you say that when the author had to be so chronically distant from the narrative events? It fits more comfortably in the mythic genre with the many other creation stories.

I really do not understand why some people insist on literal historical reading just because they find it in the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Some people believe in evolutionism and other in Creation. I believe in the Creation account God put in the Bible

Genesis one and two are written in the form of historical narrative narrative.

Why do you say that when the author had to be so chronically distant from the narrative events?

The form of writing is Historical narrative. The one speaking is God according to 2 Tim 3:16
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Moses as an inspired writer and writes what God shows him

It fits more comfortably in the mythic genre

On the contrary it explicitly says "THIS IS THE ACCOUNT" of the making of the heavens and the Earth.

There is not one example in all of scripture where myth is stated in the form of "this is the ACCOUNT"

 

[BobRyan]

If the Genesis account is fiction, then there is no Biblical basis for the fall of man, sin, or the need of the Gospel

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

But not all scripture is literal historical.

I get that you need to believe that right now in your world view. Some people even need a flat Earth.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Luke 14:12 - The Parable of the Guests

Then Jesus said to the man who had invited Him, When you host a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or brothers or relatives or rich neighbors. Otherwise, they may invite you in return, and you will be repaid.

biblehub.com

Has anyone done this?

Because if you take Genesis literally you must also take this instruction from Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

But not all scripture is literal historical.

True, there are parables like the one in judges where the trees go out to elect a king.

But that does not mean the creation account is mere parable , or the incarnation is mere parable, or the flood is mere parable.

"the account" of the creation of Earth as Genesis 2:4 states ,, explicitly.. in the Gen1-2 account.
Just as legal code in Ex 20:11 reminds us.

 

[BobRyan]

Luke 14:12 - The Parable of the Guests

Then Jesus said to the man who had invited Him, When you host a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or brothers or relatives or rich neighbors. Otherwise, they may invite you in return, and you will be repaid.

biblehub.com

Has anyone done this?

Because if you take Genesis literally you must also take this instruction from Jesus.

we take Jesus' teaching literally but we do not insist that all parables are literal. We know the difference.

If you have an example in the Bible of a parable that is of the form "THIS IS THE ACCOUNT" feel free to post it. Until then we take the Word of God as it reads.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

we take Jesus' teaching literally but we do not insist that all parables are literally. We know the difference.

If you have an example in the Bible of a parable that is of the form "THIS IS THE ACCOUNT" feel free to post it. Until then we take the

Didn’t Jesus speak plainly enough for you about whom to invite for dinner? If not what is the point of the parable?

 

[BobRyan]

Didn’t Jesus speak plainly enough for you about whom to invite for dinner? If not what is the point of the parable?

I do a lot of that dinner stuff. Is that what your belief in evolutionism hinges on??

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I do a lot of that dinner stuff. Is that what your belief in evolutionism hinges on??

No.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If the Genesis account is fiction, then there is no Biblical basis for the fall of man, sin, or the need of the Gospel

That's patently false. Even if the Genesis account isn't the form of history that we expect to be written by today's standards, this doesn't necessitate the conclusion that it carries with it no prophetic importance. It is a form of writing common for its own time but not for ours,and if 'Moses' tells us that humanity is and has been separated from God, it can carry implications of general meaning for that separation whether the text itself is ultra literal history, or not.

In other words, I still believe that humanity is separated by sin from God, and I think this because I hold the chapters of Genesis 1-11 as a form of Cosmogonic and Prophetic writing. It tells us representationally and spiritually, even if not in absolute historical terms, about something we ourselves cannot fully test or see either from the past or in the present.

In parallel fashion, I also 'believe' that God created the universe and everything in it, not because I can directly and fully test for and clearly see His fingerprints in creation, but because at minimum, I accept the writing of the Torah as being prophetic in nature and indicating something to me, today, that I wouldn't have otherwise known on my own. And what does this offer me? This offers me a perception that I can believe God created the Universe on the one hand, as well as accept Evolution as a scientific explanation on its own terms on the other, and do so without direct metaphysical contradiction.

However, if other Christians feel they must interpret Genesis 1-11 in ultral literalistic terms as a qualification to hold these chapters as "true," I'm not going to bash them for it. I would simply ask that they return the epistemic courtesy.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

If the Genesis account is fiction, then there is no Biblical basis for the fall of man, sin, or the need of the Gospel

This is what I've been saying!

If everything is 'figurative/symbolic' what actually happened?

Jesus Christ, Himself, refers to the OT but time and time again I see people on here state that the OT is 'symbolic'.

It's very baffling!

 

[Job 33:6]

This is what I've been saying!

If everything is 'figurative/symbolic' what actually happened?

Jesus Christ, Himself, refers to the OT but time and time again I see people on here state that the OT is 'symbolic'.

It's very baffling!

Jesus referencing something as being true, is not equivalent to Jesus referring to something as being literal historical truth. There are many kinds of truths in the Bible. Like parables for example. Jesus references them as truth, but that doesn't mean that Jesus is explaining a historical account of the good Samaritan for example.

Another example would be when Jesus references Jonah.

Matthew 12:39–41
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus clearly treated Jonah as authoritative Scripture and used the story to teach about repentance, judgment, and his own death and resurrection through the “sign of Jonah.” However, his use of Jonah does not require the conclusion that he was making a modern, literal-historical claim about every detail of the narrative. In Jewish teaching, Scripture was often used typologically, drawing meaningful patterns from well-known texts, without classifying them by modern genre standards. While many Christians reasonably conclude that Jesus regarded Jonah as a historical event, the Gospels themselves do not force that conclusion, and Christian faith in Jesus does not depend on taking a specific position on the literal historicity of Jonah.

Also, consider the fact that Jonah sinks down to sheol. The pit (a common reference to the underworld of the OT, examples Psalms 30:3 ESV, Psalms 88:3-4 ESV, Psalms 143:7 ESV or Isaiah 14:9-11 ESV) where doors and bars closed upon him forever at the roots of the mountains.

Jonah 2:2-3, 5-6 ESV
[2] saying, “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice. [3] For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me.
[5] The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head [6] at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

This obviously isn't a literal historical event because we know that there isn't an underworld at the bottom of the sea.

So, people can call these things "fiction". But symbology, typology, and even mythology, are common concepts of the old testament. Jesus refers to them, so we conclude that they are true. But that doesn't mean that the truth is necessarily literal historical truth. As noted with the parables, truth can come in many forms and genres.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Jesus referencing something as being true, is not equivalent to Jesus referring to something as being literal historical truth. There are many kinds of truths in the Bible. Like parables for example. Jesus references them as truth, but that doesn't mean that Jesus is explaining a historical account of the good Samaritan for example.

Another example would be when Jesus references Jonah.

Matthew 12:39–41
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus clearly treated Jonah as authoritative Scripture and used the story to teach about repentance, judgment, and his own death and resurrection through the “sign of Jonah.” However, his use of Jonah does not require the conclusion that he was making a modern, literal-historical claim about every detail of the narrative. In Jewish teaching, Scripture was often used typologically, drawing meaningful patterns from well-known texts, without classifying them by modern genre standards. While many Christians reasonably conclude that Jesus regarded Jonah as a historical event, the Gospels themselves do not force that conclusion, and Christian faith in Jesus does not depend on taking a specific position on the literal historicity of Jonah.

Also, consider the fact that Jonah sinks down to sheol. The pit (a common reference to the underworld of the OT, examples Psalms 30:3 ESV, Psalms 88:3-4 ESV, Psalms 143:7 ESV or Isaiah 14:9-11 ESV) where doors and bars closed upon him forever at the roots of the mountains.

Jonah 2:2-3, 5-6 ESV
[2] saying, “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice. [3] For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me.
[5] The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head [6] at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

This obviously isn't a literal historical event because we know that there isn't an underworld at the bottom of the sea.

So, people can call these things "fiction". But symbology, typology, and even mythology, are common concepts of the old testament. Jesus refers to them, so we conclude that they are true. But that doesn't mean that the truth is necessarily literal historical truth. As noted with the parables, truth can come in many forms and genres.

So, was Jesus crucified and resurrected in 3 days or is that symbolism, too?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, was Jesus crucified and resurrected in 3 days or is that symbolism, too?

It is not an all or nothing situation. The Bible has many books and many genres. It takes discernment and historical consciousness to sift through it all and even then there will be differences of opinion and interpretation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is what I've been saying!

If everything is 'figurative/symbolic' what actually happened?

Jesus Christ, Himself, refers to the OT but time and time again I see people on here state that the OT is 'symbolic'.

It's very baffling!

As far as I know, no one here is saying that the first chapters of Genesis are 'symbolic.'

Probably one of the first things to recognize is that what we know of today as the Holy Bible isn't really a single book. Rather, it's a collective library of diverse literature from a very wide span of time, mostly Jewish and/or relatedly Jewish in nature.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

As far as I know, no one here is saying that the first chapters of Genesis are 'symbolic.'

Probably one of the first things to recognize is that what we know of today as the Holy Bible isn't really a single book. Rather, it's a collective library of diverse literature from a very wide span of time, mostly Jewish and/or relatedly Jewish in nature.

Thanks.

There is another thread where it has been suggested that Adam is symbolic so that's where my comments have followed through to here.

 

[Job 33:6]

So, was Jesus crucified and resurrected in 3 days or is that symbolism, too?

As Christians, we have doctrines and creeds that we hold to. Such as understanding the death and resurrection of Christ as events of history. That adherence to doctrines and creeds is not extrapolated out to old testament narratives.

Jesus’ use of Jonah as a typological sign does not undermine the historicity of his own death and resurrection. Jonah’s story, whether literal history or theological narrative, functions as a pattern pointing forward, whereas Jesus’ crucifixion is presented as a real, public event under Pontius Pilate, witnessed by followers and opponents alike, and anchored in specific places and times. Unlike Jonah, the cross and resurrection are claimed as events that are central to the Christian faith, as Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 15. Typology draws meaning from a story without negating the reality of the fulfillment, so Jesus’ use of Jonah as a sign presupposes, rather than diminishes, the literal historical truth of his death and resurrection.

Someone could believe that the resurrection was symbolic, though they would fall outside of the classic views of protestant denominations. They might be like jehovas witnesses or Unitarian universalists or some other category/denomination. As far as I am aware, most on these forums are some strand of protestants.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

As Christians, we have doctrines and creeds that we hold to. Such as understanding the death and resurrection of Christ as events of history. That adherence to doctrines and creeds is not extrapolated out to old testament narratives.

Jesus’ use of Jonah as a typological sign does not undermine the historicity of his own death and resurrection. Jonah’s story, whether literal history or theological narrative, functions as a pattern pointing forward, whereas Jesus’ crucifixion is presented as a real, public event under Pontius Pilate, witnessed by followers and opponents alike, and anchored in specific places and times. Unlike Jonah, the cross and resurrection are claimed as events that are central to the Christian faith, as Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 15. Typology draws meaning from a story without negating the reality of the fulfillment, so Jesus’ use of Jonah as a sign presupposes, rather than diminishes, the literal historical truth of his death and resurrection.

Someone could believe that the resurrection was symbolic, though they would fall outside of the classic views of protestant denominations. They might be like jehovas witnesses or Unitarian universalists or some other category/denomination. As far as I am aware, most on these forums are some strand of protestants.

Thanks.

And what about Jesus walking on water?

I have read, somewhere, that many believe this is symbolic because Jewish people were afraid of water so walking on it, parting the Red Sea, flooding the Earth etc all has to do with conquering a fear through symbolism.

Is there some reference point for your knowledge or do you have main stream knowledge that I haven't been privy to, due to not being in church for many years, until recently?

Thanks!