tjnesbitt said:
Interesting, but how do you account for the creation of stars in Gen. 1: 16 if they are actually part of the first heaven created before the present age?
Upvote
0
The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?
- Thread starter Vance
- Start date
Interesting, but how do you account for the creation of stars in Gen. 1: 16 if they are actually part of the first heaven created before the present age?
gluadys said:
Genesis 1:16 reads:
"God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
This verse does not state when these were made. Instead it is only a statement of the fact that it was God who made them!
The stars are a part of the original creation prior to Genesis 1:1. In fact, since God is the same yesterday, today and forever I believe God continues to create. i.e. more stars.
Upvote
0
tjnesbitt said:
Ah, even more intriguing. I assume then, that to be logically consistent, you do not necessarily attribute the creation of other things to the specific days they are associated with in the Genesis account either.
I'd go along with that. And more species too.
Upvote
0
Vance,
Way to go, bro! Your thread here is smokin'. I feel like such a bandwagon tool posting my own two cents at this point. And if it weren't for a serious problem I have with my own view, I wouldn't have posted it all all. BTW, I apologize in advance if I missed any part of this thread that addresses my particular problem.
At any rate, I am an ardent proponent of biogenesis as it falls under the rubric of TE. I even subscribe to the 'scandalous' ideas on which Didaskomenos elaborated herein early on (e.g. that at least the first several books of the Bible are largely, if not wholly, mythological). The thing is -- and I've lost alot of sleep over this -- at just what point along the evolutionary ladder did our all merciful and all loving God decide to infuse immortal souls into the ape-like men he reared up from man-like apes? Put another way, whose immediate ancestors were left to fade into oblivion while they were swept up 'into the bosom of Abraham' for all eternity after Christ's death on Calvary?
Anomie
Way to go, bro! Your thread here is smokin'. I feel like such a bandwagon tool posting my own two cents at this point. And if it weren't for a serious problem I have with my own view, I wouldn't have posted it all all. BTW, I apologize in advance if I missed any part of this thread that addresses my particular problem.
At any rate, I am an ardent proponent of biogenesis as it falls under the rubric of TE. I even subscribe to the 'scandalous' ideas on which Didaskomenos elaborated herein early on (e.g. that at least the first several books of the Bible are largely, if not wholly, mythological). The thing is -- and I've lost alot of sleep over this -- at just what point along the evolutionary ladder did our all merciful and all loving God decide to infuse immortal souls into the ape-like men he reared up from man-like apes? Put another way, whose immediate ancestors were left to fade into oblivion while they were swept up 'into the bosom of Abraham' for all eternity after Christ's death on Calvary?
Anomie
Upvote
0
Anomie said:
1. Evolution is not a ladder.
2. Why do you think this is important information for us to know? What does it matter when our ancestors were given souls?
Upvote
0
Anomie, I personally don't think this is a question that matters a whole lot to our time here. I can see no way of ever determining when souls were given to humans. I suggest being content with not knowing the answer for the time being, and asking God about it when you see him.Anomie said:
Upvote
0
Hmmm! Right you all are. To represent the evolutionary process with a tree would be much more appropriate. And even this has its limitations since there must have been extraordinary leaps forward along the way from lower to higher life forms. We certainly could not have changed and/or advanced as far as we have in in the time the fossil record shows primates (of which we are a subspecies) to have existed.
And Dannager, I am preoccupied with such peculiar questions because they are so humbling and because I refuse to allow my mind to be taken over by the kind of thinking that makes God Almighty OUR possession, rather than we being HIS possession. The kind of thinking, for example, from which sprang so many of the bloated statements of the Book of Genesis or the assertion that my own primitive ancestors (I am a St. Regis Mohawk of the Iroquois Nation) were among those who slipped into oblivion because they knew nothing of Jesus Christ, when in all reality, they were BETTER than the overwhelming majority of them who brought Jesus Christ!
Anomie
And Dannager, I am preoccupied with such peculiar questions because they are so humbling and because I refuse to allow my mind to be taken over by the kind of thinking that makes God Almighty OUR possession, rather than we being HIS possession. The kind of thinking, for example, from which sprang so many of the bloated statements of the Book of Genesis or the assertion that my own primitive ancestors (I am a St. Regis Mohawk of the Iroquois Nation) were among those who slipped into oblivion because they knew nothing of Jesus Christ, when in all reality, they were BETTER than the overwhelming majority of them who brought Jesus Christ!
Anomie
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
artybloke said:
one of the long dominant metaphors in the discussion of living things is the 'great chain of being' it still seems to get used in scientific circles. such a natural way of looking at life, like teleology seems impossible to eliminate from our scientific thinking on the subject.
it would be useful to collect the metaphors commonly used:
ladder
great chain of being
bush- i think it was SJG that proposed this to replace tree, as too directional.
tree
forest--AiG's contribution, perhaps hedge is better description
Upvote
0
ascribe2thelord
Punk Rock Christian
I think I probably fall under #3. Where the evidence for evolution came from (millions of years, isotopes, etc.) is up for guessing.
To support a young earth creation, yet have evidence in existence for evolution:
It could be that a.) spiritual beings like Satan have the power to skew the evidence for YEC against God's account in Genesis, b.) we don't understand how isotopes/half-lives would operate during the supernatural creation process (assuming 6,000-10,000 years), preceding and at the moment of the fall of man, when sin entered the world, and of course during the flood, c.) we aren't seeing the full picture of time, as God sees it. He could very well have created earth and the universe 6,000 years ago, yet our sin in Eden caused us to fall from supernatural (creation) to the natural (evolution) - causing the millions of years of death and disease. How this would happen baffles my mind, but it may be true.
Or, the evidence for YEC could simply have been looked over in scientists' quest to dig up dirt on Darwin's theory.
To support a young earth creation, yet have evidence in existence for evolution:
It could be that a.) spiritual beings like Satan have the power to skew the evidence for YEC against God's account in Genesis, b.) we don't understand how isotopes/half-lives would operate during the supernatural creation process (assuming 6,000-10,000 years), preceding and at the moment of the fall of man, when sin entered the world, and of course during the flood, c.) we aren't seeing the full picture of time, as God sees it. He could very well have created earth and the universe 6,000 years ago, yet our sin in Eden caused us to fall from supernatural (creation) to the natural (evolution) - causing the millions of years of death and disease. How this would happen baffles my mind, but it may be true.
Or, the evidence for YEC could simply have been looked over in scientists' quest to dig up dirt on Darwin's theory.
Upvote
0
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
artybloke said:
If your problem with the "ladder" analogy is that it suggests our ancestors' conscious decision to scale through biological mutations to reach the point we are at, I agree. If you took issue with an intimation that evolution is teleological, there is no argument there either. But my hunch is that your response is a scientific challenge to a theological proposition. While evolution in practice is in no way teleological, the "theistic" in my evolutionism, if nothing else, sees that humanity was purposed to appear as the central goal of creation; hence our appearance in this biological form, though not through ex nihilo craftmanship, was intended and planned on from the beginning. Hence the ladder analogy fails only when it's not recognized that God, in His omniscient and sovereign manner, has chosen to use evolution as the one climbing the ladder and bringing us higher than the rest of creation. Again, it's a theological analogy, not a scientific one.
Upvote
0
relspace
Senior Member
Vance said:
This would be where I fit in. It isn't random but it isn't designed either. It is cultivated.
I believe that God, infinitely perfect in every way had no need for anything so His only motivation was to give of Himself. So God created the perfect object to which He could give: an object with infinite potentiality which could receive in fullness of His infinite actuality over a period of eternity.
God designed the universe with one purpose, to make life possible. Life has the capacity (potential) to become more than it is. It can learn and become what it is not. Living things have the power of creativity and choice. But without guidance and care living things will most likely get stuck in a dead end and fall prey to ill chance and the challenges of a constantly changing environment. So God plays the role of the careful gardner to raise up life from its tiny and fragile beginnings to realize its greater potentialities. God played the role of shepherd to breed diversity and encourage those with promise. God played the role of teacher to two humans to plant within them ideas like the seeds of all the possibilites of mind and spirit.
And after Adam and Eve turned these gifts of mind and spirit to twisted ends shutting God from their minds, God has continued to play the role of cultivator, shepherd and teacher to mankind to raise him up to greater spiritual awareness. Finally He came to earth in the form of man to reopen the door which Adam and Eve had closed so that once again He can live in our minds to give us new gifts and help us realize our greatest potentialities.
The atheist cannot see the hand of God in the creation of life for the same reason he cannot see the hand of God in the lives Christians. Evolution is like the sped up film of a growing plant with all the actions of the humans caretakers edited out. Sure living things live and grow by themselves. Sure living things creatively learn to find new ways to live their life, but that doesn't mean that there is no one there from whom they are learning.
Upvote
0
trinityisunity
Has lost 14 kilos (31 pounds) in 14 weeks!!!
I am definately a YECist. I also believe in a six day 24 hour creation.It is consistant with the Word of God -the bible.We accept Jesus by faith so we should accept what it says in Genesis by faith also.(my 2 cents).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
thirst2
Regular Member
6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.
That's me, though I believe in the pure idea of evolution. It was by trail and error that humans were formed. I think God planned to form humans but just that He let time take it's toll and, therefore, it was by trail and error.
That's me, though I believe in the pure idea of evolution. It was by trail and error that humans were formed. I think God planned to form humans but just that He let time take it's toll and, therefore, it was by trail and error.
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 43
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.
7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to Gods plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.
8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.
I'm probably closest to 8. I don't rule out an historical Adam and Eve, but I don't suppose it, either.
7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to Gods plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.
8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.
I'm probably closest to 8. I don't rule out an historical Adam and Eve, but I don't suppose it, either.
Upvote
0
- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I would definitely fall into #3 (although 4 is not out of the question); somewhat because of how I have been taught, somewhat because of some of the more interesting arguments against evolution, and also because I have yet to hear a really solid biblical exposition of TE viewpoints on Genesis 1-11, Psalms, Job, etc; that honors God as clear and honest in His presentation through His Word. Creation is under the curse, God's word endures forever... I chose to create my theology and hermanoutics primarily as best as I can from Scripture (though it is still thru the perception of fallen man), not from a fallen creation thru the perception of fallen man.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
food4thought said:
I am curious. Do you really think that the physics and chemistry and biology God created work differently since the fall?
In what way? Has gravity changed? Or electromagnetism? Was a water molecule not H2O in Eden? Do ants or elephants procreate differently than they did when they were first created?
This really really puzzles me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
