Creation, why we must accept it as given?

mjona3 said:

No eye witnesses (or even freind of a freind of a freind of a freind). Humans would have a hard time understanding what was going on anyways. Also, God is known to speak in stories and symbols.

Additionally, all of our scientific observations provide evidence that something very different happened.

I am not saying that it isn't literal in the details, I am saying that there are good reasons why some don't think they are literal.

And in no wise am I saying that they aren't inspired. If you say that the Bible isn't inspired, you lose Jesus... which is the heart of Christianity.

JM

Click to expand...

I was trying to read through the entire thread before I jumped in with my own observations and opinions but decided not to wait.

I believe it is made very clear when God is speaking in symbols. Does the story of creation truly appear symbolic? Are Adam and Eve symbolic of mankind in general or the first two humans created on this particular world? If so, is the temptation in the garden symbolic?

How much has scientific observation, theory, method etc., changed over the eons? How often have things of this physical world and universe been explained and then that explanation altered, replaced or completely retracted? Can we anticipate that what we see of scientific explanations and observations during this present day will change course in the future? Should we put our faith in man's interpretation of our physical world past that which is indeed proven? God has imbued His children with minds to understand and the tools to discern what is truth. Plus, He doesn't change.

Amen Peaceful.

PeacefulSDA said:

I was trying to read through the entire thread before I jumped in with my own observations and opinions but decided not to wait.

I believe it is made very clear when God is speaking in symbols. Does the story of creation truly appear symbolic? Are Adam and Eve symbolic of mankind in general or the first two humans created on this particular world? If so, is the temptation in the garden symbolic?

Click to expand...

Fair questions. A literal interpretation is not as stupid as some people may try to portray, as a lot of the language of Genesis (and the rest of the Pentateuch) is quite literal in character. However, consider this. The literary structure of the Pentateuch is quite easy to determine, even without being a Hebrew scholar. If you take a look through the first five books of the Bible, a pattern starts emerging. Prose narrative, which breaks into poetry in the high point (climax) of the story, followed by a short epilogue, or explination. With ocasional variation, this is the format.

Gen 1:1-26 - story,
1:27 - poetry
1:28-2:3 - afterword

Gen:2:4-22 - story
2:23 - poetry
2:24-25 - afterword

etc.

You can trace this patern throughout the rest of the Pentateuch. Perhaps the reason for this is that in an oral tradition, the mainpoint of a story would be remembered better when it is put into poetry form, or song form in some cases (see. Ex 15). What I am trying to say is that genre plays a significant part in understanding the purpose of a passage as well. For this reason we can see the great narrative parallels between the Noah story and the Exodus story. Were these stories similarout of coincidence, or because God made the story happen in order to be recounted in history, or is there an element of manipulation on behalf of Moses? (I don't have an answer to that.)

I believe that while the language is very literal, there is a case for acknowledging embelishment and exageration in the Pentateuchal stories, for the purpose of conveying a lesson to the Israelites. In the same way that the language of Jesus' parables is very literal, but we do not assume that they all literally happened.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to say that we can't trust the Pentateuch cause it's all stories, but I am saying that there is a case for recognising something we might call "preacher's liscence".

How much has scientific observation, theory, method etc., changed over the eons? How often have things of this physical world and universe been explained and then that explanation altered, replaced or completely retracted? Can we anticipate that what we see of scientific explanations and observations during this present day will change course in the future? Should we put our faith in man's interpretation of our physical world past that which is indeed proven? God has imbued His children with minds to understand and the tools to discern what is truth. Plus, He doesn't change.

Click to expand...

Isn't this also true of theology? It too has changed, been modified, retracted, replaced, etc. Like science, theology is the human act of interpreting something bigger and absolute.

DrStupid_Ben said:

Fair questions. A literal interpretation is not as stupid as some people may try to portray, as a lot of the language of Genesis (and the rest of the Pentateuch) is quite literal in character. However, consider this. The literary structure of the Pentateuch is quite easy to determine, even without being a Hebrew scholar. If you take a look through the first five books of the Bible, a pattern starts emerging. Prose narrative, which breaks into poetry in the high point (climax) of the story, followed by a short epilogue, or explination. With ocasional variation, this is the format.

Gen 1:1-26 - story,
1:27 - poetry
1:28-2:3 - afterword

Gen:2:4-22 - story
2:23 - poetry
2:24-25 - afterword

etc.

You can trace this patern throughout the rest of the Pentateuch. Perhaps the reason for this is that in an oral tradition, the mainpoint of a story would be remembered better when it is put into poetry form, or song form in some cases (see. Ex 15). What I am trying to say is that genre plays a significant part in understanding the purpose of a passage as well. For this reason we can see the great narrative parallels between the Noah story and the Exodus story. Were these stories similarout of coincidence, or because God made the story happen in order to be recounted in history, or is there an element of manipulation on behalf of Moses? (I don't have an answer to that.)

I believe that while the language is very literal, there is a case for acknowledging embelishment and exageration in the Pentateuchal stories, for the purpose of conveying a lesson to the Israelites. In the same way that the language of Jesus' parables is very literal, but we do not assume that they all literally happened.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to say that we can't trust the Pentateuch cause it's all stories, but I am saying that there is a case for recognising something we might call "preacher's liscence".



Isn't this also true of theology? It too has changed, been modified, retracted, replaced, etc. Like science, theology is the human act of interpreting something bigger and absolute.

Click to expand...

All excellent points.

Your final point, while definitely true to a degree, is not quite made. When did this become true of theology? Wasn't that a fairly modern trend, like after the first few centuries A.D. when those with ulterior motives got ahold of the scriptures and attempted to redefine man's role in the scheme of things? This was the cause that brought about the need for theological evolution, to get it back to its pure form; reformed.

PeacefulSDA said:

IHow much has scientific observation, theory, method etc., changed over the eons? How often have things of this physical world and universe been explained and then that explanation altered, replaced or completely retracted? Can we anticipate that what we see of scientific explanations and observations during this present day will change course in the future? Should we put our faith in man's interpretation of our physical world past that which is indeed proven? God has imbued His children with minds to understand and the tools to discern what is truth. Plus, He doesn't change.

Click to expand...

Scientific conclusions are the result of curiosity. First, for self-preservation and then for academic interest. Theology is the result of fear -- fear of the unknown. If the ONE true God had revealed to the ancients the truth about Himself where did all the other interpretations come from? Humans have demonstrated one thing and that is that when they have an explanation that works they will do everything they can to preserve that interpretation. The best example would be Ptolemaic theory. Everytime observations of the cosmos revealed a problem with the theory they simply tweaked the theory. Only in a crisis will humans seek a new interpretation. The multiplicity of theologies is clear indication that they were the result of human efforts to understand what they could not understand.

sentipente said:

Please explain what you mean. How do scientific observations not include creation or not include a Creator acting?
The scientific method is not a process. It is a tool used to interpret reality.

Click to expand...

There have been no acts of God or creation that we have scientifically observed.

A process is involved, an example: (from Wikipedia)

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

The data and hypothesis build on eachother, and develope as time goes on. Our current understandings, and theories, have not come to be from just our current measurements, rather they are based upon the previous centuries observations and theories.

Science has worked amazingly well as an description of the natural world. There is a reason why people tend to trust things that are called scientific (even if they aren't science, really), it is because of the success of the field. God definitely did give us minds, and science is the result of using them. I am not sure why some of you seem to be interested in discounting science, do you not use cars? computers? life for most of the world currently is intimately based upon science.

JM

mjona3 said:

There have been no acts of God or creation that we have scientifically observed.

Click to expand...

No acts of evolution have been observed either. All you have are end products.

I know much much less about biology, but I beleive that they have seen flies and bacteria and such evolving.

It is true that there hasn't been a 'large' change observed, but the scientific thing to do would be to make predictions based upon current observations.

It is true that biology doesn't get to as fundamental level as physics, but science can work on less fundamental things also (although I do admit that I prefer looking for the fundamental, like we do in high energy physics).

JM

Maybe you should drop the advocacy. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

sentipente said:

Maybe you should drop the advocacy. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

I know what science is (And works). I know how physics works. While I admit to not being a biologist, since I know how science works I trust them to do it properly, even though I don't know the details.

I don't see anyone here who is a biologist, but I certainly see a lot of people here making claims about biology.

JM

PeacefulSDA said:

All excellent points.

Your final point, while definitely true to a degree, is not quite made. When did this become true of theology? Wasn't that a fairly modern trend, like after the first few centuries A.D. when those with ulterior motives got ahold of the scriptures and attempted to redefine man's role in the scheme of things? This was the cause that brought about the need for theological evolution, to get it back to its pure form; reformed.

Click to expand...

I would say that the general theological culture of Jesus' time is a good example of distorted theology. There were really 4 different sects of Judaism, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the Zealots. They each had their different doctrines, for example, some (Sadducees I think) believed in the immortality of the soul. Going back further, the Old Testament is full of times when God's people moved away from God into other forms of theology, eg Ba'al worship, calf worship etc.

reddogs said:

God inspires and watches over the writers of His word, I am sure He would not have allowed the basis of many beliefs and the downfall of man to be put in scripture in a inprecise fashion. Everything on creation was specific and with purpose and the story of it was also very important and needed to be told as understandable as possible for man. Otherwise, it would lead to many interpretations, discord and false ideas, but it was given in a clear and orderly fashion that shows you the 'modus operendi' in how God does things. So we must accept Creation as it was given in scripture and God will fill in the extra details when we get to heaven.....

Click to expand...

Most of this begins with presuppositions that are likely not true. How did God watch over the writers, in most cases we don't even know who the writers were. Clearly there is much in the Bible that is in imprecise form. Do you really believe that God repented of making man at the time of the flood or that God shut the womb of several women in the old testament stories? Was it really God's instructions to kill adulterers and Sabbath breakers and nations at war leaving none alive but the virgin girls?

The creation story is set forth in a straight forward non technical non scientific method but that does not make it adequate to answer the technical and scientific questions. It means the story was used for a primitive people it does not mean that that primitive understanding is meant to endure for all time.

Very few of the fundamentalists accept the idea that we must wait for heaven to fill in the holes. In fact they constantly add their ideas to the story to fill them in themselves and then pretend that they are simply a part of the story. Those who hold to these stories like creation and the flood as literal rarely really hold them literally, they hold to their holes filled in story as literal. In many ways the literal view is a very fictitious view. A really good example is the death that was promised to Adam and Eve for eating the fruit. Clearly they did not die on that day (equally clearly day there meant "when") but to those who want to fill in the hole they say that they died "spiritually" on that day. They have no basis for such a view and in fact such a view would be meaningless because clearly in the story they still were able to commune with God so they could not be dead spiritually it is simply a method of filling in the story like they do with the animal used for clothing concept where it becomes God showing them the sacrificial system concept.

No most who claim the story as literal do not accept it literally.

I accept both creation and the flood as literal events. We don't understand everything concerning them, but that does not make them any less literal.

RC_NewProtestants said:

Most of this begins with presuppositions that are likely not true.

Click to expand...

Why don't we just PRESUPPOSE that it is true.

People believe in this forum that God can convert them and make them a new creation, but somehow creation and the flood are not literal events. It is totally ironic.

mva1985 said:

I accept both creation and the flood as literal events. We don't understand everything concerning them, but that does not make them any less literal.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you accept the implications of original creation? Do you accept that there is no being in the universe who can rival the Creator for authority? Do you believe that everything created belongs to the Creator and only He has the authority to give up ownership?
Just what do you believe about creation?

sentipente said:

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you accept the implications of original creation? Do you accept that there is no being in the universe who can rival the Creator for authority? Do you believe that everything created belongs to the Creator and only He has the authority to give up ownership?
Just what do you believe about creation?

Click to expand...

I said that I believe creation to be a literal event. Six days (24 hour days) of creation and the seventh day of rest (The Sabbath).

mva1985 said:

I said that I believe creation to be a literal event. Six days (24 hour days) of creation and the seventh day of rest (The Sabbath).

Click to expand...

That is not what I asked. I want to move to the implications of what you say you believe. BTW, please show me where you find the Sabbath in the Creation story without any "suppositions."

If you do not believe in the creation or the flood as literal stories, then how can you have any hope that God can do anything more than mere man. I worship and praise the almighty God... for me to believe that He has the power to save us, I atleast must believe that he had/has the power to create us.

There is a difference between believing in creation and the flood and believing the creation story and the flood story.

sentipente said:

That is not what I asked. I want to move to the implications of what you say you believe. BTW, please show me where you find the Sabbath in the Creation story without any "suppositions."

Click to expand...

The Sabbath is obviously tied to Creation by reference to creation in the fourth commandment. God rested on the seventh day. We are to work six days and rest on THE seventh - the Sabbath.

Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 look it up pretty simple. Two books of the Bible written by the same author.