Polarization and beliefs on Creation

juvenissun · Mar 4, 2014

damoncasale said:
Yes, I mentioned genealogies above (both pharaonic and priestly) which contain lists of generations. And even though we don't have specific genealogies going back into prehistory, we can at least roughly estimate that there had to be several generations in the land of Egypt, a few dozen minimum in Nabta Playa, and dozens before that.

Damon

Fine, I think the argument about time might be important to you. So, how about this:

Give yourself all the time you need in your arguments. Say, 50,000 year. Is that enough? If not, then 100,000 years, or more.

So what? Does that prove the Genesis is wrong? Where is it wrong?

The fact that you based your faith (or lack of faith) on things you do not understand is not a good way of thinking.

damoncasale · Mar 4, 2014

juvenissun said:
Fine, I think the argument about time might be important to you. So, how about this:

Give yourself all the time you need in your arguments. Say, 50,000 year. Is that enough? If not, then 100,000 years, or more.

So what? Does that prove the Genesis is wrong? Where is it wrong?

The fact that you based your faith (or lack of faith) on things you do not understand is not a good way of thinking.

What are you talking about?

First of all, I'm not trying to make Genesis "wrong." It may not be completely literal, but I'm not saying it's "wrong" at all. I don't know if you read earlier in this thread, but I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Garden of Eden, set at roughly 4000 BC. But, given what I've studied scientifically, it seems like man was around long before that. Which means Adam and Eve weren't the first people.

Damon

juvenissun · Mar 5, 2014

damoncasale said:
What are you talking about?

First of all, I'm not trying to make Genesis "wrong." It may not be completely literal, but I'm not saying it's "wrong" at all. I don't know if you read earlier in this thread, but I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Garden of Eden, set at roughly 4000 BC. But, given what I've studied scientifically, it seems like man was around long before that. Which means Adam and Eve weren't the first people.

Damon

You believe, but you think otherwise. What kind of belief is that? To me, it simply says that you do not believe.

Since you have this problem (many Christians don't), you must find a way to solve it. Science CAN solve it. But you need to know more about science, which may be an impractical way. May be a little more logic and philosophical thought will help.

How about this: since the Bible does not have numbers like 2000, 4000, or 6000 anywhere, could we simply forget the 6000-year argument? That may help you quite a bit.

damoncasale · Mar 5, 2014

juvenissun said:
You believe, but you think otherwise. What kind of belief is that? To me, it simply says that you do not believe.

Err...I think you're getting confused regarding my personal beliefs vs. how I approach biblical interpretation.

juvenissun said:
Since you have this problem (many Christians don't), you must find a way to solve it. Science CAN solve it. But you need to know more about science, which may be an impractical way. May be a little more logic and philosophical thought will help.

How about this: since the Bible does not have numbers like 2000, 4000, or 6000 anywhere, could we simply forget the 6000-year argument? That may help you quite a bit.

Err...I think I've taken a fairly systematic approach to researching the scientific information I need in order to at least come to a provisional conclusion regarding whether man was around before Adam and Eve. And by the way, understanding this is important to me because I have two parents with wildly different views on religion -- including whether the Earth is 6,000 years old.

First, I compared the other ancient near eastern creation literature with Genesis 1-3, and asked the question, how is other ancient near eastern creation literature meant to be interpreted? What do we get if we interpret the bible the same way?

From that, I deduced that the Creation account *could* be using animals to represent other peoples (hence the odd mention of Adam first seeking for a suitable mate among the animals).

Next, in order to try to narrow down when this would've happened so I could see if this was a good comparison to make (between ancient near eastern creation literature and Genesis 1-3, that is), I looked at the genealogies in the bible. Then, I compared them with known secular genealogies, and found that there weren't many generational "gaps," at least not in the genealogy leading back to Noah.

Next, I looked at secular ancient history to try to establish a better reference point for understanding the cultural context of Eden.

Next, I looked at prehistory, human migration patterns, and climate change all from a scientific perspective.

Next, I studied scientific dating techniques to find out whether the dates mentioned in what I'd just studied about prehistory and human migration patterns were reliable, completely off base, or somewhere in the middle.

Anyway, it's apparent that this question isn't at all important for you to figure out or answer, but it is to me, because of my parents' religious differences (among other things). So I understand that you might approach this differently, but that's how I approached it and why.

Damon

juvenissun · Mar 5, 2014

damoncasale said:
Err...I think you're getting confused regarding my personal beliefs vs. how I approach biblical interpretation.

Err...I think I've taken a fairly systematic approach to researching the scientific information I need in order to at least come to a provisional conclusion regarding whether man was around before Adam and Eve. And by the way, understanding this is important to me because I have two parents with wildly different views on religion -- including whether the Earth is 6,000 years old.

First, I compared the other ancient near eastern creation literature with Genesis 1-3, and asked the question, how is other ancient near eastern creation literature meant to be interpreted? What do we get if we interpret the bible the same way?

From that, I deduced that the Creation account *could* be using animals to represent other peoples (hence the odd mention of Adam first seeking for a suitable mate among the animals).

Next, in order to try to narrow down when this would've happened so I could see if this was a good comparison to make (between ancient near eastern creation literature and Genesis 1-3, that is), I looked at the genealogies in the bible. Then, I compared them with known secular genealogies, and found that there weren't many generational "gaps," at least not in the genealogy leading back to Noah.

Next, I looked at secular ancient history to try to establish a better reference point for understanding the cultural context of Eden.

Next, I looked at prehistory, human migration patterns, and climate change all from a scientific perspective.

Next, I studied scientific dating techniques to find out whether the dates mentioned in what I'd just studied about prehistory and human migration patterns were reliable, completely off base, or somewhere in the middle.

Anyway, it's apparent that this question isn't at all important for you to figure out or answer, but it is to me, because of my parents' religious differences (among other things). So I understand that you might approach this differently, but that's how I approached it and why.

Damon

Your thinking process is another good example which illustrates possible hazards when Bible verses are interpreted non-literally. Virtually anything goes, such as animals can be used to represent people.

It is not good to do that.

A simple solution is, as I said, ignore that 6000 years idea. It is not Biblical. Then you can save all your imaginations. There is no human before Adam.

damoncasale · Mar 5, 2014

juvenissun said:
Your thinking process is another good example which illustrates possible hazards when Bible verses are interpreted non-literally. Virtually anything goes, such as animals can be used to represent people.

It is not good to do that.

A simple solution is, as I said, ignore that 6000 years idea. It is not Biblical. Then you can save all your imaginations. There is no human before Adam.

Well, we have a difference of opinion, then.

As far as taking verses non-literally, though, I'm doing that only after looking at whether a literal interpretation would make sense. I'm also using only biblical metaphors. (There are many other biblical passages which use animals to represent people. Especially in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.)

Looks like it would be best to agree to disagree on this.

Damon

Archie the Preacher · Mar 10, 2014

At some point - I cannot say exactly when - shortly after Darwin published his Origin of Species, one of two points of view sprang up; then the other quickly responded.

One: Some one or some group in the Christian faction looked at the idea, panicked, and decided 'This will destroy belief in the Bible and Christianity' and ignorantly declared the whole idea fraudulent.

Two: Some one or some group in the anti-Christian faction looked at the idea, chuckled with evil glee and decided 'This will destroy belief in the Bible and Christianity' and ignorantly declared the whole idea absolutely correct.

I suppose they could have arisen simultaneously, as well.

In response, the ignorant Christian faction declared "Anyone believing such things are heretics and should be shunned'. Simultaneously, the ignorant anti-Christian faction declared 'Anyone not believing such things are idiots and should be ignored'.

The fight has continued ever since; both factions driven by fear of exposure.

This fight has spread of course to the Creation of the Universe. In order to maintain the traditional Christian view, the ignorant Christian faction has mandated reading Genesis in a strictly literal manner - ignoring such things as the first three days of Genesis having a 'evening' and 'morning' without the existence of the Sun until the fourth day. The ignorant anti-Christian faction has mandated that admitting the age of the Universe mandates the non-existence of a Creator; ignoring the problem of how the Universe came into being.

And of course in all this, Satan has been encouraging both factions to ignore the evidence for the other side, effectively preventing any sort of resolution. As long as people are not seeing the whole picture, mankind remains ignorant of the complete picture which suits Satan immensely. Discord and ignorance are the work - and delight - of Satan.

The result is 'polarization'. The caricature "Christian" view is the Bible is literally correct in all places, is the sum total knowledge of everything AND all science is derived only though Satan and is intended to deny the existence of God. The caricature "science" view is God and Christianity are all fairy tales. Neither is correct.

For the record, I am a Christian. I have a relationship with the Creator through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. My soul belongs to the Creator, purchased by the blood payment of Jesus Christ. At the same time, I understand the Creator instituted the laws of physics as part of Creation and those laws are reliable and inviolable. (Which is not to say 'we' - humanity - understand them all completely.) Which makes me a 'heretic' to some Christians and a fool to the anti-Christian faction.

I can live with it.

damoncasale · Mar 10, 2014

Brilliantly put! Thank you!

My hypothesis on how to harmonize science and the Genesis might not be the right one, but what I'm hoping is that regardless, those who disagree aren't doing so out of fear. Fear that, by not believing in a completely literal Creation account, they are somehow rejecting God, God's omnipotence, God's ability to do what He says He is going to do, etc.

After having gone through about ten years of massive w t f moments, I've come to the conclusion that there's plenty I don't understand about God and how He works. I hope that, where I or any God-fearing person might see differences between what science teaches and what the bible teaches, we might be able to patiently reserve judgment until such time as we DO understand something.

Damon

Archie the Preacher · Mar 10, 2014

Damoncasale, you didn't address your response. Pardon my ego, but I'm presuming it was to me. If so, I can only say I've been fighting this view with myself (and some others) for some fifty years or so.

KWCrazy · Mar 10, 2014

damoncasale said:
Err...I think I've taken a fairly systematic approach to researching the scientific information I need in order to at least come to a provisional conclusion regarding whether man was around before Adam and Eve.

The problem is, science can't answer that. Adam and Eve were created by God. Science is the study of the physical world around us. There is no provision for God, no ability to validate or invalidate His existence, and accounting for any of the 333 miracles listed in the Bible.

My parents had divergent views as well. My mother believed in an old Earth and my father believed in nothing. I was raised to believe that evolution was a process God used to create the world over millions of years. After years of reading the Scriptures, however, I discovered that there is absolutely nothing which supports this. In creation, everything was created in its mature state including the planet itself over a six day period. God Himself declared that when He inscribed the Fourth Commandment into stone tablets given to Moses. So where do you put your faith; in God or in science?

The field of science is filled with people who say that there is no proof of God, and that belief in an imaginary being could be considered a mental illness. To be in complete agreement with them you must not hold any belief in God whatever. The thing these people will never admit is that, while science offers no proof of God, it also offers no disproof. Evolution beyond simple adaptation has never been validated, and it's entirely possible that the base pairs on the Ark multiplied into all the species we have today.

As to the age of the earth, I trust the genealogies of the Bible more than any scientific dating method. If the Scriptures indicate a young earth, then I trust the word of God. If there was anything in the Scriptures to support evolution the theistic evolutionists would flood the internet with it.

First, I compared the other ancient near eastern creation literature with Genesis 1-3, and asked the question, how is other ancient near eastern creation literature meant to be interpreted? What do we get if we interpret the bible the same way?

The account of creation given to Moses by God is a perfect account of exactly what happened. Moses was NOT the first literate man and was not the first to record the story of creation. Unlike other authors, however, his account was not changed by generations of re-telling.

From that, I deduced that the Creation account *could* be using animals to represent other peoples (hence the odd mention of Adam first seeking for a suitable mate among the animals).

Please demonstrate where in the Scriptures that assumption could be validated. I've read the creation account likely hundreds of times, but I never saw the like of it.

Anyway, it's apparent that this question isn't at all important for you to figure out or answer, but it is to me, because of my parents' religious differences (among other things).

Your mother and dad had their own ideas. Your Father holds the truth. Ignore what the atheists, the unbelievers and the ungodly say about the creation of the earth. Your Father told you how He did it. Your Father promised you that if you accept His son as your personal savior that you will never perish but will have everlasting life. Only your Father can offer you the gift of the Holy Spirit, which can answer any question you have.

Life is a journey with more questions than answers. Trust in the Lord and you'll find the right path.

damoncasale · Mar 10, 2014

Archie the Preacher said:
Damoncasale, you didn't address your response. Pardon my ego, but I'm presuming it was to me. If so, I can only say I've been fighting this view with myself (and some others) for some fifty years or so.

Yes, it was to you.

I'm actually thinking of writing a book dealing with what we can learn from addressing the science vs. religion controversy and how that kind of polarization affects other areas of life (politics, health care, climate change, etc.). The only challenge is, it seems that it's the polarized views that sell, not the moderate ones. So not sure how to overcome that stumbling block.

Case in point below.

KWCrazy said:
The problem is, science can't answer that. Adam and Eve were created by God. Science is the study of the physical world around us. There is no provision for God, no ability to validate or invalidate His existence, and accounting for any of the 333 miracles listed in the Bible.

Did you ever go to college? I'm asking because it wasn't until I got to college and was not only exposed to widely differing beliefs but also taught the scholarly methods by which those views might be compared and analyzed, that I really understood so-called critical thinking skills. It seems like your belief is coming more from emotion and passion, using logic to support it but not necessarily deconstruct it (e.g., play devil's advocate, for instance).

I never looked at science as a means of proving or disproving God's existence. Nevertheless, because the bible contains history, and because science can assist in analyzing things like chronology, archaeological evidence, etc., they do intersect.

KWCrazy said:
My parents had divergent views as well. My mother believed in an old Earth and my father believed in nothing. I was raised to believe that evolution was a process God used to create the world over millions of years.

Not to impute any less significance to your background, but it seems like there wasn't the same tension that there was in my family. Not unless your father didn't approve of your mother's religious views and repeatedly tried to dissuade her from them, that is.

I'm mentioning this because it was precisely that tension which made me want to really delve into both sides, not just to pick apart what was wrong, but to see what might be *right* -- even though they strongly disagreed with each other.

It just seems like you would rather make science wrong in order to make the bible "right." So I think we approach things very differently, and I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this.

KWCrazy said:
The account of creation given to Moses by God is a perfect account of exactly what happened. Moses was NOT the first literate man and was not the first to record the story of creation. Unlike other authors, however, his account was not changed by generations of re-telling.

Have you ever heard of the tablet theory of Genesis authorship?

KWCrazy said:
Please demonstrate where in the Scriptures that assumption could be validated. I've read the creation account likely hundreds of times, but I never saw the like of it.

It's not so much a matter of "validation" as a combination of things.

1) The literary style of Genesis 1-3 seems to match that of other ancient near eastern creation myths. These myths were allegories and contained symbolism, but had literal elements.

2) When Eden is referred to in, say, the book of Ezekiel, it's mentioned in the same context as animal symbolism. See Ezekiel 31:2, 8-9, 16, and 18, then compare it with 32:2. Verse 2 reads, "You are as a taniym of the seas." This is the same word used in Genesis 1:21: "God created great taniyn, and every living creature that moves," etc. The best translation for this term in context is crocodiles.

3) Genesis 1-3 is constructed as an inverted chiasmus. Genesis 6:22 is a simple example of one:

A - Thus did Noah
B - According to all that God commanded him
A' - So he did.

A' parallels A, having a similar subject or content. The main topic of importance being emphasized is B. Genesis 1-3 is simply an extremely complex inverted chiasmus with dwelling with God on the Sabbath day as the central focus of importance. Darkness in Gen. 1:2 parallels exile in Gen. 3:24. The creation of man in Gen. 1:26 parallels the creation of man in Gen. 2:7. etc.

And in particular, the creation of the taniyn in Gen. 1:21 parallels the serpent in Gen. 3:1. The taniyn (crocodiles) seems to represent Egypt or Egypt's ruler, while the serpent would seem to represent someone from Sumer. Thus, Adam wasn't looking for a suitable mate among the "animals" (Gen. 2:18-20), but rather the other peoples of the Earth at that time. Instead, God gave him Eve.

Damon

mark kennedy · Mar 11, 2014

damoncasale said:
Have you ever heard of the tablet theory of Genesis authorship?

Just thought I would jump in here. Genesis was authored by Moses and other Levites. There is no indication of any such tablets and the Pentateuch was probably finished before they ever crossed Jordon.

It's not so much a matter of "validation" as a combination of things.

1) The literary style of Genesis 1-3 seems to match that of other ancient near eastern creation myths. These myths were allegories and contained symbolism, but had literal elements.

It seems that before we dismiss the Hebrew Scriptures as contrived or derived we should consider what we could compare it to. What you will find from that region and those periods are dead languages, dead cultures and dead religions with one significant exception, the Hebrew Scriptures.

And in particular, the creation of the taniyn in Gen. 1:21 parallels the serpent in Gen. 3:1. The taniyn (crocodiles) seems to represent Egypt or Egypt's ruler, while the serpent would seem to represent someone from Sumer. Thus, Adam wasn't looking for a suitable mate among the "animals" (Gen. 2:18-20), but rather the other peoples of the Earth at that time. Instead, God gave him Eve.

Damon

Here is an important parallelism from the Genesis account of Creation:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)

It uses a special word for this creation, it's 'bara' (H1254 - bara' בָּרָ&#1488

, it's a word used only of God and only of a new creation. It's used once in Gen. 1:1 for the creation of the 'heavens and the earth'. The creation of life (Gen. 1:21) and the creation of man it's used three times in Gen. 1:27.

The ancient Hebrews did this for a reason, it was used for emphasis, it's very common in Hebrew Scripture. It emphasizes that God created the universe, all that is in them and especially, God created life. There is nothing like this in the sparse pagan literature from the era, the elementals always proceeded the gods.

Assyrian · Mar 11, 2014

mark kennedy said:
the Pentateuch was probably finished before they ever crossed Jordon.

Joshua 24:25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and put in place statutes and rules for them at Shechem.
26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD.
The books the Israelites had crossing the Jordan werent finished and werent in the form we have today.

damoncasale · Mar 11, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Just thought I would jump in here. Genesis was authored by Moses and other Levites. There is no indication of any such tablets and the Pentateuch was probably finished before they ever crossed Jordon.

Browse to www dot ldolphin dot org, search for the word "tablet" on the page, then click on the link for "tablet theory of Genesis authorship". It gives a pretty good explanation for why Genesis may have been composed as a series of tablets by Adam, Noah, etc. themselves, and then later collated by Moses.

I suspect that you might have thought that the "tablet theory of Genesis authorship" was supposed to dismiss the authorship of the Pentateuch. Far from it. But on the other hand, if Genesis were originally composed as a series of tablets, then the literary style of one might easily differ from the literary style of another.

That's what I was getting at.

mark kennedy said:
It seems that before we dismiss the Hebrew Scriptures as contrived or derived we should consider what we could compare it to. What you will find from that region and those periods are dead languages, dead cultures and dead religions with one significant exception, the Hebrew Scriptures.

So are you implying that we shouldn't bother studying dead cultures? Ancient Egypt? Babylon? Assyria?

Seems that in the past couple of centuries, there were biblical scholars with an avid interest in excavating archaeological remains, etc., to try to shed light on the bible.

That's all I'm doing, trying to shed light on it.

mark kennedy said:
Here is an important parallelism from the Genesis account of Creation:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)

It uses a special word for this creation, it's 'bara' (H1254 - bara' בָּרָ&#1488, it's a word used only of God and only of a new creation. It's used once in Gen. 1:1 for the creation of the 'heavens and the earth'. The creation of life (Gen. 1:21) and the creation of man it's used three times in Gen. 1:27.

The ancient Hebrews did this for a reason, it was used for emphasis, it's very common in Hebrew Scripture. It emphasizes that God created the universe, all that is in them and especially, God created life. There is nothing like this in the sparse pagan literature from the era, the elementals always proceeded the gods.

Exactly. That's why Genesis 1-3 was a polemic against those other, earlier stories.

And as far as the use of the term bara, we've been over this before, Mark. You mentioned that it's used in connection with the creation of life, but I countered that the use of the term taniyn is closer in context than "every living thing," etc., in that verse.

Look, we're each firmly convinced that our own respective position is right, and we have plenty of evidence marshalled to back it up. We can go around and around on this, but what I think we do agree on is that God made a covenant with Adam and Eve, who were real people who lived roughly six thousand years ago.

Okay?

Assyrian, as far as the Pentateuch not quite being finished and in the form we have it today, absolutely agreed. In fact, the Pentateuch was gradually added to and edited over time (NOT the way the JEDP theory claims, however). For instance, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 mentions setting a king over the Israelites. There wasn't any king in Moses' time, so this was added later once Saul was crowned king. The instructions for keeping "Passover" in Deuteronomy 16:1-8 were edited, probably in the time of Ezra, when the term "Passover" came to apply to the whole Feast of Unleavened Bread (compare Ex. 12:1-20). Ex. 12:9 specifically says to roast the Passover lamb with fire and do NOT boil it in water. In contrast, Deut. 16:7 uses a verb which is translated "roast" but actually means "boil".

Probably the best book on how the bible came to be composed is "Restoring the Original Bible" by Ernest Martin. It's available online at askelm dot org. Click on the "books" menu, then "books online", then "Restoring the Original Bible".

Anyway, there are probably plenty more examples of editing that we don't know about, as well. The point, Mark, is that, no, biblical minimalists aren't correct that Deuteronomy was composed when King Josiah "found" the book of Deuteronomy in a trash heap in the Temple. But on the other hand, no, the Pentateuch wasn't composed inviolate and wholly by Moses.

Damon

KWCrazy · Mar 11, 2014

damoncasale said:
Did you ever go to college?

Yes, I have a B.S. degree.

It seems like your belief is coming more from emotion and passion, using logic to support it but not necessarily deconstruct it (e.g., play devil's advocate, for instance).

Actually it comes for seeking the truth and trying to find some justification for believing as I was taught; that the earth was in fact old and that evolution was part of God's process. Not only could I not find Scripture to support it, everything interconnected with the idea of a young planet. This is one reason that first three chapters of genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New testament alone. God wants us to understand that He created the world by speaking it into existence, and that he, not physics, is the Lord of the universe. Experience supported what I learned until now there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Genesis means exactly what it states.

I never looked at science as a means of proving or disproving God's existence.

Science is a wonderful field of study. It's what the non-believers do with it that makes it look as though we oppose it. Everything known in biology remains true if the ark was real, but only the existence of God could explain the apparent time compression.

KWCrazy · Mar 11, 2014

damoncasale said:
I'm mentioning this because it was precisely that tension which made me want to really delve into both sides, not just to pick apart what was wrong, but to see what might be *right* -- even though they strongly disagreed with each other.

I was always the one who had to have the answers. I read at 3-4 times the speed of most of my classmates. I did most math problems in my head. I was a constant honor roll student and went to college with an academic scholarship. I met graduation requirements on my entrance exam so I had no prerequisites. I passed the MENSA test but never joined because I wasn't much of a joiner. My approach to problem solving was strictly logical, but there were a number of experiences early in life which showed that God was real. In short, I didn't just believe what I was told.

The age of the earth was never a topic of of discussion at home. My grandmother, a solid Baptist woman, believed that the earth was as young as the genealogies show. My mother believed that science was right about the age of the earth, though she also gave God the credit for creation. As for tension, we had our share. It just wan't the same kind as yours. I did search the Bible for evidence of what I believed, but that was when I believed in an old earth.

It just seems like you would rather make science wrong in order to make the bible "right."

No, the Bible is right because it's the word of God. Science is wrong because it studies the natural world, and our world had supernatural origins.

So I think we approach things very differently, and I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this.

Produce passages of Scripture to support what you believe and you might yet convince me. however, no T.E. has ever been able to do so; probably because no such information exists.

Have you ever heard of the tablet theory of Genesis authorship?

Yes.

The literary style of Genesis 1-3 seems to match that of other ancient near eastern creation myths.

They wrote about the creation based on handed down accounts, but there was no divine inspiration in what they wrote so their accounts are flawed by the embellishment of man. Moses was not the first to write about the creation. He was, however, the only one to get the story from the Creator.

damoncasale · Mar 11, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Actually it comes for seeking the truth and trying to find some justification for believing as I was taught; that the earth was in fact old and that evolution was part of God's process. Not only could I not find Scripture to support it, everything interconnected with the idea of a young planet. This is one reason that first three chapters of genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New testament alone. God wants us to understand that He created the world by speaking it into existence, and that he, not physics, is the Lord of the universe. Experience supported what I learned until now there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Genesis means exactly what it states.

Okay, well, I have doubts. I've purposefully avoided the topic of evolution because that's not my expertise, but from what I've researched, Egyptian chronology goes back to about 3100 BC. For at least 500 years before that, we have archaeological remains showing that the same peoples were living in Egypt prior to the start of recorded history. For at least a thousand years before that, there were peoples living at Nabta Playa who eventually migrated into Egypt when the Sahara desert dried up. Sometime roughly three thousand years before that, there were peoples living in North Africa using the same rock art motifs as what was later found in Egypt. They even left behind pottery, dated to roughly 7500 BCE.

I know you think there was time compression going on. If I set the bible as THE standard and forced it to be literal, then I would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion. But what I've done instead is to set the bible and science as equal, and where they seem to differ, reserved judgment until I could come up with a possible resolution.

I think we have very different approaches. I chose this one because of my experiences growing up and because of what I experienced at college. I'm sure you have your reasons for why you chose yours.

Damon

Papias · Mar 12, 2014

Damon wrote:

But what I've done instead is to set the bible and science as equal, and where they seem to differ, reserved judgment until I could come up with a possible resolution.

I think we have very different approaches.

Indeed, the two of you do appear to have very different approaches. On reading the last few posts, my approach is yet another different one.

For me, all truth is God's truth, and as such, we can see from both scripture and what God tells us in his creation how to interpret scripture. This helps us see how to interpret Genesis. Rejecting a 7 literal day interpretation was done both by some early Christians as well as more recent ones, and taking a deeper interpretation of that scripture (instead of a simple literal reading) is supported mostly by the symbolic, poetic, and structured nature of Genesis itself.

The only conflict I see is not between the study of the natural world and scripture - both are from God, so that's not possible - but instead between different interpretations of scripture.

I don't think it's a salvation issue, and I'm happy to accept others with different views in discussion - as Damon and I did about the genealogies.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

KWCrazy · Mar 12, 2014

Papias said:
For me, all truth is God's truth, and as such, we can see from both scripture and what God tells us in his creation how to interpret scripture.

Perhaps you would be good enough to post where exactly God tells us to believe man's interpretation of His creation over His message to man regarding how He created it. Specifically, since the Fourth Commandment contains the words of the Lord Himself reminding us that He created the world in six days, (Exodus 20:11) what specifically can you cite to tell us that He didn't mean six days when he carved "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day," into the stone tablets he gave Moses.

Rejecting a 7 literal day interpretation was done both by some early Christians as well as more recent ones,

Rejection the admonition not to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was done by 100% of the first two humans, so does that mean they were right and God was wrong?

All this talk about rejecting "the literal" interpretation of the Scriptures is put forward as if it's some higher plain of learning. What did Jesus say? He used the words "It is written" 25 times in the Gospels. Would that indicate that we should accept the Scriptures as written, or that they really don't mean much of anything?

and taking a deeper interpretation of that scripture (instead of a simple literal reading) is supported mostly by the symbolic, poetic, and structured nature of Genesis itself.

Rejection of the Scriptures isn't my idea of "taking a deeper meaning."
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
Deuteronomy 12:31 "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it."

Revelation 22: "18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Probably the most obvious contradiction to what you are saying is found in Galatians 1:
"6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

The only conflict I see is not between the study of the natural world and scripture....

The problem I see is that those who study the natural world are trained and educated to do so from a strictly naturalistic approach. They look for ways to explain our origins based on what they find in rocks. Secondly, our schools constantly promote junk science as factual. Man made global warming, discredited horse evolution and a list of other factual errors comprise much of what students are being taught.

The study of science is an amazingly important field. However, in our personal lives what matters most is how we serve the Lord. Real truth lies with the Creator, not the creation. Trust the word of the Lord over all the claims of men, and in the end you'll be the wise man.

Papias · Mar 12, 2014

KW wrote:

Perhaps you would be good enough to post where exactly God tells us to believe man's interpretation of His creation over His message to man regarding how He created it.

Sigh. It sounds again like a creationist having the arrogance to think that their personally favored interpretation is the only one possible. Maybe you can post where God tells us to believe one man's interpretation over another man's interpretation?

Specifically, since the Fourth Commandment contains the words of the Lord Himself reminding us that He created the world in six days, (Exodus 20:11)

Exodus also has God telling us how he flew the Jews out of Egypt "on eagles wings". Why do you deviate from the plain, literal reading of the text there, rejecting God's words? Or do you accept God's words there, that giant eagles flew a couple million people away?

See the point?

Anyway, I fear that this is getting away from Damon's original question about his model for origins, and moving toward general ways of interpretation, which you and I have discussed previously, and which cover the same views expressed by many people on these threads in either direction.

In Christ-

Papias

Polarization and beliefs on Creation

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

Newbie

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

Newbie

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Listening to TW4

Newbie

Listening to TW4

Similar threads