Polarization and beliefs on Creation

KWCrazy · Mar 23, 2014

gluadys said:
No,it proves he believed that the story of Adam and Eve was a good teaching tool. And he believed in creation, not creationism.

Your statement has no basis in fact and no support in the Scriptures. There is not a single word in the relevant passage to indicate that Christ thought it to be just a teachable myth. The fact is, Christ quoted from Genesis 2. Why would He do that if it was mythology?

Your argument is based in rejection of Scripture, not understanding. That's why you can't produce evidence from the Bible to support it.

Yes, people all over the world, including those in the days the bible was being written, once thought the earth was young in comparison with modern thinking. Although even in ancient times there were also those who thought the earth was eternal.

Name three. Provide evidence to support your claim.

They didn't know that before because they had never looked at the evidence before.

They didn't have reason to believe the earth was older because they knew better.

What I said is that young-earth creationism is a modern idea, not that a young earth is a modern idea.

All evidence points to Jesus being a young earth creationist, which again shows your statement to be false. Making up a new name doesn't make it a new belief. It's just another distortion.

It is only in modern times that some people believe the earth is young in defiance of the evidence of its actual age.

Its actual age is given to us by the one who created it. The Lord created a mature planet as was detailed in Genesis 1.

Belief in the biblical account of creation does not require belief in young-earth creationism.

Right!

I believe in the Biblical account of creation as much as you do.

Right!

I just don't consider it to be a scientific account.

Whoever said creation was a scientific process or that Genesis gave a scientific account? You DO KNOW that science and truth are not synonyms, right?

It is rather strange to find someone who rejects science also thinks that not believing the Genesis account is a scientific account is equivalent to rejecting Scripture.

You realize that your statement is a blatant lie, right? I've never met anyone who rejects science, although I'm told some Jehovah Witnesses reject much of it. I reject evolution. Evolution is not science. Evolution is a THEORY which some hold to be true and others hold to be false. Science is the study of the physical world around us. The two are not the same and intelligent people don't use them interchangeably.

So tell me this: why should we take the Genesis account to be a scientific account?

Who asked you to? Is the resurrection a scientific account? Did Jesus teach about the majesty of God or the majesty physics? Can you NOT differentiate the difference between science and truth?

No, it is not. It is a conclusion forced on one who takes the evidence seriously.

That's your opinion, not a factual statement. I consider the word of God to be compelling evidence. You apparently do not.

There is no better rational explanation for the distribution of biological traits either geographically, developmentally or chronologically.

That's your opinion, not a fact. I believe in a common Creator. You believe in common progenitor. Both require the impossible, but only God can actually DO the impossible.

KWCrazy · Mar 23, 2014

Assyrian said:
... Nor did Christians in the past oppose established science with their interpretation of Genesis.

If you don't believe that science can exist without bowing to the altar of Darwinism, then you don't know much about science.

How can you say the Torah fit perfectly with the known account handed down, when the two creation accounts in the Torah itself contradict each other if they are read as literal history?

News flash: There are NOT two creation accounts. There is only one. Genesis 2 begins with: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." You need to read the book, not just the talking points from atheist websites.

Jesus and the disciples teaching from Genesis is very different from teaching us to interpret it literally.

The problem is that you can't produce even a single passage of Scripture to back up what you say. Jesus actually quoted from Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It obviously wan't mythology to Him.

There is a danger in reading your literal interpretation of Genesis into occasions where Jesus and his disciples teach from Genesis and then assuming they were teaching Genesis literalism.

Yes, severe danger. One might realize that the Scriptures actually teach a direct contradiction to the lie of evolution. Then one might have to make a choice whether to believe his unbelieving educators or the word of God.

God has spoken to the human race in metaphor and parable throughout the bible

That doesn't change the fact that verbiage of the creation account, the genealogies of the Bible, the Fourth Commandment and the fact that the first three chapters in Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament alone give evidence to its historical truth, and you can't point to ANY passages which indicate the creation account to be a metaphor.

mark kennedy · Mar 23, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Yes, severe danger. One might realize that the Scriptures actually teach a direct contradiction to the lie of evolution. Then one might have to make a choice whether to believe his unbelieving educators or the word of God.

Just one minor point here, it's one of my pet peeves. Evolution is a living theory, it's about how traits change after life has started. The real controversy is when and by what means traits change in populations over time. There can be no serious question, especially among Creationists, whether or not evolution happens as a naturally occurring phenomenon. Creation itself has almost nothing to do with evolution as it is properly defined scientifically. Darwinian evolution and atheistic materialism on the other hand...well...that's something else entirely.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Assyrian · Mar 23, 2014

KWCrazy said:
If you don't believe that science can exist without bowing to the altar of Darwinism, then you don't know much about science.

'Science' that dismisses established evidence based science as 'bowing to the altar of Darwinism' isn't real science, just some sort of religious commentary.

News flash: There are NOT two creation accounts. There is only one. Genesis 2 begins with: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." You need to read the book, not just the talking points from atheist websites.

If Genesis 1 & 2 are a single creation account why is there a Creation account title "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 2:4? Where does the bible tell you there is only on creation account in Genesis? Perhaps you should read the book instead of getting bad information from creationists. What we do have in the two chapters are two different descriptions of how plants, animal, birds, and male and female humans were created. And much worse for literalists: the plants, animal, birds, and people are created in completely different orders in the two chapters.

Jesus and the disciples teaching from Genesis is very different from teaching us to interpret it literally.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you can't produce even a single passage of Scripture to back up what you say. Jesus actually quoted from Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It obviously wan't mythology to Him.

So where does Jesus teach his disciples to interpret Genesis literally? He used Gen 2:24 to teach about divorce, not to teach the Pharisees to literal interpretation. He used the parable of the Good Samaritan to teach about loving you neighbour.

There is a danger in reading your literal interpretation of Genesis into occasions where Jesus and his disciples teach from Genesis and then assuming they were teaching Genesis literalism.

Click to expand...

Yes, severe danger. One might realize that the Scriptures actually teach a direct contradiction to the lie of evolution. Then one might have to make a choice whether to believe his unbelieving educators or the word of God.

You haven't addressed my point.

That doesn't change the fact that verbiage of the creation account, the genealogies of the Bible, the Fourth Commandment and the fact that the first three chapters in Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament alone give evidence to its historical truth, and you can't point to ANY passages which indicate the creation account to be a metaphor.

No it is just evidence of the importance they placed on Genesis, you need to show it being quoted to teach the creation accounts as literal history as opposed to teaching lessons on marriage and divorce.

KWCrazy · Mar 23, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Just one minor point here, it's one of my pet peeves. Evolution is a living theory, it's about how traits change after life has started.

Well, yes and no. Evolution can be described as the change of allele frequencies over time. That, however, is not what is being taught or promoted. The observable facts of evolution fit perfectly with post-flood speciation. However, evolutionists take it further and claim that science proves all living things came from a single cell millions of years ago, and that if you reject that claim then you reject EVERYTHING about science. This takes it beyond science and into the unprovable; which is to say; faith. It has become for many a religion to take the place of what the Scriptures teach.

gluadys · Mar 23, 2014

damoncasale said:
Well, I guess my discomfort with arguing stems from seeing two people I love (my parents) do it incessantly while I was growing up. So it bothers me a lot while it might not bother others so much.

A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. You can't make a rose bloom before it's time. Or, in other words, when a person is ready to change their beliefs, you'll know, and before then there's no point in arguing.

Damon

A very good point. I know that kwcrazy and some others will not be convinced by arguments here. So it is pointless to quarrel or get frustrated or angry about it.

I do think that sometimes, even if people seem very far from accepting any different view, it is good to present it. A lot of people would not know that other options are possible otherwise. And when the day comes that they are ready to be convinced, at least they know that other options exist.

I like it best when I can discuss these ideas with someone who is posing serious questions rather than making accusations of unbelief because I don't agree with their dogma.

KWCrazy · Mar 23, 2014

Assyrian said:
If Genesis 1 & 2 are a single creation account why is there a Creation account title "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth"

Do you know what a creation account is?
Genesis 1 describes the actual creation. Genesis 2 begins the story of man.
Question. When did this occur?
Genesis 2:
5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;
6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
.
.
Answer- previous to day six, because man had not yet been created.

7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
This happened on day six, as described in Genesis 1.

8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
It isn't specifically stated whether this was on day six or after day six, but it would make sense for God to have placed Adam in the garden of Eden immediately after creating him.

You see, if you actually read the chapter you'll see that it goes into more detail about certain elements of the creation, but it is NOT a creation account. Perhaps you should read the book instead of getting bad information from atheist websites.

What we do have in the two chapters are two different descriptions of how plants, animal, birds, and male and female humans were created.

No, sorry, we do not. Your statement is absolutely false. There is nothing in the second chapter of Genesis which gives a completely different description of creation. I challenge you to back up your unfounded assertion.

And much worse for literalists: the plants, animal, birds, and people are created in completely different orders in the two chapters.

What book are you reading? The second chapter of Genesis doesn't give a description of how any animals were created.

So where does Jesus teach his disciples to interpret Genesis literally?

Where does Jesus teach that Genesis is false? In fact, where does Jesus teach that ANYTHING in the Scriptures is false? Jesus quoted from the Scriptures perfectly and taught that they are the words of God. If the world were billions of years old and mankind had evolved He certainly would have told us that. Please cite chapter and verse where He explains this.

He used Gen 2:24 to teach about divorce, not to teach the Pharisees to literal interpretation.

Why would He do that if Genesis 2 was nothing but metaphor? Sorry, but you're trapped in your own false doctrine. You're admitting that Jesus quoted authoritatively from a book you hold to be superstition and myth.

He used the parable of the Good Samaritan to teach about loving you neighbour.

Note two things. 1. The story of the Good Samaritan is NOT recorded in Genesis. 2. There is no indication whether the incident actually happened or if it was only a metaphor. Not knowing that, how could it possibly buoy your case?

You haven't addressed my point.

Sorry, but I don't see ANY THREAT WHATEVER in teaching that the Bible means what it very clearly states. The threat comes from those who publish false doctrine and call the Bible mythology. The Scriptures warn of false teachers; that they will deceive many.

KWCrazy · Mar 23, 2014

gluadys said:
I know that kwcrazy and some others will not be convinced by arguments here.

If your interpretation of Scripture cannot be supported by passages of Scripture, why should your arguments hold merit? I could well say that Jesus commanded you to send me all of your money. Would you believe my unsupported assertion?

I like it best when I can discuss these ideas with someone who is posing serious questions rather than making accusations of unbelief because I don't agree with their dogma.

I'm easy to get along with; just show Scriptural support for what you claim. If evolution is true, then there HAS TO BE far more support for it in the Bible than there is for a six day creation.

gluadys · Mar 23, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Same root word, same root meaning...

But not same meaning in today's English. Two other words with the same root are "humus" and "humility". But we would hardly consider them synonymous.

The age of the earth is irrelevant.

To you, yes, but not to the person I was responding to (kwcrazy). I take it this is a message to him.

Nonsense, we see further with science then the ancients did with the naked eye, not because we are giants but because of the tools we inherited. In spite of that, we cannot match their work and virtually all our modern tools are based on what they developed unaided by modern device.

I am glad you agree we do see further. It is certainly no disparagement of the wisdom or intelligence of the ancients that for whatever reason we have a larger, deeper and more accurate knowledge base than they did. And it is also the case that having a better knowledge base does NOT mean we have more wisdom. There is much we can still learn from the ancients on that score.

No, modernism is an a priori rejection of the power of God as the explanation for the origin of life.

I disagree entirely with this statement. The founders of a modern worldview were often devout Christians who had no intention of rejecting the power of God. Rather they saw their work as amplifying our understanding of God's work in a way that redounded to the greater glory of God.

While that perspective has not been adhered to by many over the centuries since, it is a worthwhile one that is worth restoring among Christians and other theists.

The difficulty here, it seems to me, is the curious inability of many Christians to acknowledge the power of God when it is expressed through, rather than in counterpoint to, natural process. IOW the power of God can be and is often expressed with no indication of miraculous additions to natural process.

We have certainly failed to embrace the wisdom of our ancient teachers if we have large numbers of Christians who think "power of God" only refers to visibly identifiable miracles.

The age of the earth is pointless conjecture having no bearing on the Genesis account of Creation. Creation is the point of origin for a habitable earth and life on this planet:

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

Agreed.

Do you know what a parallelism is and why a triple parallelism indicates the heart of the emphasis? Are you familiar with the word 'bara' in the Hebrew, why it is used only of God and used more times in this verse then the entire account of Creation?

Do you understand Creation is essential doctrine, inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and New Birth? Do you know why you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and more importantly, why it takes a miracle, 'Bara', in order to wash, renew and regenerate the sin cursed sons of Adam?

yes, yes, yes, yes (with qualification), and yes.
Qualification: I am a creationist. I am not a young-earth or old-earth or progressive creationist. I am an evolutionary creationist (aka theistic evolutionist.) My positive answers to all the above do not require a rejection of evolution by natural selection, nor of universal common descent of all living things on earth today.

No of course it wouldn't be a scientific account, because natural science is focused on natural phenomenon. It can't be used to dismiss a miraculous creation by divine fiat, related by the only one who witnessed the events, the only one who was there, 'In the beginning'.

However a divine fiat only says "Let it be". It does not require that what comes to be happen instantaneously or without natural process. When God says (divine fiat) "Let the earth produce vegetation" and the earth does, the divine fiat is equally well expressed by an instantaneous popping up of mature fruit trees and an evolutionary process of hundreds of millions of years to produce fruit trees.

Christ, John tells us in Revelation, was slain before the foundation of the world, yet he was not crucified in Jerusalem until around the year 33 of the Christian era. What God commands to be, need not appear until its time.

I have never seen a Creationist reject science,

I have never seen a young-earth or other evolution-denying creationist admit to rejecting science, but I have certainly seen a rejection of science many times, including from you.

Not once have I seen a Theistic Evolutionist defend the Scriptures against the endless ridicule of atheistic materialism

Obviously that is not needed on this forum which is closed to atheists.

yet they continuously attack the foundational belief of Christian theism, in concert with the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution.

I attack nothing foundational to Christian doctrine. I deny that Darwinian evolution depends in any way on "naturalistic" assumptions if by "naturalistic" you mean an alliance with a god-denying philosophy.

I prefer to use the term "natural" which has no connotation of atheism. Science is the study of what is natural; and, in Christian theology, what is natural is what comes from God.

Define science and do an actual exposition of the Creation account.

What do you mean by "define science"? There is actually a good deal of philosophical controversy over what delimits science from other intellectual activities.

I won't go into an in-depth exegesis here, as that is a major undertaking in itself, but I would refer you to the excellent exegesis of Lee Irons: The Upper Register: Papers and mp3's by Lee Irons (who, by the way, is not a theistic evolutionist).

There is no excuse for this kind of negligence because Theistic Evolutionists are remiss in their due diligence with regards the Scriptures and science. Yet for reasons that remain obscure, at least to me, they never hold themselves or other TEs accountable to standards of science, nor will they admit standards of hermeneutics.

I suppose you think the standards of the Chicago statement are good standards of hermeneutics. I respectfully disagree; I think those standards lead to incoherent and confused exegesis. It seems to me that you are basically oblivious to theological and hermeneutical discussion that does not fit your pre-conceived framework.

I have certainly seen and even participated in many good theological and hermetical discussions right here on this forum. And you can easily find more on line. May I recommend in particular An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution Even though the last posting was three years ago, there is a wealth of rich theological and hermeneutical discussion still available there.

So please don't tell me that Theistic Evolutionists are neglecting exposition of scripture, because that is far from the truth and if you haven't encountered it, you haven't been looking.

gluadys · Mar 23, 2014

KWCrazy said:
[Your statement has no basis in fact and no support in the Scriptures. There is not a single word in the relevant passage to indicate that Christ thought it to be just a teachable myth.

Not a single word to indicate he didn't either.

The fact is, Christ quoted from Genesis 2. Why would He do that if it was mythology?

Why wouldn't he? Nothing wrong with quoting from a myth that I know of. We are in the middle of a Lenten Bible Study at my church it has included studying Genesis. In fact today's segment was on the Fall and Original Sin, so we were looking especially at Genesis 3. Yes, we think it is a myth, but we also believe it speaks the truth about us and the human predicament of sin. Our priest showed us how it is tied into our baptismal vows about rejecting Satan, the corrupt powers of the world and the temptations of our own sinful desires. I don't see how you can call this rejecting scripture.

Name three. Provide evidence to support your claim.

Which claim? Two were named.

They didn't have reason to believe the earth was older because they knew better.

LOL. They didn't know at all. One way or the other.

[All evidence points to Jesus being a young earth creationist, which again shows your statement to be false.

No, there is no evidence at all to show that. Nor is there any evidence to show that he was not. It is a matter scripture gives us no guidance on.

Its actual age is given to us by the one who created it.

I know that is your interpretation. But there have been other interpretations pretty much as long as there have been scriptures. In Jesus' day, a common interpretation, based on Moses was that each Genesis "day" was 1,000 years. Maybe that was his belief too. We have no way of knowing.

The Lord created a mature planet as was detailed in Genesis 1.

Again, I respect that this is how you interpret Genesis 1. I just don't think it is the best interpretation.

Right!

Yep!

Whoever said creation was a scientific process or that Genesis gave a scientific account?

Isn't that what you mean by "literal"? That if a scientist, or other observer could have been there, he or she would literally see a firmament lifting waters above the waters and dry land appearing under it and sprouting mature vegetation, lights appearing suddenly in the sky, birds, fish and whales suddenly appearing in the air and waters, cattle, wild animals and creeping things suddenly appearing on land, and finally, human beings in a mature state?

Sorry, if I misunderstood, but by "scientific" I mean a report of what can be seen to be happening. The testimony of one's own eyes and ears.

I reject evolution. Evolution is not science. Evolution is a THEORY which some hold to be true and others hold to be false. Science is the study of the physical world around us. The two are not the same and intelligent people don't use them interchangeably.

We will have to agree to disagree here. Evolution is science, Evolutionary theory is science. Those who reject the fact and theory of evolution are rejecting science. Science is indeed the study of the physical world around us, and through that study we know evolution to be a property of the physical, biological world. Them's the facts.

Who asked you to? Is the resurrection a scientific account? Did Jesus teach about the majesty of God or the majesty physics?

You did. At least if I understand your position on taking the creation accounts literally. See two paragraphs above.

No, the resurrection is not a scientific account. It is, however, a truthful account. Science is true, mostly, but it is not all that is true. You can have truth that is not scientific.

That's your opinion, not a factual statement. I consider the word of God to be compelling evidence.

Actually, it is a factual statement, not just a personal opinion. I too consider the word of God to be compelling evidence. I also consider, as scripture encourages us to do, and as Christian orthodoxy recommends, that the testimony of the physical creation is a word of God and so constitutes compelling evidence.

That's your opinion, not a fact. I believe in a common Creator. You believe in common progenitor. Both require the impossible, but only God can actually DO the impossible.

LOL. You claim you do not reject science, but you have just rejected, twice in a row, two scientific statements as mere personal opinion. I believe in a common Creator AND a common progenitor. There is no need to make a choice here.

damoncasale · Mar 24, 2014

gluadys said:
I like it best when I can discuss these ideas with someone who is posing serious questions rather than making accusations of unbelief because I don't agree with their dogma.

Which is why I decided to try another forum.

I did find a Yahoo group which seems like it might work, at least for the scholarly approach I'm looking for. I also found a web site of a person who started off religious but ended up a secular humanist due to problems he found in the bible. Even if I don't agree with where he ended up, the biblical and historical scholarship on his web site looks pretty astounding so I think I'll study what he wrote for a while. Interestingly enough, he seemed to cue in on the same idea I came up with of Genesis 1-3 being a polemic against other ancient near eastern creation literature, although he called it an "inversion" instead. Oh, and he came up with the idea long before I did, apparently.

Damon

gluadys · Mar 24, 2014

damoncasale said:
Which is why I decided to try another forum.

I did find a Yahoo group which seems like it might work, at least for the scholarly approach I'm looking for. I also found a web site of a person who started off religious but ended up a secular humanist due to problems he found in the bible. Even if I don't agree with where he ended up, the biblical and historical scholarship on his web site looks pretty astounding so I think I'll study what he wrote for a while. Interestingly enough, he seemed to cue in on the same idea I came up with of Genesis 1-3 being a polemic against other ancient near eastern creation literature, although he called it an "inversion" instead. Oh, and he came up with the idea long before I did, apparently.

Damon

I often find that an idea I thought was original to myself has actually been around for quite a while. While it may be a blow to my pride, in some ways it is also comfortingly affirming to know that others have come to the same conclusion before me. Yes, the idea the Genesis 1-3 is a polemic against the polytheism of Gentile nations is pretty old hat in academic circles and is commonly taught in seminaries and theological colleges. Here is a link to Yale's open courses on the Old and New Testaments, Open Yale Courses | Religious Studies If you go to the first lecture on the Old Testament, you will see the professor outlining this concept. Btw the whole course is well worth following.

damoncasale · Mar 24, 2014

gluadys said:
I often find that an idea I thought was original to myself has actually been around for quite a while. While it may be a blow to my pride, in some ways it is also comfortingly affirming to know that others have come to the same conclusion before me. Yes, the idea the Genesis 1-3 is a polemic against the polytheism of Gentile nations is pretty old hat in academic circles and is commonly taught in seminaries and theological colleges. Here is a link to Yale's open courses on the Old and New Testaments, Open Yale Courses | Religious Studies. If you go to the first lecture on the Old Testament, you will see the professor outlining this concept. Btw the whole course is well worth following.

Actually found that as well, and posted that in the other forum I mentioned. Forgot to link it here, though.

Anyway, she had the idea of a polemic, too, but the article I'm talking about showed how Genesis 1-3 takes several themes from ancient near eastern creation literature and turns them 180 degrees around to say the opposite thing. I had been saying that too, although not using the term "inversion" to say it so succinctly. Maybe I'm making too big a deal, making a difference where there really isn't one.

What struck me, though, was how in-depth the other web site I found went. For instance, in one article he discussed problems with David Rohl's alternative chronology, showing why Rohl's dating of Saul and David to Late Bronze Age II instead of Iron Age I didn't match up. Rohl came up with his alternative chronology and found multiple biblical synchronisms between the biblical chronology and that of ancient Egypt, going so far as to date the Exodus during the reign of an obscure twelfth dynasty pharaoh. But for instance, Saul was supposedly presented as king at "Mizpeh" according to 1 Samuel 10:17-25. But in looking at the stratigraphic evidence for occupation at Mizpeh (as well as several other places Samuel and Saul were said to camp at or visit), it didn't exist for LBA II, but *did* exist for Iron Age I.

It's this kind of in-depth analysis which shows why a lot of scholars think that earlier portions of the bible aren't historical, that the Exodus didn't happen, etc. That the Israelites sort of crept into the land of Canaan instead of triumphantly conquering it like the bible says they did, when the bible says they did it. And this guy is clearly explaining all of that. So, rather than sticking my fingers in my ears and playing the "don't confuse me with the facts" game that I've seen various posters of a YEC persuasion do in this thread, I'd rather go talk to the guy and see what I can learn. At least understand *why* the conventional scholarly opinion is what it is, before attempting to study alternative positions like Rohl's.

Damon

Archie the Preacher · Mar 24, 2014

The initial question in this thread is that of why the polarization on this question? Oddly enough - he said with a twist of irony - the two main camps have different opinions on the root cause of the polarization of thought. (No one saw that coming, right?)

So here is my proposal: Everyone - everyone in both camps - pray for two things.

One: That all those of the opposing camp be drawn closer to God, God's truth, God's will and greater understanding.

Two: That each of us - both camps - surrender our will and knowledge to God, to do with as He pleases.

If anyone thinks someone else is outside the grace of God, they must pray for the salvation and God centered life of that suspected person.

No one gets to pray "God, prove I'm right!" Instead, we all pray for God to be glorified.

Any takers?

Archie the Preacher · Mar 24, 2014

Damoncasale, I've been to any number of Christian and or 'religious' forum sites. This one is as 'serious' as it gets. Sorry.

The sites with the least amount of 'bickering' are those with a very tight restriction on discussion and free speech. In other words, the non-bickering places are all one faction and no dissent allowed. No one learns anything without some difference of view or approach.

The good thing about being opposed is one learns what one really believes, and more important, why one believes it.

So please, stick around.

damoncasale · Mar 24, 2014

Archie the Preacher said:
The initial question in this thread is that of why the polarization on this question? Oddly enough - he said with a twist of irony - the two main camps have different opinions on the root cause of the polarization of thought. (No one saw that coming, right?)

So here is my proposal: Everyone - everyone in both camps - pray for two things.

One: That all those of the opposing camp be drawn closer to God, God's truth, God's will and greater understanding.

Two: That each of us - both camps - surrender our will and knowledge to God, to do with as He pleases.

If anyone thinks someone else is outside the grace of God, they must pray for the salvation and God centered life of that suspected person.

No one gets to pray "God, prove I'm right!" Instead, we all pray for God to be glorified.

Any takers?

I like that approach.

Archie the Preacher said:
Damoncasale, I've been to any number of Christian and or 'religious' forum sites. This one is as 'serious' as it gets. Sorry.

The sites with the least amount of 'bickering' are those with a very tight restriction on discussion and free speech. In other words, the non-bickering places are all one faction and no dissent allowed. No one learns anything without some difference of view or approach.

Well, I'm sorry that that's been your experience. I'm not actually looking for a *Christian* forum, though. Instead, I'm looking for a scholarly one that tries to be objective about the text. And by "objective" I don't mean secularly biased and claiming all sorts of crap like Christianity simply borrowed the concept of a messiah from Egypt, or the Romans invented Jesus for a political agenda. (Seen both of those and steered well clear of that particular forum.)

The Yahoo group I found is dedicated to historical analysis of the bible, nothing else, so I'm hopeful that that'll help.

I also got a response back this morning from the gentleman I mentioned in an earlier post, with the scholarly web site. I'm asking him about stratigraphy, how we know when things happened and how that gets classified (e.g., Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age I, etc.) and also about David Rohl, whose chronology has been mentioned in this thread as supporting the bible but for which this particular web site gave very scholarly reasons why it doesn't work. I'm curious about that.

Damon

Assyrian · Mar 24, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Do you know what a creation account is?

Yes.

Genesis 1 describes the actual creation. Genesis 2 begins the story of man.

Genesis 2 describe God creating man, plants, beasts, birds and woman. Sounds like a creation account to me.

Question. When did this occur?
Genesis 2:
5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;
6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
.
.
Answer- previous to day six, because man had not yet been created.

How about previous to creating plants on day three? The problem of course is God creating man when there were no plants, which is a completely different order to Genesis, not to mention creating birds same time as animals and creating man before animals.

7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
This happened on day six, as described in Genesis 1.

8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
It isn't specifically stated whether this was on day six or after day six, but it would make sense for God to have placed Adam in the garden of Eden immediately after creating him.

Genesis 2 doesn't bother trying to reconcile it own account with Genesis 1 at all.

You see, if you actually read the chapter you'll see that it goes into more detail about certain elements of the creation, but it is NOT a creation account. Perhaps you should read the book instead of getting bad information from atheist websites.

So far all my points have been on what the book says. There is no suggestion it is simply examining some of the elements in more detail, instead it is presenting its own creation account with out any reference to Genesis 1 or any concern about the completely different order of creation.

No, sorry, we do not. Your statement is absolutely false. There is nothing in the second chapter of Genesis which gives a completely different description of creation. I challenge you to back up your unfounded assertion.

All you have to do is look at the order that plants, animal, birds, and male and female humans are created in the two different accounts.

What book are you reading? The second chapter of Genesis doesn't give a description of how any animals were created.

He made them out of clay like he made Adam.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air.
The Hebrew is even more descriptive, 'form' yatsar is the word for a potter.

Where does Jesus teach that Genesis is false? In fact, where does Jesus teach that ANYTHING in the Scriptures is false? Jesus quoted from the Scriptures perfectly and taught that they are the words of God.

I never said Genesis was false, unless you consider the parables Jesus made up 'false'. You see to be reading you own ideas into Jesus' teaching. If you want to support your literal interpretation of Genesis by saying Jesus and the apostles quoted it, you need to show they taught literal interpretation. Jesus certainly considered Genesis inspired and authoritative. But so are his parables. They are the word of God, authoritative, and metaphors.

If the world were billions of years old and mankind had evolved He certainly would have told us that. Please cite chapter and verse where He explains this.

Jesus never told us about bacteria, electromagnetism, the earth being an oblate spheroid or it rotating and orbiting the sun.

Why would He do that if Genesis 2 was nothing but metaphor? Sorry, but you're trapped in your own false doctrine. You're admitting that Jesus quoted authoritatively from a book you hold to be superstition and myth.

Jesus obviously had a very different attitude to metaphor than you do. He thought metaphors and parables were great for teaching truth, he wouldn't have used them so often if they weren't

Note two things. 1. The story of the Good Samaritan is NOT recorded in Genesis. 2.

Don't see the relevance of that, the issue is that lessons on divorce and being a neighbour can be taught through metaphor. And if they can be taught through metaphor and parable, then teaching about divorce through Genesis does not mean interpreting Genesis literally.

There is no indication whether the incident actually happened or if it was only a metaphor. Not knowing that, how could it possibly buoy your case?

I think it is a pretty good illustration of how literalism blinkers creationist's understanding of the bible when creationists start to claim the parables were literal too. Jesus spent three years teaching his disciples to understand and appreciate metaphor and parable. You need to learnt from him too

Sorry, but I don't see ANY THREAT WHATEVER in teaching that the Bible means what it very clearly states. The threat comes from those who publish false doctrine and call the Bible mythology. The Scriptures warn of false teachers; that they will deceive many.

There are two problems in reading your own ideas into scripture. The first is simply that you miss out on what the passage is actually teaching, but much worse, by elevating your own ideas to the level of scripture you make them impervious to reproof or correction.

KWCrazy · Mar 24, 2014

Assyrian said:
Genesis 2 describe God creating man, plants, beasts, birds and woman. Sounds like a creation account to me.

I'm sorry that you don't understand.
5 Now no shrub had[/B] yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

1. Genesis 2 does not describe the creation of the world.
2. Go back and learn 1.

The problem of course is God creating man when there were no plants, which is a completely different order to Genesis, not to mention creating birds same time as animals and creating man before animals.

Click to expand...

The greater problem is that God did NOT create man before creating plants.
The word "then" means next in a time order.
"but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

Genesis 2 doesn't bother trying to reconcile it own account with Genesis 1 at all.

Click to expand...

Genesis 2 does not describe creation and does not change the order. Genesis two deals with the origination of humanity.

"The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field?

The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic..."

"....The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise; it was a demonstration of Adam's dominion over the entirety of nature. The giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of sovereignty and command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign, and this will come into play as we develop our argument that assumes reading "formed" as a simple past tense.

Now for recollection purposes, let's once again quote the key passage:

Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Notice: God "formed" beasts and fowl here -- but he brings before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle -- the domestic creatures! Where did they come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside), and that the "forming" of the beasts and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam "samples" of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign. (For after all, why should a king have to wait for his subjects to wander in when he can have them brought to him at once?)

In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, G1 and G2 demonstrate a perfect consistency.

This explanation is also supported by the chiastic structure of the report of the animals: They are cited in the order, "beasts...fowl...cattle...fowl...beasts" -- suggesting that the report is done by design, not because the writer couldn't see contradiction so plainly in front of him."
source

All you have to do is look at the order that plants, animal, birds, and male and female humans are created in the two different accounts.

Click to expand...

There aren't two creation accounts.

He made them out of clay like he made Adam.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air.

Click to expand...

Dirt is dirt. You have a distinction without a difference.

Jesus never told us about bacteria, electromagnetism, the earth being an oblate spheroid or it rotating and orbiting the sun.

Click to expand...

He never said such things were non-existent, either. Jesus taught using metaphors. The purpose and manner of man's creation is a little more than just a metaphor, and there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that it might be so. The Bible is very specific about man's creation. There is no reason to doubt it other than for man's desire to subjugate the word of God for the theories of other men.

I think it is a pretty good illustration of how literalism blinkers creationist's understanding of the bible when creationists start to claim the parables were literal too.

Click to expand...

Nobody said they were. I said the Bible makes no distinction one way or the other. Whether the parable of the Good Samaritan was based on an actual event or not is unknown. YOU are the one proclaiming that it's only a made up story without having any evidence whatever to support your claim.

There are two problems in reading your own ideas into scripture. The first is simply that you miss out on what the passage is actually teaching, but much worse, by elevating your own ideas to the level of scripture you make them impervious to reproof or correction.

Click to expand...

That's exactly why I use the actual verbiage of the Scriptures to support my arguments, and I post the entire passage; not words or phrases taken out of context like many do. If you want to fault my interpretation of Scriptures, you need to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.

Assyrian · Mar 25, 2014

KWCrazy said:
I'm sorry that you don't understand.
5 Now no shrub had[/b] yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundtrees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

1. Genesis 2 does not describe the creation of the world.
2. Go back and learn 1.

Its the things Genesis 2 describes God creating that make it a creation account, not the things it doesn't describe.

The greater problem is that God did NOT create man before creating plants.
The word "then" means next in a time order.
"but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

Click to expand...

And God is doing this in a barren wilderness, like it says in verse 5. In fact verse 5 gives us two reasons there were no plants, there was no rain and no gardener. The verse you quoted shows what God did about it, providing water and forming man to till the ground. It is only ten that we see God planting a garden.

Genesis 2 does not describe creation and does not change the order. Genesis two deals with the origination of humanity.

Click to expand...

...and plants and animals and birds.

"The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field?

The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic..."

Click to expand...

Worth bearing in mind the the phrase 'of the field' is used repeatedly in Genesis 2&3. Beasts of the field are wild animals as opposed to livestock.

"....The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise; it was a demonstration of Adam's dominion over the entirety of nature. The giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of sovereignty and command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign, and this will come into play as we develop our argument that assumes reading "formed" as a simple past tense.

Now for recollection purposes, let's once again quote the key passage:

Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Notice: God "formed" beasts and fowl here -- but he brings before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle -- the domestic creatures! Where did they come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside), and that the "forming" of the beasts and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam "samples" of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign. (For after all, why should a king have to wait for his subjects to wander in when he can have them brought to him at once?)

In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, G1 and G2 demonstrate a perfect consistency.

This explanation is also supported by the chiastic structure of the report of the animals: They are cited in the order, "beasts...fowl...cattle...fowl...beasts" -- suggesting that the report is done by design, not because the writer couldn't see contradiction so plainly in front of him."

Click to expand...

Chiastic structure says the writer was referring to Genesis 1? That is a pretty wild leap. The fact your website ends having to claim god created all the beasts and birds twice is a pretty good indication it isn't being read properly. Its like going to an optician and seeing two letter As on the top line.

source

Click to expand...

I thought you were insisting looking at what the book said. now you are quoting large chunks from from JP Holding.

There aren't two creation accounts.

Click to expand...

And yet you claim beasts and birds were created twice.

Dirt is dirt. You have a distinction without a difference.

Click to expand...

I am saying there is no distinction. Genesis 2 describe God creating animals from dirt the same way he created Adam.

He never said such things were non-existent, either.

Click to expand...

He didn't say evolution didn't happen either.

Jesus taught using metaphors. The purpose and manner of man's creation is a little more than just a metaphor, and there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that it might be so. The Bible is very specific about man's creation. There is no reason to doubt it other than for man's desire to subjugate the word of God for the theories of other men.

Click to expand...

Actually God as a potter making people from clay is a very common metaphor in the bible. Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Nobody said they were. I said the Bible makes no distinction one way or the other. Whether the parable of the Good Samaritan was based on an actual event or not is unknown. YOU are the one proclaiming that it's only a made up story without having any evidence whatever to support your claim.

Click to expand...

If you have to argue parables could have happened you need to you need to understand scripture better. Matt 21:40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons." Look how Jesus invited his listeners to make up their own ending to the story. No one thought it odd that Jesus could go from telling a story you think might have happened, to putting the ending in the future and asking his listeners to fill in the logical conclusion. But people in the bible understood parables better than modern literalists.

That's exactly why I use the actual verbiage of the Scriptures to support my arguments, and I post the entire passage; not words or phrases taken out of context like many do. If you want to fault my interpretation of Scriptures, you need to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

You assumed Jesus and the apostles quoting Genesis meant they interpreted it literally. That is reading things into scripture Jesus and the apostles never taught.

Philothei · Mar 28, 2014

Mod hat on
This thread went through a clean up and some posts were deleted.
Please do not call each other "non Christians" that is flaming! Stick to the topic at hand. This is not to debate theology but Creation and Evolution etc.

Mod hat off

Polarization and beliefs on Creation

Newbie

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Legend

Newbie

Newbie

Legend

Legend

Newbie

Legend

Newbie

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Love never fails

Similar threads