The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

BobRyan · Oct 20, 2020

Vance said:
There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of Gods Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka "Day-Age Creationists", another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to Gods plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that *whatever* you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening randomly. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above, although the most recent and influential of these have been Theistic Evolutionists (ie, they accept that species evolved over billions of years, including man, but that God directed the process all the way, it was not random or wholly naturalistic).

So, where do you fit in? I dont necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

3.5 for me.

jamesbond007 · Dec 20, 2020

I'm learning about Moses and the people of his time. These are whom we should call prehistoric people if we descended from Adam and Eve. No people lived in caves such as the Neanderthals. That is just evolution (scientific atheism) mythology.

Solid 3.

PhantomGaze · Mar 4, 2021

I find myself 7/8. But I'm very interested in Intelligent Design and how it relates to our understanding of life and origins.

The Barbarian · Mar 4, 2021

PhantomGaze said:
I find myself 7/8. But I'm very interested in Intelligent Design and how it relates to our understanding of life and origins.

Have you read Michael Denton's books? He seems to be able to accommodate teleology into a naturalistic process. I think the term is "pre-loading", i.e. God made the Universe in such a way that it would produce the things He intended to be.

PhantomGaze · Mar 5, 2021

The Barbarian said:
Have you read Michael Denton's books? He seems to be able to accommodate teleology into a naturalistic process. I think the term is "pre-loading", i.e. God made the Universe in such a way that it would produce the things He intended to be.

I've read Evolution A Theory In Crisis, but I haven't read Nature's Destiny. I've seen a "Front-Loading" hypothesis thrown around a bit, but I can't say I've seen too much development of the idea over the long term. It would be interesting to see more constructive work done on the idea. Alternatively, I would also like to see more of a research program with a design perspective (even with the Front-Loading Hypothesis possibly) on useful things like medicine and such rather than just trying to prove itself or so to speak in origins discussions.

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

PhantomGaze said:
Alternatively, I would also like to see more of a research program with a design perspective (even with the Front-Loading Hypothesis possibly) on useful things like medicine and such rather than just trying to prove itself or so to speak in origins discussions.

It's more of a philosophical position than a research platform. But I think Denton might be onto something real, even if ID is a delusion.

"According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview."
From Nature's Destiny

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

The Barbarian said:
Have you read Michael Denton's books? He seems to be able to accommodate teleology into a naturalistic process. I think the term is "pre-loading", i.e. God made the Universe in such a way that it would produce the things He intended to be.

I prefer to read what God said about it in Gen 1-2

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

jamesbond007 said:
I'm learning about Moses and the people of his time. These are whom we should call prehistoric people if we descended from Adam and Eve. No people lived in caves such as the Neanderthals. That is just evolution (scientific atheism) mythology.

Solid 3.

ok ... well that is true

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

BobRyan said:
I prefer to read what God said about it in Gen 1-2

For whatever reason, God didn't decide to tell us how He did it. He merely said that He did. Left a few clues, though. For example, He says that life was created naturally, from the Earth, not as special creation.

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

The Barbarian said:
For whatever reason, God didn't decide to tell us how He did it.

hmm he only gave us the 7 day timeline where each day was "an evening and a morning" -- and the "from the dust of the ground" part but not all the "other parts" needed for us to "be God" and do it ourselves.

Interesting that even in the form of legal code - Ex 20:8-11 reminds us that those 7 evenings and mornings are just like ours today.

In other words - the very part He did specify so simple that anyone can read it -- is the part that atheists who believe in evolution are least inclined to accept and at the same time it is the part that Bible believing literal Genesis readers are most inclined to believe.

Wow -- how "odd"

"odd-er still" is the fact that the atheist scholarship in Hebrew languages and OT studies - in all world-class universities agree with the "literal Genesis readers" that the timeline we all see there is exactly what the text is conveying and what was intended for the reader to get.

Hint: Moses was no "darwinist" and everyone on planet Earth pretty much agrees with that part.

If Genesis 1 and 2 had simply said the one statement "somehow in some unknown timeline God made everything... can't give any details" or something of that fashion - Denton's argument would easily fit it. Saying nothing but "in some unknown fashion and timeline I take credit for having done it" fits any story one might want to slap on to it as "the details".

The less the data details the more horsefeathers that can be added as decoration

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

jamesbond007 said:
'm learning about Moses and the people of his time. These are whom we should call prehistoric people if we descended from Adam and Eve.

Since Moses was literate, we can't call those people "prehistoric."

No people lived in caves such as the Neanderthals.

People have always lived in caves, where usable ones were available. Some people still do. It's very sensible. Good protection from weather, relatively constant temperature, very reasonable rent. However, the evidence shows that Neandertals generally didn't have caves, and built structures for shelter. In one case, they seem to have used mammoth bones for a frame, and then used earth and skins to cover.

I hope you are aware that Neandertals were humans. They are either a subspecies or a very closely related species to our own. Unless you're descended from Africans, you almost certainly carry Neandertal genes. Or, if you're of Pacific Islander or SE Asian descent, you likely carry Denesovan genes. Denesovans were another form of recent human, like Neandertals or "Cro-Magnons".

That is just evolution (scientific atheism) mythology.

Evidence does matter. That's how we know.

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

BobRyan said:
hmm he only gave us the 7 day timeline where each day was "an evening and a morning" -- and the "from the dust of the ground" part but not all the "other parts" needed for us to "be God" and do it ourselves.

Even early Christians like St. Augustine was aware that the "days" of creation didn't mean literal days.

God chooses to do most everything in this world by natural means. That doesn't make us God; it just means He made nature to do His will here.

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

The Barbarian said:
Even early Christians like St. Augustine was aware that the "days" of creation didn't mean literal days.

Augustine inserted his own god-override god-oversight claim that since 7 literal days is wayyyy tooo long for infinite God to do it -- - then we should assume God did it in an instant of time and that there is something wrong with the wording in the text.

Not a single atheist scholar in Hebrew language or OT studies in those world-class universities would have made Augustine's starting assumption about God and creation. Rather they would take the wording in the actual text as their guide - not the assumption that no matter what it says God did it much faster!!

What he did NOT argue was "the Wording in the text shows that God did this in a much longer period of time than the 7 literal days you may think you see there"

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

BobRyan said:
Augustine inserted his own god-override god-oversight claim that since 7 literal days is wayyyy tooo long for infinite God to do it

That's not his idea. He said that creation was ex nihilo and instantaneous, from which all things developed as a consequence of the initial creation.

Which happens to fit the evidence of the world around us. Which, as St. Paul remarks, is obvious to anyone who will see, and is a guide to His creation.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

BobRyan said:
What he did NOT argue was "the Wording in the text shows that God did this in a much longer period of time than the 7 literal days you may think you see there"

He merely pointed out that the text itself tells us that the "days" are figurative only, and not time periods.

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

The Barbarian said:
God chooses to do most everything in this world by natural means.

God "could" have given us no info and simply said "see how I wait for corn to grow well you can just imagine the way I might have chosen to have life on earth - come about" -- that could have been the Bible He gave us.

But that is not the one we actually have.

In fact even the ramblings of Augustine argue against that point --

For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.2 (2.Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.)

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

BobRyan said:
Augustine inserted his own god-override god-oversight claim that since 7 literal days is wayyyy tooo long for infinite God to do it -- - then we should assume God did it in an instant of time

The Barbarian said:
That's not his idea. He said that creation was ex nihilo and instantaneous,

A distinction without a difference

Psalm 27 · Mar 5, 2021

Vance said:
There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of Gods Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka "Day-Age Creationists", another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to Gods plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that *whatever* you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening randomly. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above, although the most recent and influential of these have been Theistic Evolutionists (ie, they accept that species evolved over billions of years, including man, but that God directed the process all the way, it was not random or wholly naturalistic).

So, where do you fit in? I dont necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

I’m no. 3. I was struggling with the evolution/creation thing, shortly after I came to faith in Jesus. I prayed about it something like this ‘Lord, I can’t get my head around the creation thing, but You just want me to believe in Jesus, so I’ll keep reading the NT and focus on Him’.

Not long after, I woke with a thought ‘if you do not believe Moses and The Prophets, you will not believe in Me’.

I didn’t understand the thought, but it wouldn’t go away all week, so I wrote it down on a The first piece of paper I could find, a wage slip.
Shortly after, a Bible teacher mentioned that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, so I started reading Genesis. I simply believed creation, as literal, from that moment on. Then I noticed Luke 16:31...I still have the Old wage slip, dated 2001

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

That's not his idea. He said that creation was ex nihilo and instantaneous, from which all things developed as a consequence of the initial creation.

Which happens to fit the evidence of the world around us. Which, as St. Paul remarks, is obvious to anyone who will see, and is a guide to His creation and to his qualities.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

BobRyan said:
A distinction without a difference

Not to God, according to Genesis.

The Barbarian · Mar 5, 2021

Psalm 27 said:
Shortly after, a Bible teacher mentioned that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, so I started reading Genesis. I simply believed creation, as literal, from that moment on...I still have the scrap of paper, dated 2001

Now all you must do, is show that Moses would not have written an allegory for creation, rather than a literal history. Then you're set.

BTW, it's obvious that Moses didn't write the first five books as we have them.

Deuteronomy 34:7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, neither were his teeth moved. 8And the children of Israel mourned for him in the plains of Moab thirty days: and the days of their mourning in which they mourned for Moses were ended.

Writing about his own death would have been pretty much impossible.

BobRyan · Mar 5, 2021

Augustine - who is not God - but had in his ramblings some attention to detail in the actual text of Genesis --

From: Augustine, Genesis, & the Goodness of Creation | Henry Center

Notice that in all of Augustine’s ramblings not once does he argue some offbeat idea by saying “because the text dictates this idea” rather it is always “in spite of the text”. And more often than evolutionism can tolerate he argues for instantaneous creation, less than 6000 years of human life on earth, no figurative language in Genesis, an explicit account of things" .

======================================
“Augustine argues that “the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.” City of God XI.6

In speaking of the early chapters of Genesis, Augustine writes: “All these things stood for something other than what they were, but all the same they were themselves bodily entities. And when the narrator mentioned them he was not employing figurative language, but giving an explicit account of things which had a forward reference that was figurative.” (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis VIII.4.8)

=== literal days of Genesis

“What of the actual days of creation in Augustine’s thought? Augustine adopted a cautious attitude: “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”

He reads Sirach 18:1 to teach that God creates everything all at once. Hence the puzzle: why does Genesis then portray creation as taking place over six days? Unlike some moderns, he is not trying to account for an older earth scenario, nor is he trying to square Genesis with evolutionary scenarios. He has his own questions which interest him.”

“Augustine argues that “the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.” City of God XI.6

=== literal years of Genesis and not even 6000 years of life on planet Earth

“It is important to realize that Augustine quite happily affirmed the importance, even primacy, of the historical or literal sense of Scripture. And it was the literal sense of Scripture which he sought to understand—especially in his two commentaries on Genesis (do not miss the key word in his two Genesis commentaries—literal). .Augustine takes the genealogies of Scriptures as factual, believes in the long lives of the pre-flood persons of the Old Testament, and can even suggest how long man has been on the earth. Thus, in City of God (12.11 [10]) Augustine can write:

“On the basis of Sacred Scripture, however, we calculate that not even six thousand years have passed since the origin of mankind.”

Along these lines, Augustine clearly affirmed a real, or “literal” Adam. In speaking of the early chapters of Genesis, Augustine writes:

“All these things stood for something other than what they were, but all the same they were themselves bodily entities. And when the narrator mentioned them he was not employing figurative language, but giving an explicit account of things which had a forward reference that was figurative.” (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis VIII.4.8)

=================

1. "For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation".2 (2.Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.)

The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Carry on my wayward son.

Crabby Old White Guy

Carry on my wayward son.

Crabby Old White Guy

Junior Member

Junior Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Junior Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Junior Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Junior Member

Similar threads