Creation and eden

[theotherguy]

I haven't posted in origins in a while and I as just wondering:

What are peoples main veiws on the whole origins thing.

Personally I am unsure ( but admittly lean toward literal garden/guided evolution)

 

[Vance]

I am not sure (and may never be sure) whether there was a literal Garden (although there was a literal Fall), but I lean toward a figurative garden story which represents historical events of some more general type. I am also not sure about the degree to which God guided evolution at every step of the way. I believe it is possible for Him to have created a process by which the evolutionary development could happen without His micro-management (designed in advance in a way that achieves His purpose), but obviously He could have micro-managed along the way if He chose to.

 

[PaladinValer]

God has an influence on evolution as it is His tool. As for the garden, I personally think it is a literal place, but I also recognize its metaphorical and symbolic significance. If it were proven to be truly mythical, I wouldn't be worried much as such.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The day I fully understand the tension between free will and predestination - in short, the in's and out's of God's sovereignty - I'll have an opinion on whether he "guided" evolution, or whether he set it off to work itself out. My hunch tries to capture both sides: setting off evolution to progress via natural processes was informed by his foreknowledge of each step of the way - but does that mean he rigged the game? It's too hard to say from our perspective. I hence voted "other". I think the garden of Eden is a mythological place. I'm agnostic as to whether there's any historical basis to it.

 

[Vance]

Oh my, yet another arena for the predestination/free will conundrum! You are right, though, this must be part of the consideration.

 

[JohnJones]

The day I fully understand the tension between free will and predestination - in short, the in's and out's of God's sovereignty - I'll have an opinion on whether he "guided" evolution, or whether he set it off to work itself out.

So evolution has a will according to you? When I was talking about the willpower of fish all the TE's wanted to laugh me to scorn.

Everything in Genesis is literal. God literally created heaven and earth. He literally created grass before fish (even though evolution says fish came before grass). He literally created fish and whales at the same time (even though evolution says fish changed into land animals which changed into whales). He literally created man from dirt, not from monkeys.

 

[Vance]

No, the theory of evolution describes a natural, non-teleological process. The question is the degree to which God pushes or nudges the process along. The process we observe happens naturally. Just like the weather happens naturally, but we can wonder whether or to what extent God gets involved in it.

 

[ethos]

No, the theory of evolution describes a natural, non-teleological process. The question is the degree to which God pushes or nudges the process along. The process we observe happens naturally. Just like the weather happens naturally, but we can wonder whether or to what extent God gets involved in it.

Please try for once to understand why this logic offends some of us. This view of things sounds like we could almost leave God out of the process. Which leaves us with the question, according to evolutional theory, could life come about on it's own? Without God's intervention. Because if one believes as you seem to, if it can evolve on it's own, then it could have begun on it's own also. This is the reason that I, and many other Christains reject this doctrine.

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution isn't a doctrine. Why? Because evolution isn't a religion. It has to set belief on Ultimate Truth; it is neutral to the very notion.

 

[Didaskomenos]

So evolution has a will according to you? When I was talking about the willpower of fish all the TE's wanted to laugh me to scorn.

Everything in Genesis is literal. God literally created heaven and earth. He literally created grass before fish (even though evolution says fish came before grass). He literally created fish and whales at the same time (even though evolution says fish changed into land animals which changed into whales). He literally created man from dirt, not from monkeys.

Evolution has no will, or self-projected goal. God, however, has a will. The question is whether God has at certain points determined by supernatural intervention according to his will the outcome of particular points of chance (e.g., whether an ancestral species that carried genes important to the eventual development of humans survived in some ancient interspecies battle), or whether God simply chose through foreknowledge that species that won out through history's progression to be his chosen. Where in that do you get the idea that "evolution has a will"?

 

[The Julikenz]

Everything in Genesis is literal. God literally created heaven and earth. He literally created grass before fish (even though evolution says fish came before grass). He literally created fish and whales at the same time (even though evolution says fish changed into land animals which changed into whales). He literally created man from dirt, not from monkeys.

My view is a literal one. Literal garden, literal creation in six days. I'm a YEC to the floor

 

[Didaskomenos]

Please try for once to understand why this logic offends some of us. This view of things sounds like we could almost leave God out of the process. Which leaves us with the question, according to evolutional theory, could life come about on it's own? Without God's intervention. Because if one believes as you seem to, if it can evolve on it's own, then it could have begun on it's own also. This is the reason that I, and many other Christains reject this doctrine.

No disrespect intended, but you are not considering either the nature of God's sovereignty or the importance of his truth. A sovereign God's intentionality is equally as powerful as, and in my opinion more amazing than, his supernatural intervention. How many times have I heard from conservative Christians such as yourself that it was God's foreknowledge that purposed that there would be a common lingua franca, namely Koine Greek, that would be on the earth just in time to write down the Good News in a language that would be so widely understood? We're proposing the same kind of thing. If you understand that and are still uncomfortable, it may be that you are still unsatisfied with anything less from God than something that can only be explained in miraculous terms. You'd rather God had created a universe whose own natural laws were so inadequate to accomplish his purposes that he'd have to keep on stepping in and changing things around. I don't deny miracles, because they serve the purpose of demonstrating God's power. But what good would that have done at the creation of the universe when there was no one around to see it?

My comment about the importance of truth above was meant to underscore this: any truths that can be used by atheists to deny God are still truths, because all truth is God's truth. If you shift things around to make our position more undeniable, "the truth is not in you," and you have made a decision evocative of dishonest political rhetoric that conflicts with the interests of our Candidate. We cannot reject a doctrine simply because it is felt that it removes one possibly flawed argument from another doctrine's defense.

 

[Vance]

Just to add to what Didaskomenos so aptly said, think about every single other natural process. Do we get uncomfortable when we consider God letting photosynthesis or sexual reproduction happen on its own, according to the laws and mechanics He established? Are we in danger of dismissing God because we consider the weather the result of meteorlogical processes established by God, but not micromanaged (or even macro-managed for that matter) by God? Setting aside your literal reading of Genesis for the moment, how is it troublesome to consider that God could have allowed the process of evolution to happen the same way He allows every other developmental process to work?

 

[seebs]

Please try for once to understand why this logic offends some of us. This view of things sounds like we could almost leave God out of the process. Which leaves us with the question, according to evolutional theory, could life come about on it's own? Without God's intervention. Because if one believes as you seem to, if it can evolve on it's own, then it could have begun on it's own also. This is the reason that I, and many other Christains reject this doctrine.

What's wrong with the idea of God creating a universe in which life arises without specific intervention? Maybe He just really likes life, and thus sets up laws of physics under which it will arise.

 

[ethos]

Evolution isn't a doctrine. Why? Because evolution isn't a religion. It has to set belief on Ultimate Truth; it is neutral to the very notion.

It surely is a doctrine, when accepting it's tenets requires one to reject literal translation of scripture. How can you come to the conculsion that evolution is not a doctrine? If you don't believe in the literal word of God and need to twist it to align with your our view of biblical history, you are creating a doctrine based not on what the bible says, but on one you prefer to invent.

 

[ethos]

Check with Webster's, Doctrine: someting taught. esp. as the principles of a religion, political party, ect; tenet or tenets. Notice that a doctrine is not limited to a religious belief. Also, the word Tenet; a principle, doctrine, or belief held as a truth, as by some group. We see here that doctrine and tenet are virtually defined exactly the same. Conclusion: The definition for doctrine is not limited to the decription of a religious tenet, esp. when comparing one against the other. Therefore when constructing evolution as a tenet for understanding religious ideas, evolution can be defined as a doctrine.

 

[PaladinValer]

It surely is a doctrine, when accepting it's tenets requires one to reject literal translation of scripture.

Doctrine is to religion as theory is to science.

How can you come to the conculsion that evolution is not a doctrine?

Because of the fact that evolution isn't religion.

If you don't believe in the literal word of God and need to twist it to align with your our view of biblical history, you are creating a doctrine based not on what the bible says, but on one you prefer to invent.

1. As a historian with a BA, I know that "Biblical history" is a oxymoron. Some of it has been shown to be at least fairly accurate to the historical record, but much isn't even close.
2. The Church Fathers didn't take it literally either. Why? Because that isn't the point of the Holy Canon. The Holy Bible is authoritative in matters of faith, doctrine, and instruction on the fullness of salvation. Whoopie-doo-dah-day that it says rabbits chew their cud when it is clearly wrong. It has nothing to do with either of its only three uses.
3. Invention would be Biblical literalism, which is a new phenomenon that isn't even one hundred years old, unless you want to include the Late Middle Ages/Renaissance heretics like the Anti-Trinitarians.

And forget common dictionaries, as you always end up going in a loop. If you want to know the definition of a certain subject or topic, use a specialist dictionary, which don't go in loops and circular patterns. There are a few theological dictionaries out in the world and even on the internet.

And none (or at least none of the honest ones) state that evolution is a "doctrine," as it doesn't promote the existance or non-existance of God or any religious belief that has of any true value to salvation. A literalist believe of Adam and Eve doesn't add to your knowledge of salvation, but knowing the morals behind the story does.

 

[ethos]

Doctrine is to religion as theory is to science.



Because of the fact that evolution isn't religion.



1. As a historian with a BA, I know that "Biblical history" is a oxymoron. Some of it has been shown to be at least fairly accurate to the historical record, but much isn't even close.
2. The Church Fathers didn't take it literally either. Why? Because that isn't the point of the Holy Canon. The Holy Bible is authoritative in matters of faith, doctrine, and instruction on the fullness of salvation. Whoopie-doo-dah-day that it says rabbits chew their cud when it is clearly wrong. It has nothing to do with either of its only three uses.
3. Invention would be Biblical literalism, which is a new phenomenon that isn't even one hundred years old, unless you want to include the Late Middle Ages/Renaissance heretics like the Anti-Trinitarians.

And forget common dictionaries, as you always end up going in a loop. If you want to know the definition of a certain subject or topic, use a specialist dictionary, which don't go in loops and circular patterns. There are a few theological dictionaries out in the world and even on the internet.

And none (or at least none of the honest ones) state that evolution is a "doctrine," as it doesn't promote the existance or non-existance of God or any religious belief that has of any true value to salvation. A literalist believe of Adam and Eve doesn't add to your knowledge of salvation, but knowing the morals behind the story does.

If you will check the biblical record, Christ has his lineage all the way back to Seth, Adams son. I think if you understand scripture, you will see that this record was written down to show the direct link between Adam and Christ. Because sin entered into the world thru one man Adam, the Christ would be redeemer of his chosen. Why do you think that there is so much effort given to record this lineage if it serves no purpose. The reason is because there was in fact a man named Adam, and also the passage of an actual amount of time between Adam and Christ is recorded for our understanding. This is not an unimprotant fact, the Holy Spirit is not only defining the lineage but the time line. To define it otherwise is absurd.

 

[PaladinValer]

If you will check the biblical record, Christ has his lineage all the way back to Seth, Adams son.

So?

I think if you understand scripture, you will see that this record was written down to show the direct link between Adam and Christ.

A direct link doesn't matter. That isn't the point. The point is that Jesus is the New Adam. And He can be that without having to literally trace His genetics. Why? Because He is God.

Because sin entered into the world thru one man Adam, the Christ would be redeemer of his chosen.

As I've said above, a literal genetic line doesn't matter. He's God Incarnate, so He can be anything He wants to be regardless of "genetics."

Why do you think that there is so much effort given to record this lineage if it serves no purpose.

I find this extremely insulting. Where did I say it serves no purpose? I'm really tired of YECs saying just because we don't take things literally, certain passages are of "no purpose" or are "worthless" to us.

The passage is to establish the doctrine that Jesus is the New Adam, whether He is directly related to Adam or not.

The reason is because there was in fact a man named Adam, and also the passage of an actual amount of time between Adam and Christ is recorded for our understanding.

Whereas I do believe Adam existed, there is no historical proof of this. I know when to draw the line between my credibility in sholarly history and faithful opinion.

This is not an unimprotant fact, the Holy Spirit is not only defining the lineage but the time line. To define it otherwise is absurd.

Oh yes...because many TEs (not all, but many) don't accept a literal Adam and Eve, they are without the Holy Spirit...

Adam comes from the Hebrew word that literally translate to both "humanity" and "red earth." It is extremely interesting that the author used "Adam" in terms of "red earth," as archaeology has pointed to the fact that first modern human beings used red ochre in their spiritual practices, notably for burial of the dead.

Literalism often gets only a partial picture at best. If you take a look at the root meanings of words used as well as their possible symbolism, you'd be amazed on how often it "matching" things we've only recently discovered in the social or natural sciences.

 

[JohnJones]

...