Creation Or Evolution?

[gluadys]

If Genesis 1 was written as narrative but was not meant to be taken literally, then Moses is a liar.

Who made up that nonsense? Who says that all narratives must be intentionally literal?

But, genesis 1 is written as a narrative and not poetry according to its conjunction-verb-subject-object style. Poetry is usually written as subject-verb-object. of course there are rare instances where the order of poetry is c-v-s-o but it is that way either by poetic license or to give emphasis or change direction as far as the subject matter.

Well this has nothing to do with linguistics. This is genre or form criticism. It indicates that the literary form is that of a narrative.

It does not indicate whether or not the narrative must be interpreted literally.

good for you Gluadys...I think my main problem w/ TE and that verse is that it's referring to Jesus in the beginning and not throughout billions of years. But of course, that's my interpretation and you have yours.

Do you see that as limiting God to creating "in the beginning"? Why?

Or to pose again Melethiel's question: Do you believe God created you?

If the Word's creative action is limited by this verse to "in the beginning" do you not have to answer "No, he did not create me"?

PS Do you remember that Jesus told the Pharisees that his Father is always at work and therefore he is also?

 

[laptoppop]

On the contrary, I find it absolutely astounding that there are those out there who commit themselves completely to a totally literal reading of the Bible.

Just to be clear -- that includes virtually nobody. There are a great number of conservative scholars that would ::::gasp:::: suggest that the historical narrative in Genesis is true and literal, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would not recognize that there are a wide variety of literary forms in the Scriptures, including poetry, stories, etc., as well as historical narrative. Please be careful about using a fake straw-man position -- it does nothing to advance the discussion.

 

[Dannager]

Just to be clear -- that includes virtually nobody. There are a great number of conservative scholars that would ::::gasp:::: suggest that the historical narrative in Genesis is true and literal, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would not recognize that there are a wide variety of literary forms in the Scriptures, including poetry, stories, etc., as well as historical narrative. Please be careful about using a fake straw-man position -- it does nothing to advance the discussion.

I wouldn't say a thing like that if we didn't have multiple posters claiming that they take every word of the Bible at its face value. It's not a straw man. Whether it describes you or not, there are plenty out there who are willing to give themselves the label of a literal Bible believer.

 

[laptoppop]

Baloney. I've been hanging out a while here and I haven't seen that at all. "every word of the Bible at face value" is a straw man. There are obvious deliberate word pictures, similies, metaphors, parables, poems, etc. Just because people believe that a passage which is part of a historical narrative should be interpreted historically does not mean "every word".

In addition, I would suggest that the best way to discuss a topic is to use the most mature expressions of that topic. I can find a number of evolutionists, including fairly regular posters around here, that take immature or undeveloped positions, such as saying that "there is no evidence...." or "there are no studies..." instead of engaging the real topics. Such uniformed and exclusionary elitism does nothing to advance the discussion, and I have found it best to just ignore it because it does not represent a mature developed expression of theistic evolution.

 

[Melethiel]

What do you think melethiel?

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:​

Then God created all things, not "some". After all, you weren't poofed into existence...rather, you were formed by the joining of a sperm and egg, etc etc. Regardless, God created you, just as he created all living things, whether they evolved or not.

 

[jds1977]

Who made up that nonsense? Who says that all narratives must be intentionally literal?

I'll try to keep this simple...Either God said, "Let there be" or Moses lied. You have to ask did God really say this and do this or not? either there was evening, morning and each day...or Moses lied. However, if you believe this is just a parable or poetry and not a historical narrative, then who cares what he said...Based on the writing styles and progressive wording, it's narrative.

Do you see that as limiting God to creating "in the beginning"? Why?

because that's what it says...also refer to Mark 10:6.

Or to pose again Melethiel's question: Do you believe God created you?

You must've missed my answer of Colossians 1:16.

PS Do you remember that Jesus told the Pharisees that his Father is always at work and therefore he is also?

Sure I do...of course He was referring to His healing on the Sabbath and not natural processes of billions of years. Thanks for asking though

 

[jds1977]

Then God created all things, not "some". After all, you weren't poofed into existence...rather, you were formed by the joining of a sperm and egg, etc etc. Regardless, God created you, just as he created all living things, whether they evolved or not.

As far as I can tell create doesn't mean evolve. So, does it say God created or God guided evolution?

 

[Tinker Grey]

And create doesn't mean that your parents have sex. See the point?

 

[gluadys]

I'll try to keep this simple...Either God said, "Let there be" or Moses lied. You have to ask did God really say this and do this or not? either there was evening, morning and each day...or Moses lied.

Not if he was telling a story. I think what you are getting at is: did God really create? And of course we agree that God really created.

However, if you believe this is just a parable or poetry and not a historical narrative, then who cares what he said...Based on the writing styles and progressive wording, it's narrative.

Why do you throw in the pejorative "just" in front of "parable or poetry". Are you trying to say that these are inferior ways of communicating truth--even when they are inspired?

We are agreed that the passage is narrative, but that doesn't necessarily qualify it as historical narrative. That is a claim that has yet to be justified.

Your original claim was that there is linguistic evidence of such. But you have only presented literary (not linguistic) evidence that the form is narrative. Every story is a narrative, whether it is historical or not.

because that's what it says...also refer to Mark 10:6.

So are you saying that God has created nothing except in the beginning?

I still don't see the reason for placing this limitation on God.

You must've missed my answer of Colossians 1:16.

I didn't miss it, but I felt a more direct answer in your own words was necessary. Given the above, I still do. If God only created in the beginning, do you then agree that God did not create you?

Sure I do...of course He was referring to His healing on the Sabbath and not natural processes of billions of years. Thanks for asking though

]

He was justifying healing on the Sabbath, and he did so in terms of God continuing to work. What work do you think God was doing? Is there any reason it could not include creation? Why could God's work not include natural processes?

 

[Splayd]

The only thing in the whole creation debate (generally, not just here) that really astounds me - is that anyone could be so certain of any of it.

I mean I'm fairly certain that Genesis is RIGHT... But I can't be 100% certain that a day means 24 hrs or that it means 1000 years or that there's a gap in there somewhere or that evolution was or wasn't a part of the mix or that...(you get the idea ) While I weigh the different perspectives up and consider some to be stonger than others and some as just plain wrong - I simply cannot comprehend why so many are so arrogant in presenting their perspective as the 100% bonafide truth... and of all the perspectives to dismiss entirely - dismissing the literal one makes the very least sense to me. How anyone can be certain that it couldn't just mean what it appears to mean is beyond me.

Peace

 

[Dannager]

How anyone can be certain that it couldn't just mean what it appears to mean is beyond me.

Oh, it very well could mean what it appears to mean. But if it did, the entire world was also created with the appearance that such was not the case. This makes God out to be deceitful - why create the world with the appearance of age if it is not, in fact, that old? In addition, it smacks of Last Thursdayism, the unfalsifiable belief that the world and everything in it was created last Thursday and simply given the complete appearance of age.

In other words, creationists might be right, but it wouldn't help explain anything and would cause more than a few problems for the Christian faith.

 

[Splayd]

Oh, it very well could mean what it appears to mean. But if it did, the entire world was also created with the appearance that such was not the case. This makes God out to be deceitful - why create the world with the appearance of age if it is not, in fact, that old?

You know the literalists could make the same point right? That it would be deceitful to present a creation account in Genesis that isn't true.

Mind you - I think it's a pretty weak argument no matter which side of the argument you're trying to use it for

 

[Dannager]

You know the literalists could make the same point right? That it would be deceitful to present a creation account in Genesis that isn't true.

Sure, they could, though one could then argue that Genesis actually conveys a number of extremely important spiritual messages that fit very well within the framework of the six days metaphor, and thus is intended as a literary device for conveying these messages, not as a historical account of how things actually happened. Given that literal historical interpretation didn't exist in the time the Bible was written, this is a far more likely explanation.

 

[Splayd]

Just out of curiosity Dannager - How well do you read Hebrew?

 

[artybloke]

If Genesis 1 was written as narrative but was not meant to be taken literally, then Moses is a liar.

If Oliver Twist is written as a narrative but is not meant to be take literally, does that make Charles Dickens a liar?

Ridiculous argument: just because something is a narrative doesn't mean it has to be either factual or a lie. It can be fiction, and still be true.

Or do the folks in your church think novels are of the devil or something?

 

[Dannager]

Just out of curiosity Dannager - How well do you read Hebrew?

I don't. Now, there are two reasons you could have asked me that. The first is if you're honestly wondering if I have some insight into the language behind the text that you do not. The second is if you're planning on using my non-proficiency with Hebrew as leverage in your argument. If the former is correct, you have my thanks for having a mind willing to receive knowledge, and I am sorry that I have none to offer you where the Hebrew is concerned. If the latter is correct, shall I predict where you're going to go from here? It'll save us both the trouble of waiting for the other to post.

You'll explain that either you can read Hebrew, and have an intimate understanding of the language involved, or that you are in touch with others who can read Hebrew and have explained it to you. You will claim that a proper Hebrew reading illustrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Genesis was intended literally.

I, then, will explain that this is nonsense, as anyone with a background in the culture of the time can tell you that the concept of a literal account of events did not exist yet, and that in biblical times stories were told for their messages, with little heed paid to trivial detail. I will tell you that no one cared for factually accurate explanations on things like how man became man, but rather that they were interested in moral messages and easily-recalled and -recited tales.

Now, shall we begin again now that we've saved ourselves a bit of hassle there?

 

[Splayd]

I don't. Now, there are two reasons you could have asked me that. The first is if you're honestly wondering if I have some insight into the language behind the text that you do not. The second is if you're planning on using my non-proficiency with Hebrew as leverage in your argument. If the former is correct, you have my thanks for having a mind willing to receive knowledge, and I am sorry that I have none to offer you where the Hebrew is concerned. If the latter is correct, shall I predict where you're going to go from here? It'll save us both the trouble of waiting for the other to post.

You'll explain that either you can read Hebrew, and have an intimate understanding of the language involved, or that you are in touch with others who can read Hebrew and have explained it to you. You will claim that a proper Hebrew reading illustrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Genesis was intended literally.

Close, but not quite.

I, then, will explain that this is nonsense, as anyone with a background in the culture of the time can tell you that the concept of a literal account of events did not exist yet, and that in biblical times stories were told for their messages, with little heed paid to trivial detail. I will tell you that no one cared for factually accurate explanations on things like how man became man, but rather that they were interested in moral messages and easily-recalled and -recited tales.

This is more the stuff I'm interested in getting into. I was just trying to ascertain where your perception has come from. I think we've established that it isn't from an appreciation or understanding of the text itself. In fact, I'd suggest that it's not so much a perception, observation, conclusion or conviction of yours at all. Rather it appears to be simply a retelling of someone else's. That's fair enough, but I'd rather deal with the source. Perhaps you could direct me to the actual research you've placed such faith in and I'll endeavour to address it directly, because this is the core of what I really want to flesh out.

Truth is - we don't need to speculate about Hebrew, the Jewish mindset, what they meant or didn't mean etc... like so many modern Western Christians are inclined to do. It's a living language and a living culture. The Jews themselves can tell us what they mean and how they think. What's more there's a wealth of ancient text and ongoing commentary. The understanding and development of thought is all there for us to analyse directly.

Any sincere scholar, who's prepared to work with the historical Jewish commentaries must recognise that the traditional Jewish understanding has always been literal. Granted - their understanding was less rigid than the extreme literalism of many fundamentals today. They'd be more inclined to accept different interpretations for "day" for example. Nevertheless, as we trace the sources from then till now, we can see their development of thought and recognise the parallel with traditional Christian thinking regarding the matter. Allegorical interpretations are a new phenomonon which are inconsistent with the steady literal understanding presented through a constant stream of historical study. Assertions that the Hebrew writers weren't concerned with fact aren't substantiated when confronted with the facts, but provide a convenient circular argumentative mindset for those who present it.

Now, shall we begin again now that we've saved ourselves a bit of hassle there?

Begin again??? We haven't even started this yet

 

[artybloke]

It's a living language and a living culture.

And like all living languages, it has evolved over a long period of time, just as English has, French has and any other language has.

And the culture of modern day Judaism, affected as it is by several centuries of rabbinicism, is very different from the culture of ancient Isreal, which was much closer to the culture of the surrounding nations.

Allegorical interpretations are a new phenomonon

This for a start off is nonsense.

None of which changes for one second the fact that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports a literal reading of Genesis. Trying to pretend otherwise is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

 

[Melethiel]

As far as I can tell create doesn't mean evolve. So, does it say God created or God guided evolution?

"Create" also doesn't mean "form a zygote and let it grow." Therefore, according to your logic, God did not create you.

 

[Splayd]

And like all living languages, it has evolved over a long period of time, just as English has, French has and any other language has.

And the culture of modern day Judaism, affected as it is by several centuries of rabbinicism, is very different from the culture of ancient Isreal, which was much closer to the culture of the surrounding nations.

Absolutely! The beautiful thing about that is - there isn't just modern Judaism and some abstract ancient Judaism... there's a whole "in between" too. It's by studying that progression that we can make fair determinations about what they really did or didn't mean and believe. Again - we don't have to speculate, there's a wealth of material we can look that traces the development of the language and culture.

This for a start off is nonsense.

None of which changes for one second the fact that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports a literal reading of Genesis. Trying to pretend otherwise is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

We can stick to vaguaries and insults if that suits your purpose, but I can't see it's really going to get us anywhere. Perhaps you could start by substantiating your "nonsense" claim.

Peace