creation vs evolution

[gluadys]

If parts [of the bible] are myth, allegory or legend then the story isn't nearly as compelling.

Why do you say that? I hope you recognize this is merely your opinion and not an objective fact.

In many cases, I find scriptural myths to be more powerful and compelling than any possible literal interpretation of them.

 

[Mallon]

No doubt, but I get the impression from you and others that the historical aspects are insignificant. To me the Bible is so rich and deep that it speaks accurately regardless of the subject. There just isn't any reason for me to believe otherwise.

I feel like you're twisting my words. Again, I am not trying to downplay the historicity of the Bible. The Scriptures are steeped in history -- I don't deny that. But to emphasize the history of the Bible rather than the spirituality is, I think, missing the point.
I might just as easily level the same claim against you -- that in light of the Bible's history, you're quick to downplay the deeper spirituality. I won't though. I know you're deeper than that.

EDIT: Melethiel just summarized my feelings nicely in another thread:

If you read Genesis literally, what do you learn? Six days, talking snake and piece of fruit, Eve's son is supposed to step on a snake. If you look past the literal meaning, you get the Almighty Creator, the sin of mankind, and the prophecy of the coming Messiah. It is this reading that was the most important until well after the Reformation. Whether the earth was really created in 6 days or not is inconsequential.

Why can't God use multiple vehicles from which to pass on His truths?

Why are you asking this of me? I'm suggesting He does. YECs are the ones who insist on the strict historicity of the Bible. You will often hear them say "Either the Bible is true (i.e. historical) or it is worthless." Or "The historicity of the Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible." This is crazy talk, methinks. Surely the spiritual truths of Genesis are what matter to God, no?

You seem to wish to limit it's scope and power to some man derived boundary.

I don't see how you can possibly misconstrue my words in this way. I'm the one insisting here that the Bible's truths are conveyed via history, myth, poetry, allegory, parable, etc. It's only the YECs who insist on a man-derived boundary (i.e., post-Enlightenment, scientfically verified history).

Ahhh...but it all comes together to paint a complete picture. If parts are myth, allegory or legend then the story isn't nearly as compelling.

That's a matter of subjective taste, though. Many, including myself, would argue otherwise.

When you said "It claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words." that, I distinctly got that impression.

Just quoting what the Bible says!

 

[vossler]

I feel like you're twisting my words. Again, I am not trying to downplay the historicity of the Bible. The Scriptures are steeped in history -- I don't deny that. But to emphasize the history of the Bible rather than the spirituality is, I think, missing the point.
I might just as easily level the same claim against you -- that in light of the Bible's history, you're quick to downplay the deeper spirituality. I won't though. I know you're deeper than that.

Believe me I'm not trying to twist your words. You said some things that I felt clearly downplayed the historicity, if you say otherwise then I'll accept that until you show me otherwise. The only reason you should think that I or others emphasize the historical aspects of Scripture is because we feel it is constantly being minimized or under attack here in OT. Before coming here I rarely if ever talked much about it. I'll give you another example that fits that description. It was only after coming here (CF) that I ever felt the need to justify the Bible's stance on homosexuality, before it was always clear among the Christians I hung around with. This then causes me to support a position that in the past I never needed to do, this is much like the subject of evolution. I hope this helps.

Why are you asking this of me? I'm suggesting He does. YECs are the ones who insist on the strict historicity of the Bible. You will often hear them say "Either the Bible is true (i.e. historical) or it is worthless." Or "The historicity of the Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible." This is crazy talk, methinks. Surely the spiritual truths of Genesis are what matter to God, no?

Well, I don't know, again it seems to me that the historical significance of Scripture is always under attack and being replaced with human derived opinions, personal views and wild theories. Call me crazy, but I do think the historicity of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. See to me this is where the text serves the multiple truths I was speaking about and I see you rejecting. It can be both historical and spiritual at the same time. I have no problem with that.

I don't see how you can possibly misconstrue my words in this way. I'm the one insisting here that the Bible's truths are conveyed via history, myth, poetry, allegory, parable, etc. It's only the YECs who insist on a man-derived boundary (i.e., post-Enlightenment, scientfically verified history).

Again, I'm sorry if that is what you feel I'm doing, it certainly isn't my intent. The only term that you mentioned that I have trouble with is myth, otherwise I'm in agreement here. As an example that might demonstrate this better, I see Genesis as primarily spiritual, historical and allegorical with elements of poetry. I see the TE seeing it primarily as spiritual, allegorical and mythical with elements of history (that which can be verified) and poetry.

Just quoting what the Bible says!

Please show me the chapter and verse where the Bible says it claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words."

 

[Servant222]

The issue here is interpretation of scriptures.

I posted an interesting recent example of interpretation on another thread at http://www.christianforums.com/t4710758-government-seizes-3-of-4-surviving-sextuplets-to-allow-blood-transfusions.html

Basically, the issue is the on-going one of Jehovah Witnesses interpreting Acts 15: 28 and 29 to mean that the Bible does not allow blood transfusions. So in this recent case, surviving babies of a Canadian family who recently had sextuplets were seized by the government after the parents refused to allow what doctors claimed was a medically necessary transfusion.

The family's lawyer claimed that the government was interfering with religious freedom, the courts decided that the baby's health was more important. Personally, I think the issue has far more to do with misinterpretation of the Bible involving a matter that has nothing to do with the babies' salvation, and therefore it was right and proper for the government to execute the seizure as they did.

I think this case illustrates the importance of us "getting it right" with regard to interpretation, or at least not being dogmatic in debates where salvation is not at issue, but life or health may be.

I think Christian Forums is a very good resource for helping us to "get it right" on scriptural issues- I certainly have learned a lot here.

As an aside, it is so refreshing when these debates are conducted with respect and patience.

 

[pastorkevin73]

That's a strawman, if ever I saw one.

The Creation story in Genesis is probably an allegory. Jesus didn't literally mean He is a grape-bearing plant when He said He is the vine, and we, the branches; and the Bible probably doesn't literally mean that the Earth was created in seven days five thousand years ago.

You're putting God in a box to say that the only way to believe in His Word is to take it literally.

Why do TEs keep on using this "strawman" arguement. It is always a cope-out.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I never said that passage had anything to do with evolution, 'pastor.'
What I was saying is that the Bible makes no claims to scientific truth. It claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words." Why should we therefore be forced to fit science within the spiritual realm of the Bible? The Bible makes no such claim. You can't just pass this off with a wave of the hand. When you sit down with one of the members from your congregation, do you just tell them they're wrong and move on as you do here? Do you not "speak the truth in love" and explain why they are wrong?

I know that you aren't going to accept this, but Genesis claims the creation of the universe and all life in six days. This is confirmed in Genesis 20 that it was believed by, at least, the Israelist. Then Paul refers to Adam and Noah is also referred to elsewhere in scripture. It is clear that in Moses' day as well in Paul's day it was believed that Genesis 1-11 are actual events. Thus Genesis 1 does calm science.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I am simply saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say, "This book is to be taken literally and as a factual account of the history of the earth." What I am not saying is that none of the Bible is to be taken as history. But it is quite evident, from passages like the one I cited, that God is more interested in conveying spiritual matters to us via spiritual words (metaphor? poetry? myth?) than anything else.

Paul make's a big deal about it in 1 Cor 2:13. The Scriptures do not appeal to man's knowledge about the earth, but to man's knowledge about the spirit and our relationship with Christ.

If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I am simply saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say, "This book is to be taken literally and as a factual account of the history of the earth." What I am not saying is that none of the Bible is to be taken as history. But it is quite evident, from passages like the one I cited, that God is more interested in conveying spiritual matters to us via spiritual words (metaphor? poetry? myth?) than anything else.

Paul make's a big deal about it in 1 Cor 2:13. The Scriptures do not appeal to man's knowledge about the earth, but to man's knowledge about the spirit and our relationship with Christ.

All the more reason to believe the Bible over what people say outside of scripture.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Jesus is a vine? Are you sure,? I thought he was a piece of wood, 'bout 6 foot by 3, allows ingress and egress from rooms and buildings. (it's a door!)

Or is it about time certain people admitted the existence of allegory and metaphor in the Bible?

When non-literalists use the arguement of Jesus being a physical vine or a physical board do not understand literalism.

 

[Mallon]

The only reason you should think that I or others emphasize the historical aspects of Scripture is because we feel it is constantly being minimized or under attack here in OT.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the more I look into the issue, the more I feel that the historicity of the Genesis creation account is NOT what God wanted us to hold on to. I think the Scriptural basis for such an interpretation is rather weak at best. Yes, Jesus referenced Adam and Eve in the context of marriage, but if that's how the ANE people identified with man's origins, then of course Jesus is going to speak to them in a context they can understand. Again, God speaks in spiritual truths with spiritual words.
That said, the Bible also tells us that God's creation can inform us about God's character, and I would suppose that includes God's manner of communication. As it turns out, God's creation tells us loud and clear, via multiple attestation, that it is old and that its biodiversity is thanks to the adaptive mechanism God built into all life. If God tells us, as He does in Rom 1:20, that His creation informs us of his ways, why can we not let His creation inform our understanding of God's revelation in the Scriptures?

Call me crazy, but I do think the historicity of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible.

I do think that is crazy, you're right. I think Christ is the focus, the foundation, and reason for the whole of the Scriptures.

Please show me the chapter and verse where the Bible says it claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words."

As Will Ferrell said, "I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!" This is the second or third time you've asked me this, and each time I tell you 1 Cor 2:13. To me, this passage clearly downplays the paradigms of men (science and history) and emphasizes the spiritual teachings and words of Scripture. Would you disagree?

It is always a cope-out.

Again, that's "cop-out", pastor.

I know that you aren't going to accept this, but Genesis claims the creation of the universe and all life in six days. This is confirmed in Genesis 20 that it was believed by, at least, the Israelist. Then Paul refers to Adam and Noah is also referred to elsewhere in scripture. It is clear that in Moses' day as well in Paul's day it was believed that Genesis 1-11 are actual events. Thus Genesis 1 does calm science.

Of course I accept that the Scriptures say the earth was created in 6 days. The Scriptures also say Jesus is a vine, the earth takes shape like clay under a seal, and that Jesus stepped on a snake's head. Clearly, the question is not a matter of what the Bible says, but a matter of what the Bible teaches. Again, the medium is not the message.

If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.

Yes, I see your point. But you are clearly not seeing mine. The history of the passing down of the 10 Commandments stands apart from the actual commandments God gave us. Whether Moses picked the tablets up at the top of Mount Sainai or found them at the bottom of the sea really doesn't matter. What matters is that God gave us 10 Commandments by which to live. You're being dishonest, 'pastor.' You know that people do not reject the 10 Commandments simply because they interpret Genesis 1 as sub-literal.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Again, that's "cop-out", pastor.

Oops. Where is my head!

 

[Mallon]

If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.

Whether or not one believes the story of the passing down of the 10 Commandments to be literal, the history of that story clearly stands apart from the actual 10 Commandments themselves. Again, the medium is not the message. The medium says Moses climbed Mt. Sinai and found stone tablets engraved by God. The message says "You shall have no other gods..." What's more important, do you think? What do you think are the "spiritual truths" and "spiritual words" here that God wanted us to remember?
Honestly, pastor, have you conversed with any TEs here or elsewhere who reject the 10 Commandments simply because they do not interpret Genesis 1 literally?

 

[KomissarSteve]

If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.

I do, but that doesn't validate it by any means. Any responsible pastor would know that the Bible was written in the context of Classical Antiquity, in which virtually no spiritual text, much less a spiritual text as complex and decentralized as the Bible, was entirely literal or entirely allegorical. Just as one can read The Iliad (and everyone should, by the way; it's easily the most magnificent text written in ancient times, after the Bible) and know that Troy definitely existed, Agamemnon probably existed, and Zeus probably did not, one can use that God-given grey matter in your head to differentiate between what is clearly allegorical and what is clearly literal in the Scriptures.

 

[vossler]

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the more I look into the issue, the more I feel that the historicity of the Genesis creation account is what God wanted us to hold on to.

Just when I'm thinking I'm getting a handle on you guys I get that. Did I miss something or did you unknowingly just take a step toward becoming a YEC?

I do think that is crazy, you're right. I think Christ is the focus, the foundation, and reason for the whole of the Scriptures.

There would be no need for Christ if what happened in Genesis didn't occur. Crazy it is I guess, but the foolishness of preaching God's Word, as it is written, will always be foundational to me.

As Will Ferrell said, "I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!" This is the second or third time you've asked me this, and each time I tell you 1 Cor 2:13. To me, this passage clearly downplays the paradigms of men (science and history) and emphasizes the spiritual teachings and words of Scripture. Would you disagree?

Easy Mallon, don't go crazy on us yet. I agree and it is plainly obvious that I wasn't able to communicate my thoughts/observations well enough on this topic so I'm just going to drop it. It is now so far removed that it no longer serves a purpose to continue with this specific topic.

 

[Servant222]

Pastorkevin73, I want to be clear here of what you believe; please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The Bible must be taken literally- so the Universe, the Earth, the planets, and all life was created in 6 days- days as we understand them today, made up of 24 hours.

2. You also believe that all life, every species, was instantly made in a moment of creation during those first 6 days.

3. If you take the Bible literally, then you also believe that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old; again, 6,000 of our years consisting of 365 days, each made up of 24 hours.

4. In these matters, there is no room for interpretation; we have had at least 5000 years (back to when the first civilizations started) to debate this matter and so today, there is no more need for discussion- our present understanding is as good as it gets; is etched in stone.

5. This matter may affect a person's salvation, and therefore must be taught as such. Those who do not believe in literal creation may not be saved.

 

[Xaero]

So where in scripture does evolution line up?

you better should ask: where does science line up? we are commanded to gain wisdom,knowledge and understanding about god and his creation.(read proverbs) We see god's nature in his creation. (Romans1)
The skies proclaim His works (Psalm19)

By the way, water/earth "bringing forth" fits better into evolutionary scenario than creation ex nihilo ..

However i feel like i am repeating myself ...

"The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction."

 

[Mallon]

Just when I'm thinking I'm getting a handle on you guys I get that. Did I miss something or did you unknowingly just take a step toward becoming a YEC?

Whoops! There should be an adamant "not" in there. My YEC days are long behind me now.

There would be no need for Christ if what happened in Genesis didn't occur.

You give humans too much credit. Man was bound to sin whether Adam and Eve sinned first or not. It's an inevitable outcome of being autonomous.

 

[Servant222]

I would say, no matter what you think God is telling you, if it doesn't line up with Scripture then it is wrong.

At the risk of being accused of flogging etc., I think this comment should be re-phrased to read:

I would say, no matter what you think God is telling you, if it doesn't line up with the correct interpretation of Scripture then it is wrong.

I think us human beings still have a long way to go before we can be confident that we are interpreting all of scripture correctly.

I also think that when that happens, we will find total consistency between what science is telling us, and what we find in the Bible.

 

[Servant222]

Hey PastorKevin73,

I'm still hoping you'll respond to my post #55.