Creationism and Theology

[Hammster]

I appreciate that the question you pose is not asked of me but...Romans 1:20, and Psalm 19.

Those talk of creation. How would you use them to support your argument?

 

[Jamsie]

I would say evolution creates theological problems. Of course TEs disagree. So, I'm curious ... do TEs think creationism creates theological problems? If so, what?

Disclaimer: I'm rarely in agreement with the typical YEC, so these issues may not apply specifically to me, but we can talk through that as the discussion unfolds.

A form of this discussion is going on elsewhere so just a few points. I would think that if one excepts Genesis 1:1 then the term "creationist" is hardly misapplied. I'm not sure what scriptural problems arise from TE. One should at least be humble enough to accept that Genesis does not give a detailed nor scientific account of creation … within Genesis 1 there is much open to interpretation. As for creationists, in the strictly fundamental sense, I believe the major problem is twofold - One, a failure to read Genesis 1 with sufficient delicacy, and two, the attempt to dismiss science in the harshest of terms serving little purpose...

 

[Hammster]

A form of this discussion is going on elsewhere so just a few points. I would think that if one excepts Genesis 1:1 then the term "creationist" is hardly misapplied. I'm not sure what scriptural problems arise from TE. One should at least be humble enough to accept that Genesis does not give a detailed nor scientific account of creation … within Genesis 1 there is much open to interpretation. As for creationists, in the strictly fundamental sense, I believe the major problem is twofold - One, a failure to read Genesis 1 with sufficient delicacy, and two, the attempt to dismiss science in the harshest of terms serving little purpose...

I think that is a different OP.

 

[trophy33]

What Sumerian ideas?

Waters around the earth, firmanent with lights in it, creation from dust, paradise, trees, serpent, cycles...

 

[Jamsie]

Those talk of creation. How would you use them to support your argument?

I apologize because at present time is short...much to do on the farm today. I think that Romans 1:20 is clear that "...understood from what has been made...". Psalm 19 the key words being the references to declare, proclaim, speech, knowledge, etc. suggesting that quite clearly any study and/or simply perspective of the universe (heavens/skies) "declares the glory of God". The further point which may be at the heart of your question is that science is involved with the descriptives of things "made", the "Heavens", etc. We can accept such findings without subscribing to the metaphysical parts that many are too ready to attach. To jettison science aside without due consideration seems rather foolish...

 

[Jamsie]

I think that is a different OP.

Yes, but I thought this was appropriate to the OP: "As for creationists, in the strictly fundamental sense, I believe the major problem is twofold - One, a failure to read Genesis 1 with sufficient delicacy, and two, the attempt to dismiss science in the harshest of terms serving little purpose..."

 

[Hammster]

Yes, but I thought this was appropriate to the OP: "As for creationists, in the strictly fundamental sense, I believe the major problem is twofold - One, a failure to read Genesis 1 with sufficient delicacy, and two, the attempt to dismiss science in the harshest of terms serving little purpose..."

But that’s not the topic.

 

[Resha Caner]

Waters around the earth, firmanent with lights in it, creation from dust, paradise, trees, serpent, cycles...

OK. Whether or not those had a Sumerian source aside, it would indeed be problematic to insist all those phrases are strictly literal. It would be equally problematic to insist they are all strictly allegorical.

An interesting historical tidbit is Newton's discomfort with the "force at a distance" concept in his Principia. It was a direct contradiction of the prevailing scientific wisdom of the day (Descartes' contacting force), and some thought it a reference to witchcraft. In other words, even some scientific concepts employ figurative language at their birth.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Great question, Resha! I know that from my own experience as an evolutionist, it has been difficult (to put it mildly) to attempt to reconcile the physical fact of a long evolutionary history with the much shorter, genealogically laden, Hebrew representation of human history we find in the Bible. So, for me, the main issue has been dealing with the main bug-a-boo of "if Adam didn't exist, then what was Jesus needed for?" and related kinds of questions.

Other than that, I'm busting my chops to try to think of some other major theological hurdle I had to jump over in order to accept Christianity and the Bible as God's Work. I guess there was also the question of whether and how we have something like a soul ... and all that.

Whether it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?

 

[Monk Brendan]

I would say evolution creates theological problems. Of course TEs disagree. So, I'm curious ... do TEs think creationism creates theological problems? If so, what?

Disclaimer: I'm rarely in agreement with the typical YEC, so these issues may not apply specifically to me, but we can talk through that as the discussion unfolds.

Whether God created everything EXACTLY as Genesis says, or worked through natural processes He Himself set up (commonly called evolution), it's still God doing it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whether it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?

As I understand evolution, the answer would be: kinda, sorta, maybe.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whether God created everything EXACTLY as Genesis says, or worked through natural processes He Himself set up (commonly called evolution), it's still God doing it.

That gets into ultimate, distant cause discussions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whether it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?

I'll just go with what @Resha Caner said above.

 

[d taylor]

Genesis 1 gives an account of God's act of creation

 

[Hammster]

Genesis 1 gives an account of God's act of creation that he wants the person and especially the believer to know with the rest of the Bible adding further descriptions occasionally.
Why because satan is at work deceiving the world and counterfeiting God's creation and he has done a decent job at his deception.

There are believers who either try an make the Bible fit to meet sciences accounts or believers who have completely abandoned scripture concerning God's creation.

Then there are the creationist who accept part of God's creation but do not accept the full account.

And finally and the most criticized, are the believers who take God at His word and account given concerning His creation, as given in the Bible.
Believing the full account given in the Bible and not adding in any ideas from science, but taking God's creation as given in the Bible.

So basically science concerning God's creation is just a bunch of satanic lies.

So a person has a choice Either take God's account as given in the Bible or take God's distorted creation presented by satan

That’s not the topic of this thread.

 

[Brightmoon]

Genesis 1 gives an account of God's act of creation that he wants the person and especially the believer to know with the rest of the Bible adding further descriptions occasionally.
Why because satan is at work deceiving the world and counterfeiting God's creation and he has done a decent job at his deception.

There are believers who either try an make the Bible fit to meet sciences accounts or believers who have completely abandoned scripture concerning God's creation.

Then there are the creationist who accept part of God's creation but do not accept the full account.

And finally and the most criticized, are the believers who take God at His word and account given concerning His creation, as given in the Bible.
Believing the full account given in the Bible and not adding in any ideas from science, but taking God's creation as given in the Bible.

So basically science concerning God's creation is just a bunch of satanic lies.

So a person has a choice Either take God's account as given in the Bible or take God's distorted creation presented by satan

if they are “ satanic lies” then why does every single bit of data that we have support evolution, common descent, no global flood, old earth and old universe . You haven’t accounted for the fact that you simply could just be wrong

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I think the biggest problem that YECs have with other positions is that it seems like they don't take Scripture seriously. This is not universally the case, but I think we'll see on this thread many people dismiss the early chapters of Genesis as uninformed Sumerian mythology. And the problem with this is that there is no good method of determining what parts of the Bible we decide to take seriously and what other parts we might dismiss as myth. We ourselves become the ultimate arbiter. We accept what is acceptable to us and reject what appears to us to be absurd. That's a dangerous place to be.

I think it possible to take the scripture seriously but still face up to its context. I think the YEC folks often don't deal with the fact of how vocabulary poor Hebrew is. Not to mention a omniscient creator might have to explain
things in rudimentary fashion to ancient people with limited knowledge of the natural world.


Besides that there are ways of dealing with the Sumerian end of things. Michael Heiser for instance makes a good case for early Genesis as a polemic against the Sumerian culture which believed itself to be superior based on its descent from the Anuki / Watchers etc.

That kind of perspective though really does help put the book in perspective. Athiests might mock the book as superstition etc. but pointing out the meaning of the snake/ seraph in ancient Egyptian iconography really puts things in perspective.

 

[d taylor]

That’s not the topic of this thread.

well then delete my comment

 

[Tree of Life]

I think it possible to take the scripture seriously but still face up to its context. I think the YEC folks often don't deal with the fact of how vocabulary poor Hebrew is. Not to mention a omniscient creator might have to explain
things in rudimentary fashion to ancient people with limited knowledge of the natural world.

I know biblical Hebrew and I use it fairly frequently in sermon preparation. What limitations do you think exist in Hebrew that would lead us to interpret Genesis 1 in a non-literal way?

Besides that there are ways of dealing with the Sumerian end of things. Michael Heiser for instance makes a good case for early Genesis as a polemic against the Sumerian culture which believed itself to be superior based on its descent from the Anuki / Watchers etc.

That kind of perspective though really does help put the book in perspective. Athiests might mock the book as superstition etc. but pointing out the meaning of the snake/ seraph in ancient Egyptian iconography really puts things in perspective.

I don't deny that Genesis 1-2 is polemical against Egyptian mythology. But as far as I've studied this, I've never seen how these polemics would lead us away from a YEC understanding of creation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not to mention a omniscient creator might have to explain things in rudimentary fashion to ancient people with limited knowledge of the natural world.

I don't buy that argument. Ancient people weren't naive children. In some ways they understood the natural world better than a city-dwelling 21st century person. Evolution is a very ancient concept, which, like many ancient concepts, didn't get a scientific footing until recently.

Had God wanted to express evolution to Moses, he could have simply said something like, "And on the 6th day the fish crawled out of the water and God made it a beast of the land." Not too hard.

Besides that there are ways of dealing with the Sumerian end of things. Michael Heiser for instance makes a good case for early Genesis as a polemic against the Sumerian culture which believed itself to be superior based on its descent from the Anuki / Watchers etc.

That kind of perspective though really does help put the book in perspective. Athiests might mock the book as superstition etc. but pointing out the meaning of the snake/ seraph in ancient Egyptian iconography really puts things in perspective.

While the Bible has a fascinating array of such things, it's risky to take that line of thought too far - to make the existence of cultural symbols the sole explanation for their presence in the Bible. For example, each plague of Egypt attacked a specific Egyptian god, showing God's power was greater than the supposed Egyptian deities. That doesn't serve as proof the plagues never happened.