- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,057
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Those talk of creation. How would you use them to support your argument?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Those talk of creation. How would you use them to support your argument?I appreciate that the question you pose is not asked of me but...Romans 1:20, and Psalm 19.
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.
I think that is a different OP.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...
Those talk of creation. How would you use them to support your argument?
I think that is a different OP.
But that’s not the topic.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..."
Waters around the earth, firmanent with lights in it, creation from dust, paradise, trees, serpent, cycles...
Whether it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?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 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.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 it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?
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.
Whether it was by evolution or direct creation, there were still a first male and first female Homo sapiens, right?
That’s not the topic of this thread.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 wrongGenesis 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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?