Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?

[vossler]

Please Creationist's only!!! This is to gauge where people see themselves.

 

[Mallon]

I see you voted 100%, vossler. Does that mean your mind isn't open to alternative interpretations?

 

[savedandhappy1]

Why would we put anything above/over God?

Why would we even think that if science doesn't agree with God, that God is the one that is misunderstood or wrong?

Why would science not agree with God?

 

[vossler]

I see you voted 100%, vossler. Does that mean your mind isn't open to alternative interpretations?

Once the truth is known one shouldn't be willing to compromise it. Of course I will and have listened to alternative interpretations. I didn't arrive where I am by not hearing all sides. Having heard the alternatives I can't foresee another legitimately raising itself as a possibility to challenge what is already known. But to be perfectly honest there is always a chance that something, probably quite small, has been missed and could reveal a new truth. Yet even if this did happen I couldn't envision it challenging the existing truth, but only supplementing it. Whatever this new knowledge might be it obviously would have to align well with the Word of God in order to even be considered. So given that I didn't give a 99% option I'm comfortable with 100% as being the best option.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I can't say 100% because I haven't examined the evidence. But if evolution is true, Genesis is not. So I'd say less than 50%.

 

[Mallon]

Once the truth is known one shouldn't be willing to compromise it. Of course I will and have listened to alternative interpretations. I didn't arrive where I am by not hearing all sides. Having heard the alternatives I can't foresee another legitimately raising itself as a possibility to challenge what is already known. But to be perfectly honest there is always a chance that something, probably quite small, has been missed and could reveal a new truth. Yet even if this did happen I couldn't envision it challenging the existing truth, but only supplementing it. Whatever this new knowledge might be it obviously would have to align well with the Word of God in order to even be considered. So given that I didn't give a 99% option I'm comfortable with 100% as being the best option.

Just for future reference, then, is it worth discussing origin issues with you if you are already convinced your opinion is Truth? Is there nothing that could ever be said that could change your mind?

 

[Mallon]

But if evolution is true, Genesis is not.

Why not? I would like to hear you explain further.

 

[mont974x4]

Once the truth is known one shouldn't be willing to compromise it. Of course I will and have listened to alternative interpretations. I didn't arrive where I am by not hearing all sides. Having heard the alternatives I can't foresee another legitimately raising itself as a possibility to challenge what is already known. But to be perfectly honest there is always a chance that something, probably quite small, has been missed and could reveal a new truth. Yet even if this did happen I couldn't envision it challenging the existing truth, but only supplementing it. Whatever this new knowledge might be it obviously would have to align well with the Word of God in order to even be considered. So given that I didn't give a 99% option I'm comfortable with 100% as being the best option.

That pretty much sums it up.


Not that it can't be an interesting topic to discuss at times, but most of the time those threads turn into something that is completely unedifying because of name calling, insults etc. So, I tend to avoid them for the most part. For some reason, having the discussion in person usually stays honest, and friendly and ends on friendly terms to agree to disagree.


What many people don't seem to understand is that our faith really isn't all that blind. We have examined the evidence presented by science. We have looked at the Scripture, considering literary style/type, context, and the nature of God. I have come to the conclusion that YEC is the correct view. I understand why others disagree. I also admit that I am willing to consider new evidence, but I am not easily swayed, nor should I be given the extent of my study and the depth of my convictions. I expect that those who disagree with me on this issue are in a similar mindset.

 

[vossler]

Just for future reference, then, is it worth discussing origin issues with you if you are already convinced your opinion is Truth? Is there nothing that could ever be said that could change your mind?

I'm 100% certain that my opinion is not Truth. My opinion means nothing and is totally irrelevant. All that matters is what the Word of God says, nobody should care what my opinion is. Now if the question is; Is there anyway that I can believe that common descent occurred, then I have an emphatic no as my response. On this I'm 100% sure. As far as other things like timelines there is some room for discussion.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Why not? I would like to hear you explain further.

I do not think the authors of Genesis believed in evolution, nor did they intend to present creation allegorically. They expected the readers to take them for their word. If evolution is true, it poses too many theological problems. How did sin really come in? Why wasn't it revealed? I'm not sure it can be reconciled. Unless you want to tell me what all of those generations stand for, because I have no idea how to interpret them.

 

[mont974x4]

Ishida,
you bring up a good point about the creation account not being allegory. Given the writing style of the rest of the book, and the rest of the Pentatuch (sp?) it would be a mistake to think the first two chapters of the Bible are anything but a historical record, with chapter two doing some more explaining of the first.

 

[marktheblake]

I'm 100% certain that my opinion is not Truth.

I like that position, as you are being honest. Whilst I am 100% certain that what I believe is the truth, I do not and cannot claim that to be Absolute Truth and or Knowledge.

 

[Mallon]

All that matters is what the Word of God says, nobody should care what my opinion is.

But when you tell us what the Bible says, are you not imposing your own personal, concordist interpretation on it?

Now if the question is; Is there anyway that I can believe that common descent occurred, then I have an emphatic no as my response. On this I'm 100% sure.

This is good to know. If you're absolutely convinced, with no room for discussion, that the Bible emphatically denies the possibility of common descent, then there's no point in discussing these issues with you, right? That's what I wanted to know.

 

[artybloke]

I do not think the authors of Genesis believed in evolution

So? It's highly improbable that they believed in modern medicine either.

 

[Mallon]

I do not think the authors of Genesis believed in evolution, nor did they intend to present creation allegorically.

I think the latter is arguable, but I agree that the Genesis author(s) didn't believe in evolution. Nor did they believe in germs or DNA or heliocentrism. And that's the point. The Genesis author(s) believed the same things about the physical make-up of the world as the surrounding Mesopotamian people. What makes the Genesis creation account stand out from other Near Eastern creation mythologies isn't the creation of the earth from water or the establishment of the firmament (these are common motifs in ancient Near Eastern culture). It's the polemical stance against polytheism and the haphazard nature of creation that make Genesis unique. Just as He did in the embodiment of Christ, God accomodated the creation account to the context and understanding of the ANE people so that they might understand Who is behind it all and what He has planned for us.

If evolution is true, it poses too many theological problems. How did sin really come in? Why wasn't it revealed? I'm not sure it can be reconciled. Unless you want to tell me what all of those generations stand for, because I have no idea how to interpret them.

Are these really theological problems? If you can't pinpoint the moment sin entered the world, can you not still see that sin is now in the world and that we need to be saved from it? The problem of sin (theodicy) has troubled Christians since the inception of our religion. Pretending that it was never a problem until Darwin came up with his theory of evolution via natural selection is silly and ill-informed.

(And by the way, if you want to learn about what the genealogies of the Bible mean, try researching numerology. The Hebrew people were just as obsessed with it as the surrounding cultures and their genealogies are just as riddled with mystical numbers. Clearly, they weren't written to tell of history.)

 

[Mallon]

Ishida,
you bring up a good point about the creation account not being allegory. Given the writing style of the rest of the book, and the rest of the Pentatuch (sp?) it would be a mistake to think the first two chapters of the Bible are anything but a historical record, with chapter two doing some more explaining of the first.

Genesis 2 is not simply an elaboration on Genesis 1. The two chapters use different linguistic styles (and were likely written by two different authors), and contradict one another about the order of creation. Knowing this, why read the creation account as historical?

 

[mont974x4]

I see no contradictions. Genesis 2 is an elaboration of key issues of the creation event found in Chapter 1. There is no timeline of events like we see on chapter 1. There is no reason to assume a different author, unless your agenda is to undermine the authority of Scripture.

Given that Genesis is written as a historical narative, an account of actual historic events, there is no reason to think that the book starts as an allegory. That would undermine the authority of Scripture right from the start because it could not be trusted.

 

[Mallon]

I see no contradictions.

On what day did God create "all" birds, according to Genesis 1 and 2?

Genesis 2 is an elaboration of key issues of the creation event found in Chapter 1.

What is it about Genesis 2 that suggests this to you? Are you assuming this? Or does Genesis 2 actually say it is an elaboration of the previous chapter?

There is no timeline of events like we see on chapter 1.

Sure there is. The author of Genesis 2 makes repeated use of the Hebrew waw consecutive, which denotes sequential order. That is to say, Genesis 2 clearly states that God made man, beats and birds, in that order. This is in contrast to the order given in Genesis 1.

There is no reason to assume a different author, unless your agenda is to undermine the authority of Scripture.

There are many reasons to believe that Genesis 1-2:3 and the rest of chapter 2 were written by different authors. The strikingly different literary style between the two argues as much. As does the fact that the stories stand as complete apart from one another.
And in what way does recognizing that two different authors contributed to the Genesis creation account undermine the authority of Scripture? What does it matter?

Given that Genesis is written as a historical narative, an account of actual historic events, there is no reason to think that the book starts as an allegory. That would undermine the authority of Scripture right from the start because it could not be trusted.

Why do you think non-historical accounts are not to be trusted? The Bible is full of ahistorical accounts, including Jesus' parables. Do you think Jesus' own words should not be trusted? Why do you look to the Bible as you do a history or science textbook when the Sciptures were written so that you would come to know God?

 

[mont974x4]

Genesis 2 does not tell us a sequence of days and events like Genesis 1 does. It doesn't even give us a full account, as I said, it is just an elaboration of key events of chapter 1.

God created history and science, why would I view an uninspired textbook that is written by a man as being more reliable than Scripture?


The Gospels are a historical account of Jesus teachings and associated events, some of the teachings were done in parable. There is no evidence of such a thing in Genesis.

If creation didn't occur as God tells it in Genesis then God is a liar, and nothing in Scripture could be trusted.


But all that said, I have no interest in a debate. Clearly we both have made up our minds and you certainly aren't going to change mine and I doubt I'd change yours.

Besides, I have massive amounts of homework to finish before I take a much needed break.

 

[Mallon]

Genesis 2 does not tell us a sequence of days and events like Genesis 1 does. It doesn't even give us a full account, as I said, it is just an elaboration of key events of chapter 1.

You said this before, but have offered nothing new in support of this opinion. Unfortunately, simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it any more credible.
I agree that Genesis 2 does not offer a sequence of days like Genesis 1 does. That's because Genesis tells us that the Garden, man, and "all" beasts and birds were created in a single day, not six.

God created history and science, why would I view an uninspired textbook that is written by a man as being more reliable than Scripture?

To be certain, uninspired textbooks are not more reliable than Scripture when it comes to explaining our relationship with God and with each other. But given that the Bible wasn't written for the purpose of telling us about science, why do you think it is more reliable on the subject of science than textbooks, which are written for that purpose? Sure, God inspired the Bible, but given that He clearly inspired the authors of Scripture to write using the science of the day (e.g., geocentrism, preformatism, numerology), why would you think He would do otherwise in Genesis?

The Gospels are a historical account of Jesus teachings and associated events, some of the teachings were done in parable. There is no evidence of such a thing in Genesis.

That's debatable. I would argue that stories telling of a talking snake, a magic tree, and a worldwide flood -- all within a numerological or chiastic framework -- are probably good evidence that they are not historical accounts. Regardless, like you, I believe the Hebrew audience understood the Genesis creation story as having been an historical account of factual events. The question is whether such a story was accomodated by God to His people or not. On this, we disagree.

If creation didn't occur as God tells it in Genesis then God is a liar, and nothing in Scripture could be trusted.

Why? Why does God have to fit within your strict preconviction? God tells us in the Psalms that we are knit within our mother's wombs. Does that make Him a liar? God tells us in Job that the earth is shaped like clay pressed under a seal. Does that make Him a liar? God told the Jews to sacrifice animals to Him in order to pay for their sins, even though this practice could never remove sin. Does that make Him a liar?

But all that said, I have no interest in a debate. Clearly we both have made up our minds and you certainly aren't going to change mine and I doubt I'd change yours.

I'm open to hearing well-framed arguments if you've got any to offer.

Besides, I have massive amounts of homework to finish before I take a much needed break.

Best of luck with that.