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

[Apollo Celestio]

I guess I will, perhaps there is a hidden message in there telling us none of it is true? Whether it stood out or not, if it is not true, than it is in fact a "stand-out" lie.

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

It's highly improbable the believed in movies and cell phones either, but I not only think they did not believe in evolution, but believed at least that whoever would read their words would accept it as literal truth. Lest even the patriarchs have some allegorical meaning.

I think some say Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1, if they ascribe to the JEDP theory. And on the "problems', we're talking a different problem here.. it does matter how sin entered the world, sin is nothing if we just died anyway.

 

[vossler]

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

I guess according to that line of thinking, your interpretation, mine, your pastor's, my pastor's, or anyone who tells us what the Scriptures say is thrusting their personal opinion onto others and is thereby subject to dismissal. Going along this train of thought there could never be any absolute truth because all interpretation would be, to some extent, personal opinion. Therefore, practically everything we read in the Bible would be someone's personal, concordist interpretation and accordingly just an opinion. That's a wonderful path to follow if you don't like what the Bible says in certain areas. As for me, I will not be selective like that. It's all truth regardless of how I feel about it.

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.

Yes, on this point you are right!

 

[Mallon]

I guess according to that line of thinking, your interpretation, mine, your pastor's, my pastor's, or anyone who tells us what the Scriptures say is thrusting their personal opinion onto others and is thereby subject to dismissal. Going along this train of thought there could never be any absolute truth because all interpretation would be, to some extent, personal opinion. Therefore, practically everything we read in the Bible would be someone's personal, concordist interpretation and accordingly just an opinion. That's a wonderful path to follow if you don't like what the Bible says in certain areas. As for me, I will not be selective like that. It's all truth regardless of how I feel about it.

You've completely misconstrued my point.
Yes, anyone's interpretation of the Bible is just that -- an interpretation. The Scriptures, though they speak God's truth, are filtered through fallible human minds, and as such, are subject to distortion. This doesn't mean that everyone's thoughts concerning the Bible should be dismissed outright, but I do hope that everyone here who is "100% certain" of their biblical hermeneutic recognizes that they are just as sinful and prone to misinterpretation as anyone else, and that they do not confuse their interpetation with absolute truth. Paul had a reminder for those in need of a little more humility in 1 Cor 10:12.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Lets see according to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnamts from such explosions expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supermovas.

hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Let's see.......... According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it losses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.

If the moon is moving away from us at 125 miles a year, then how many years ago would it have been sitting right on top of the earth? Which would make the earth how old?

 

[marktheblake]

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.

That argument cuts both ways.

I cannot understand why some people dispute the right of a person in these kind of debates to not change their mind. I have never seen a formal debate where one side concedes defeat and converts to the other side. The reason I and am sure others participate in discussions is not to convert the opponent but to show that there is an answer to the questions, hopefully to help someone else who is undecided.

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.

Gen 2 is just about the Garden of Eden and its relevance to man, and not the whole of creation. I have no problem with harmonising the two accounts and dont see any contradiction. Probably the key word on English in Gen 2:19 is whether the translation says 'formed' or 'had formed'. I am no Hebrew expert, but its my understanding that like english, correct meaning is understood by context, as in Gen 1 the context is made clear with an ordered creation account.

That's debatable. I would argue that stories telling of a talking snake, a magic tree, and a worldwide flood

Snakes dont talk and its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake. It wasn't a magic tree, and a worldwide flood is not unreasonable.

The question is whether such a story was accomodated by God to His people or not. On this, we disagree.

Jesus agrees with the Genesis account - he endorsed the Torah absolutely.

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?

Any reasonable person can tell the difference between imagery in Psalms/Proverbs and a Historical account such as Genesis, Exodus etc

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?

Do we really need to discuss why someone making a sacrifice of something that they value is a demonstration of their faith and trust in god.

 

[Assyrian]

It's highly improbable the believed in movies and cell phones either, but I not only think they did not believe in evolution, but believed at least that whoever would read their words would accept it as literal truth. Lest even the patriarchs have some allegorical meaning.

But the Patriarchs themselves were quite happy allegory. Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? Jacob's allegorical description of his sons as lions and donkeys and snakes (oh my!) does not mean he did not have real sons. It is Moses himself who taught us the figurative interpretation of God's days in Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. Have a look at Exodus 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Had the Israelites seen God carry them out of Egypt on eagles wings? Or did they walk? If you want to interpret scripture literally then there is a pretty big contradiction here. Especially when God specifically say they had seen this themselves. The alternative is that God, the Patriarchs and Moses were a lot more comfortable with allegory than many Christians are today.

 

[artybloke]

but believed at least that whoever would read their words would accept it as literal truth.

Personally, I suspect they wouldn't have known what "literal truth" in the modern historic-scientific sense meant if they tripped over it in the Temple. They lived in a world full of symbols, stories, myths, legends, poetry; not a world full of scientific hypotheses. And their original audience would have been more interested in a good story than a scientific account, because, well, most of them couldn't read anyway; and if you want to get important truths across to a non-literate audience the best way is to tell stories.

Stop assuming that ancient peoples were just like you. They weren't.

 

[Mallon]

Lets see according to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnamts from such explosions expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supermovas.

hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Let's see.......... According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it losses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.

If the moon is moving away from us at 125 miles a year, then how many years ago would it have been sitting right on top of the earth? Which would make the earth how old?

1. You plagiarized this argument word-for-word (with a few spelling mistakes slipped in) from elsewhere on the internet without giving proper citation, which makes me wonder whether you actually understand it.

2. You're using the same uniformitarian assumptions YECs chide modern science for. That's a double standard.

3. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with comets, galaxies, or outer space.

 

[Mallon]

Probably the key word on English in Gen 2:19 is whether the translation says 'formed' or 'had formed'. I am no Hebrew expert, but its my understanding that like english, correct meaning is understood by context, as in Gen 1 the context is made clear with an ordered creation account.

The word used in Genesis 2:19 is "formed", not "had formed". That is to say, Genesis 2:19 says that God formed "every" or "all" beasts and birds after Adam -- not just those in the Garden. By forcing Genesis 2 to follow Genesis 1 chronologically, you're imposing a reading on the text that doesn't stem from the text itself.

Snakes dont talk and its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake. It wasn't a magic tree, and a worldwide flood is not unreasonable.

By claiming that the snake wasn't a physical snake, you're doing exactly that which you've just chided evolutionary creationists for doing: allegorizing the account.
If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden weren't magic, what were they?
Yes, a worldwide flood is unreasonable. Especially since there is zero evidence for one in the past.

Jesus agrees with the Genesis account - he endorsed the Torah absolutely.

Indeed. But just because Jesus cited the Torah doesn't mean he believed it to be a factual account of history, did he? Jesus also said that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. But even though this isn't true, Jesus was simply accomodating to the minds of his audience.

Any reasonable person can tell the difference between imagery in Psalms/Proverbs and a Historical account such as Genesis, Exodus etc

That's not an argument. I might just as easily say that any reasonable person can recognize the imagery used in Genesis. Or the numerology used in Matthew.

My point still stands: the Bible is an accomodation to the minds of men. What arguments can you present to refute accomodationism and support the scientific/historical concordism you espouse?

 

[Mallon]

Yes, on this point you are right!

I think it's worth pointing out the significance of vossler's admission to other evolutionary creationists. I think his response is representative of many, if not most, neocreationists. By admitting that no amount of evidence or reasoned discussion can change his mind about the veracity of biological evolution, there's really no point in trying to debate neocreationists about the facts of science until the scientific concordist hermeneutic can be deconstructed first. Take down that barrier via inductive Bible study, and the door should open to a discussion of the empirical evidence.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Personally, I suspect they wouldn't have known what "literal truth" in the modern historic-scientific sense meant if they tripped over it in the Temple. They lived in a world full of symbols, stories, myths, legends, poetry; not a world full of scientific hypotheses. And their original audience would have been more interested in a good story than a scientific account, because, well, most of them couldn't read anyway; and if you want to get important truths across to a non-literate audience the best way is to tell stories.

Stop assuming that ancient peoples were just like you. They weren't.

You mean they were liars then? The creation of the world stands out from all these other things. I'd like to think we have a right to know.

 

[shernren]

You mean they were liars then? The creation of the world stands out from all these other things. I'd like to think we have a right to know.

Let's try a warm-up exercise.

Your five-year-old brother asks: "Why does the sun give light?" You answer:

A. "Because God made it do so."
B. "It's a big ball of fire in the sky."
C. "Because the fusion process that converts hydrogen to helium releases the energy in the mass defect of a helium nucleus as electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of the spectrum."
D. "Look, a hot dog stand!"

Is answer A scientifically useful?
Is answer B a lie?
Is answer C useful to your five-year old brother?
Is answer D verbal canine abuse?

Discuss!

 

[artybloke]

You mean they were liars then?

Why is teaching truth through story a lie? Or are all novelists, poets, playwrights, actors, filmmakers, artists of all kind liars too?

Also, of course, as I said, they wouldn't have known 19th-21st century notions of scientific objectivity if they came up and bopped them on the nose. They probably did "believe" that it happened in the way they said it did, just as the ancient Greeks "believed" the stories about Hercules*; but to call it "literalism" when they had no science to compare it with, is impossibly anachronistic.

*Though if you read the way that the ancient poets and philosophers took extreme liberty with the myths and history of their own culture, you'd abandon any idea that ancient people were in any way interested in historical veracity.

 

[marktheblake]

The word used in Genesis 2:19 is "formed", not "had formed".

No sorry, they didnt speak English back then. The word is Yatsar, and AFAIK there is no Hebrew word for 'had'. I maybe wrong but I dont see it used with 'Asar' which is used to both mean "made" and also "had made" in Gen 1. It is only the context that places the 'had' in the sentence.

. By forcing Genesis 2 to follow Genesis 1 chronologically, you're imposing a reading on the text that doesn't stem from the text itself.

You are doing that yourself by imposing a contradiction on the text.

I am pretty sure that author/s of Genesis intended that the various accounts be complimentary not contradictory. So we are allowed to use context and the Chapter start/ends are not meant convey we 'start over' with new meaning.

By claiming that the snake wasn't a physical snake, you're doing exactly ........

I clearly never said that, so where did you get this interpretation from? You appear to be imposing what you want to believe on the text you read.

I simply said you cannot claim it was a snake exclusively, which you did by mocking the 'talking snake' account.

If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden weren't magic, what were they?Yes, a worldwide flood is unreasonable. Especially since there is zero evidence for one in the past.

Clearly you interpret all you see from your own worldview and thats fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't claim it as the truth, because you do not have absolute knowledge.

Indeed. But just because Jesus cited the Torah doesn't mean he believed it to be a factual account of history, did he?

It doesnt mean he didnt either, so you cant rule out the possibility

That's not an argument. I might just as easily say that any reasonable person can recognize the imagery used in Genesis.

Sorry but a kid can go to the library and grab an Enid Blyton and World at War, and immediately tell the difference.

What arguments can you present to refute accomodationism and support the scientific/historical concordism you espouse?

Only after you provide evidence that your absolute interpretation of scripture is the way it was meant to be understood.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Snakes dont talk and its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake. It wasn't a magic tree, and a worldwide flood is not unreasonable.

We all remember that it wasn't a snake till after it deceived Eve, right? Then it was cursed to spend the rest of it's days crawling on it's belly.

 

[savedandhappy1]

1. You plagiarized this argument word-for-word (with a few spelling mistakes slipped in) from elsewhere on the internet without giving proper citation, which makes me wonder whether you actually understand it.

2. You're using the same uniformitarian assumptions YECs chide modern science for. That's a double standard.

3. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with comets, galaxies, or outer space.

So if you make a mistake in spelling you can't know anything about this or any topic?

I was worried about not being able to post where I got this information, and was hoping to get the name of the science book they are using at our schools, before someone ask for it. That didn't happen though and I am still working on that, but believe it our not I do other things beside post here, misspell here, or read arrogant post from people who must think that their answers are always right.

You do know that being smug or acting like you never err doesn't mean that you have all the truths of the world, right?

So, if it is so beneath you to read and respond to misspelling in post you can just pass over mine, because this isn't the first and probably won't be the last time I for whatever reason misspell. I'm human so believe it or not mistakes will happen.

I have read many a post with misspelled words, but I could still understand what was being said so found nothing profitable in mentioning it. It had nothing to do with what we were discussing, or are you really trying to say that a person who misspells can't understand the topic at hand?

So comets, galaxies or outer space aren't evolving?

Only things on earth evolve?

Does the evolution of things in outer space effect things here or on other planets which in turn could/would effect the earth?

 

[Mallon]

No sorry, they didnt speak English back then. The word is Yatsar, and AFAIK there is no Hebrew word for 'had'. I maybe wrong but I dont see it used with 'Asar' which is used to both mean "made" and also "had made" in Gen 1. It is only the context that places the 'had' in the sentence.
You are doing that yourself by imposing a contradiction on the text.

It's worth pointing out that Gen 2:19 features a Hebrew consecutive waw, that denotes sequence in a story. That is, Gen 2:19 literally tells us that the birds and beasts were formed after man was created in Chapter 2. We don't need to read Gen 2:19 as a parenthetical reference to Chapter 1 since the waw consecutive implies otherwise.
So, knowing that the creative sequences in Genesis 1 and 2 do not coincide, and recognizing the very different use of language in these two accounts (Yahwist vs. Priestly), it really isn't such a stretch to believe that they were written independently by different authors at different times (in fact, it's the most parsimonious interpretation). As you say, the stories are certainly complimentary in the sense that they reveal different aspects about God's relationship with His creation. The contradiction enters only when we force our post-Englightenment perspective on the accounts by insisting that they must tell of actual, historical events. Again, newspaper-like historical accuracy was of no concern to the early Hebrews, so they would not have viewed the two creation accounts as being contradictory.

I simply said you cannot claim it was a snake exclusively, which you did by mocking the 'talking snake' account.

The text says the serpent was a serpent and nothing more. We're never told that the serpent was the devil in disguise. We're never told that it was a spiritual manifestation of evil. So when you say that "its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake", you're allegorizing the text by making it say something the surface text does not. As I said, you're (hypocritically) doing that which you accuse evolutionary creationists of.

And for what it's worth, I did not "mock" the account of the talking snake. Why is it that so many neocreationists equate the reading of a text ahistorically with mocking it? This is positivism in the extreme. It's Enlightenment-centric. And it's certainly not the way the first Hebrews thought.

Clearly you interpret all you see from your own worldview and thats fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but please don't claim it as the truth, because you do not have absolute knowledge.

I'm more than open to being wrong. After all, we all bring our own biases and worldviews into our interpretation of the Bible (though we try not to). But until you provide some concrete evidence that I'm out-to-lunch, I'm sold on the idea that the scientific concordism you espouse is wrong.

It doesnt mean he didnt either, so you cant rule out the possibility

Come on, marktheblake. You cited the example of Jesus referencing Genesis as evidence that Jesus bought into the story as history. Now you're saying we can't tell either way. You're not being very convincing.

Sorry but a kid can go to the library and grab an Enid Blyton and World at War, and immediately tell the difference.

This is just hearsay. And a red herring at that. It doesn't warrant further discussion.

Only after you provide evidence that your absolute interpretation of scripture is the way it was meant to be understood.

My position is that the Bible is an accomodation to the context, culture, and understanding of human beings. That is, God spoke to the Hebrew people using language, mythology, and science they were familiar with. The New Testament, for example, was written in Koine Greek, an unrefined, ancient dialect spoken by very average people on the streets. Furthermore, Jesus accomodated his spiritual messages to these people in the form of parables, using language and scenarios they were familiar with so that they could understand. In fact, the very incarnation of Christ was an accomodation of God Himself so that we could better relate to Him. Our God is an accomodating God. He speaks to us as a father speaks to his child. So there you have it -- that's my evidence that the Bible is accomodated to the limitations of human beings. It's in God's nature to do so.
So again I ask: What's your evidence that God intended to supercede the understanding of the ancient Hebrews by dictating 21st century science to them?

 

[Mallon]

So if you make a mistake in spelling you can't know anything about this or any topic?

It isn't your spelling mistakes that make me think you don't know what you're talking about. It's the fact that you aren't able to put someone else's ideas into your own words. Paraphrasing denotes understanding. Plagiarizing doesn't. That's part of the reason why plagiarism is frowned upon in school.
And trying to make me the bad guy by calling me smug doesn't change that.

So comets, galaxies or outer space aren't evolving?

Only things on earth evolve?

Does the evolution of things in outer space effect things here or on other planets which in turn could/would effect the earth?

Sure, our universe is evolving, but not in the sense of the "evolutionary theory" you cite. The term "evolutionary theory" is typically used in conjunction with biological evolution, and the forces and processes that act on biological life are not the same that act on planets, stars, or solar systems.

Besides all that, each of the arguments you plagiarized are wrong for reasons explained here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

This isn't to say you're an idiot. But the ideas you espouse uncritically are demonstrably false. Instead of making yourself a martyr, why not learn from these mistakes and move on? Iron sharpens iron, after all.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Let's try a warm-up exercise.

Your five-year-old brother asks: "Why does the sun give light?" You answer:

A. "Because God made it do so."
B. "It's a big ball of fire in the sky."
C. "Because the fusion process that converts hydrogen to helium releases the energy in the mass defect of a helium nucleus as electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of the spectrum."
D. "Look, a hot dog stand!"

Is answer A scientifically useful?
Is answer B a lie?
Is answer C useful to your five-year old brother?
Is answer D verbal canine abuse?

Discuss!

If you're right, the authors of genesis did not know the truth. They made it up.

@ Artybloke: Because the story is merely a fairy tale with no truth in it, not the "truth presented by story" If your quote/claim at the bottom is correct, we possibly know nothing then.

 

[savedandhappy1]

It isn't your spelling mistakes that make me think you don't know what you're talking about. It's the fact that you aren't able to put someone else's ideas into your own words. Paraphrasing denotes understanding. Plagiarizing doesn't. That's part of the reason why plagiarism is frowned upon in school.
And trying to make me the bad guy by calling me smug doesn't change that.


Sure, our universe is evolving, but not in the sense of the "evolutionary theory" you cite. The term "evolutionary theory" is typically used in conjunction with biological evolution, and the forces and processes that act on biological life are not the same that act on planets, stars, or solar systems.

Besides all that, each of the arguments you plagiarized are wrong for reasons explained here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

This isn't to say you're an idiot. But the ideas you espouse uncritically are demonstrably false. Instead of making yourself a martyr, why not learn from these mistakes and move on? Iron sharpens iron, after all.

Learn from my mistakes, yep I do that. If we don't then we can't survive, but changing my ideas because I post some findings as I found them doesn't denote someone being smart or an idot. All it does is show that I wanted opinions on those things.

Instead I get that I misspell something, as the very first thing pointed out as if that has anything to do with if God created the world as His word says He did, or if it evolved because of the way He set it up, and last but not least if there even is a God.

If we are talking about Creationism, then whether the earth is as old as some of the scientist say it is or if it is as young as the Bible says it is, is important. If it takes as long as some say for things to evolve to where they are today, and the earth is only around 10,000 years old, then hmmmmmmmmmmmmm lets see that would mean that trusting on mans opinion/theory about these things is not real smart.

So if I would have just put a link to the things I posted and not even wrote them down would have been better then writing them out in my post. Interesting!!

So where in my post did I say those were my statements?

Plagiarizing?

So now I'm a person who can't spell, and I steal other peoples work and claim it as mine, which we know I didn't do, but it must just be the way I evolved because..........why else would I think that belittling and bearing false witness about someone would be signs of arrogance and rudeness?

I will give you this, you have helped me remember why I stopped coming to this section, and so sorry you think this is all about you and if you are a bad guy or something.

It has nothing to do with you or me, all it has to with is the Lord and whether the truth is being told about what all He has done.