Creationists, what if you found out tomorrow . . .

Vance · Apr 12, 2005

Well, I don't know about all the "fathers of the Church", and what they say would not bother me anyway, but there is no reason to believe that Moses, Jesus or Paul read the Creation accounts as literal history. And, in fact, there is very good reason think they did NOT read it that way.

But I am glad you would not lose your faith, as some others have said here and in the other forum. The main point is to make sure we don't create the mindset that would force an "either/or" decision over such a "non-salvation" issue.

Matthew777 · Apr 12, 2005

Vance said:
. And, in fact, there is very good reason think they did NOT read it that way.

"From the beginning of the Creation, God made them male and female".
Please also consider Matthew 24 in which Christ refers to the flood as a historical event. When Christ spoke in parable, he said so plainly.

Also consider the theology of St. Paul, in which Christ is the second Adam. If the first Adam did not exist, then Christ did not either.

It is okay for you to accept the uniformitarian/evolutionist worldview but please do not attempt to read it into Scripture.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Vance · Apr 12, 2005

Matthew777 said:
"From the beginning of the Creation, God made them male and female".
Please also consider Matthew 24 in which Christ refers to the flood as a historical event.
Also consider the theology of St. Paul, in which Christ is the second Adam. If the first Adam did not exist, then Christ did not either.

All of those verses would read exactly the same if the entire Creation account was a figurative telling of the literal events. Moses would say it that way, Jesus would say it that way and Paul would say it that way. Not a problem in the least.

Matthew777 · Apr 12, 2005

Vance said:
All of those verses would read exactly the same if the entire Creation account was a figurative telling of the literal events. Moses would say it that way, Jesus would say it that way and Paul would say it that way. Not a problem in the least.

Vance, what reason do we have from the text of Genesis itself to believe it to be a "figurative" account? What reason do we have from the words of Christ and Paul to believe Genesis to be a "figurative" account?
In the Scriptures, when something is figurative instead of literal, the text shows itself to be such. When Christ spoke in parable, he made that clear.
Jesus Christ would not refer to the flood and the creation of Adam and Eve as historical events if they were not.

Furthermore, Paul makes clear that death and sin entered the world through one man but grace comes through Jesus Christ. From this passage, If Adam did not exist, why should we believe that Christ existed?
In order to hold an evolutionist position, you'd have to think of Paul as mistaken.
Please do not make the absurd suggestion that Paul and Christ did not believe in the historicity of Genesis.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Iron Sun 254 · Apr 12, 2005

I'm sorry... not to be argumentative, but at what point did Jesus talk about the creation of the world?

Jesus spoke in parables to help people understand more easily. Why is it difficult to belief that God also spoke in parables when explaining the creation of the Earth? Wouldn't that mean that truly the creation story was the word of God but was told as it was so that people who didn't even know the world was round could understand the concepts he was teaching so that evolution was not incompatable?

Matthew777 · Apr 12, 2005

Iron Sun 254 said:
I'm sorry... not to be argumentative, but at what point did Jesus talk about the creation of the world?

Mark 10:6, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female

Edx · Apr 12, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Mark 10:6, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female

and this cannot be allegory why?

Ed

Matthew777 · Apr 12, 2005

Edx said:
and this cannot be allegory why?

Ed

When Jesus Christ spoke in parable, He made it clear that He was doing so.
Either Christ was mistaken, or He was telling the truth.

Matthew777 · Apr 12, 2005

I do not enjoy debating this issue because it really should be a non-issue.
Theistic evolution is an attempt to marry Darwinism with the Word of God.
However, one need only allow the text to speak for itself to notice the contradiction.
The philosophy of Darwinism is antithetical to traditional Christian theology.
One may find Creationism to be only a particular interpretation of the Bible but it is the traditional pre-Darwinian understanding of the text.

"Q. Who created the world, how and why?
A. God created the world in six days, from nothing, with only the power of His
Word, that He might make other beings happy also."
C A T E C H I S M

O F

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH

WRITTEN BY

Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.

http://www.orthodoxcatechism.com/How/catechism.htm

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

tryptophan · Apr 12, 2005

paulrob said:
Your question is almost irrelevant as that's what we've been told for the last 150 years. So most of us have already come to terms with the situation.

Now lets be more realistic in our philosophising: They've just discovered that the supposed age of the universe has been probably overstated by some 3 billion years. Spontaneoud Generation was destroyed by one simple experiment. The speed of light has now been questioned, along with the "truth" of e=MC^2. Under lab conditions halflife of one of our chonometers was reduced from millions of years to minutes.
What if the entire process of dating cosmology was in error, and in fact the earth was only 15,000 years old, what would that do to your faith?

What if scientists finally admitted that there was no possibility of life evolving (as is suggested by ALL the evidence including the Wistar conferences that determined that abiogenesis was impossible.), and that there was a universal flood that killed everything on earth as all the major Biblical writers claim?

What would that do to your faith?

Why do Christians try so hard to make the major Biblical writers liars? Why attempt with such enthusiams to make Jesus a teacher of a false religion?

Why isn't it enough to say God said it, I believe it and that settles it?

Why do so many Christians follow the sin of EVE and look at appearances, rather than the truth behind the appearances.

When Elisha sent his servant to check on the Mideonites - he saw what some would call reality. When God opened his eyes, he saw the truth.

If the Christian scientists, professional and amateur, that spend so much time supporting the long war against God through science (a form of idolatry - questioning hath God said, and setting up a false God to worship) would put their effort into research from a Biblical perspective, the true issue would very quickly become clear:

Evolution and long ages are necessary to remove God from the picture. Short ages requires God and the secular mindset cannot allow that.

-

Only one creationist has bothered to answer the question and we've already switched subjects.

Vastavus · Apr 12, 2005

I did too, but instead got shunned. Was that the one: "ATHEISM a conclusion is when you get tired of thinking?". If so, this place sure doesn't like us atheists very much.

I'm not Atheist, but in one of my posts, I jokingly called someone a 'doubter-head'. They called it a personal attack, and deleted the post. Which brings about the question, "*** Mate?".

Vance · Apr 12, 2005

True, why aren't we hearing from more Creationists?

Big Rob · Apr 12, 2005

Vastavus said:
I'm not Atheist, but in one of my posts, I jokingly called someone a 'doubter-head'. They called it a personal attack, and deleted the post. Which brings about the question, "*** Mate?".

Yeah, this place sucks. It definately needs more flaming and personal attacks.

Adoniram · Apr 13, 2005

Vance said:
OK, this is where I see the danger of this type of YEC thinking and teaching, since we know that if this is how many YEC's THINK, it is how many YEC's TEACH.

It takes VERY little imagination to see the dangers involved. Many people are being taught (especially our young people!!!) that if evolution is true, you might as well throw the Bible out, since it is entirely, utterly and without doubt contradictory to Scripture. While some YEC's have insisted that this type of dogmatism is not what YEC's think or say, threads like this (and the identical one I posted in the other forum) prove otherwise.

Now, consider these people believing this concrete dichotomy as the Creationists above do. Then imagine them studying the evidence and coming to accept that evolution is true. According to their view of the irreconcilable nature of the two, the more they come to see that evolution is likely true, the more they doubt Scripture is true AT ALL!

Vance-

You will notice that I did not say I would throw the Bible out if your hypothetical situation arose. What I said was that in your hypothetical world, the Bible and a concept of God would not have existed in the first place, therefore there would be nothing to throw out.

In reading succeeding posts, the question arises: If Jesus, being truth incarnate, also being there at creation from the beginning, and being very well versed in the Hebrew scriptures (to say the least), perceived that Moses was in error in his description of a literal 6 day creation event, would you not think that Jesus, in an effort to establish the truth of the matter, would have said "Oh, by the way, don't take every thing you read in Genesis literally. Moses didn't actually mean 6 days, he meant 6 billion years" (or whatever). In fact, Jesus was not too shy to redirect thinking on other points of the law and the prophets, so why would he not have commented on the creation account if it was in error? Surely such a monumental misconception would have warrented some reaction from the Son of God.

Sincerely though, Vance, I am thankful to God that we don't have to worry about your hypothetical premise arising. Modern science has punched more holes into the evolution theory than it's proponents can ever hope to plug.

TheMagi · Apr 13, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Furthermore, Paul makes clear that death and sin entered the world through one man but grace comes through Jesus Christ. From this passage, If Adam did not exist, why should we believe that Christ existed?

And this, of course, is why I think the YEC postition is the best. It is just too hard to make sense of the fall as an allegory; six days being six periods of time is easy, but where along an evolutionary timeline do you put the fall? And how do you understand the idea that the world, too, fell with man, yet seems fallen before man's arrival?
If it is allegory, it doesn't seem to reflect the reality very well.
These are the real theological issues, as far as I can see, and it is that that is at the root of our position.

Magi

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Apr 13, 2005

TheMagi said:
And this, of course, is why I think the YEC postition is the best. It is just too hard to make sense of the fall as an allegory; six days being six periods of time is easy, but where along an evolutionary timeline do you put the fall?

In my case, usually within about 10 minutes of getting up each morning.

And how do you understand the idea that the world, too, fell with man, yet seems fallen before man's arrival?

Did the world fall? What is "fallen" about it that was also the case before man's arrival?

If it is allegory, it doesn't seem to reflect the reality very well.

Au Contraire, it reflects reality very well. Humans are the sort of people who, if you stick them in a perfect environment with only one prohibition, will instantly louse it up.

These are the real theological issues, as far as I can see, and it is that that is at the root of our position.

Magi

Not a problem really. If you abandon the idea (not explicitly taught anywhere) that the cycles of nature, SLoT and so on are the result of the fall, and that the fall story is about our ancestors rather than about us, the theological issues rather fall into place.

TheMagi · Apr 13, 2005

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Did the world fall? What is "fallen" about it that was also the case before man's arrival?

Weeds, earthquakes and the way that mosquitoe is whining round the room...

Magi

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Apr 13, 2005

Adoniram said:
Vance-

You will notice that I did not say I would throw the Bible out if your hypothetical situation arose. What I said was that in your hypothetical world, the Bible and a concept of God would not have existed in the first place, therefore there would be nothing to throw out.

In reading succeeding posts, the question arises: If Jesus, being truth incarnate, also being there at creation from the beginning, and being very well versed in the Hebrew scriptures (to say the least), perceived that Moses was in error in his description of a literal 6 day creation event, would you not think that Jesus, in an effort to establish the truth of the matter, would have said "Oh, by the way, don't take every thing you read in Genesis literally. Moses didn't actually mean 6 days, he meant 6 billion years" (or whatever). In fact, Jesus was not too shy to redirect thinking on other points of the law and the prophets, so why would he not have commented on the creation account if it was in error?

Surely such a monumental misconception would have warrented some reaction from the Son of God.

No, not really.

The exact state of omniscience in the person of Jesus Christ is a questionable issue. It is the contention of many theologians, and I agree with them, that in becoming truly human, Jesus temporarily gave up attributes such as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, choosing to become a man of His time. As such He would not have had access to modern scientific knowledge, and moreover would have used Genesis 1-3 as Rabbis have always done - as a vehicle of theological truth where the historicity is a non-issue. For Jesus, as a 1st century Jewish rabbi, there was nothing to "correct". The creation account is not in error. A scientific and historical interpretation, quite alien to 1st century Judaea, is.

Sincerely though, Vance, I am thankful to God that we don't have to worry about your hypothetical premise arising. Modern science has punched more holes into the evolution theory than it's proponents can ever hope to plug.

Again, no, not really. Creationists like to say this is the case, but their holes never seem to be as big as they're cracked up to be. Often they're not even dents.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Apr 13, 2005

TheMagi said:
Weeds, earthquakes and the way that mosquitoe is whining round the room...

Magi

Weeds are a human definition - an unwanted plant growing in the wrong place. Before man, there were only plants.

Earthquakes are inherent in the way the world is made. To claim that earthquakes are a fallen state implies that before the fall the interior of the earth did not have convection currents - or, to put it another way, was not molten. The implication here is that God fundamentally changed the structure of the earth itself at the fall - something that is unsupported by Scripture, tradition or reason.

Mosquitos? When your wings beat that fast, you're going to whine.

Mechanical Bliss · Apr 13, 2005

Adoniram said:
What I said was that in your hypothetical world, the Bible and a concept of God would not have existed in the first place, therefore there would be nothing to throw out.

Why do creationists have such a hard time engaging in discussions of hypothetical situations?

Creationists, what if you found out tomorrow . . .

Contributor

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Contributor

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Insane Genius

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Senior Veteran

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Well-Known Member

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be

Contributor

Ninjaneer

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency