Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

[Vance]

But, why do you even assume that the first account was meant as a literal historic narrative? Should we not read the text as the original author and the first hearers and readers would have understood it, which would NOT have been strict literal historic narrative?

 

[busterdog]

Indeed, we confess our sins of "thought, word and deed". But when we consider the nature of sins of thought are they not those that intend what is sinful in deed, such as the lust for a woman that is the origin of adultery with her, or the anger that leads to murder?

How does an error in scientific reasoning fit into such a scenario?

It is a common enough creationist allegation that accepting modern science is a moral and not just a rational error. But even so, that is usually linked to a rejection of theism which is alleged to be the purpose of accepting the science. So the moral error actually precedes the rational error and is the basis for accepting it.

Can one really show that a rational error based on inadequate data, such as geocentrism was, is a ground of moral error, even in thought?

As for the latter, one can very simply show that inadequate data is sinful. If one were to be sinless or fully within the grace of God, there wouldn't be inadequate data.

Jam 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Jam 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [ye] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [ye] double minded.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


What I think you are doing is assuming that I am condemning those who are guilty of thought crimes. In an environment of such boundless grace, that is the furthest from my mind. I think you are still confusing the Christian approach to his brothers/sisters with a strict definition of sin in the first place. I am not suggesting a basis for behavior of being strict or unforgiving. I am actually asking for a much clearer boundary between salvation through grace and the condition of being fallen and as such, misinformed. I think a appropriately strict and harsh definition of sin allows a much clearer definition of grace, not to mention more enjoyment of its boundlessness.

Lets not forget that the express nature of the fall in Gen. 3 is a thought crime as well.

You also seem to think that intention is the issue. That is a dangerous road:

Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[busterdog]

I agree with what gluadys said.

But, I also want to address this selected sentence.

I believe that Jupiter is a gas giant. However, none of my actions stem from that belief. So, I would argue that it is quite possible to not act on the basis of belief.

AFAIK, there are approx. 7 theories of gravity; that is, theories as to how gravity actually does what it does. I have NO belief in any of them since I don't actually know what they are. Does this affect how I act? If I did know them and selected one of them ... is this a moral act? Would it affect my actions? Suspose, I discover I was right (I am now 200 yo!). Does that demonstrate moral superiority over those that disagreed?

Surely, beliefs about facts can be distant to our behavior. The fact that Beijing is the capitol of China (and the yuan is the capital of China) has no impact on my life whatsoever. The Government could move to the Sichuan provence and nothing would change for me.

For me, belief in (or more properly "acceptance of") evolution is no different than belief that the Sun is made of hydrogen. I can't imagine how either of these is a moral issue or a measure of moral character.

I think you are close to asking whether information in a book that is wrong means the book itself is sinning. There are two ends of the telescope you can look through:

1. Through one end, you focus artificially on a very isolated detail. Within this field of vision, there is no human context anymore.

2. Through the other end of the telescope, what do you see? There is no such thing as an isolated sin or an error that is not connected to a systemic and fundamental mistake. This is the context for your examples: "Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

As for my tendency for literalism, I accept the following also literally:

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Thus, if one is in error, is it not for having failed to ask God? Is that not sin?


Again, I see your point, but only as a work of grace:

When Paul said in Romans 14:14 that "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean [koinos, or 'common'] of itself," he was making the same point he had made earlier to the Corinthians: Just because meat that was otherwise lawful to eat may have been associated with idol worship does not mean it is no longer fit for human consumption. As seen from the context, Paul wasn't discussing biblical dietary restrictions at all.

We also know from David that God judges the heart of man, and his intentions. But again, is it conceivable that this is not again the work of grace?

And, lets not forget 1 Cor. 13, since love,

1Cr 13:7
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 

[gluadys]

As for the latter, one can very simply show that inadequate data is sinful. If one were to be sinless or fully within the grace of God, there wouldn't be inadequate data.

In that case, you are saying that the child Jesus was not sinless or fully within the grace of God, since he had to acquire knowledge as he grew.

And you are further stating that apart from knowledge of good and evil, Adam had complete knowledge of the cosmos surpassing even our best scientific models.

I do not think this position is tenable.

Jam 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Exactly my point. Lust is about intention and desire, not about the how the earth fits into the cosmos. Lust is sinful thought and leads to sinful action. How does a flat-earth view lead to sinful action as compared to an Einsteinian view?

Jam 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [ye] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [ye] double minded.

Begging the question that lack of scientific information is sin.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

And what is the relationship between a geocentric worldview and such actions?

What I think you are doing is assuming that I am condemning those who are guilty of thought crimes. In an environment of such boundless grace, that is the furthest from my mind.

No, I understand the point you are making about sin and grace.

What I reject is the idea that a person who has not figured out Archimedes' principle should be considered sinful on that account.

 

[busterdog]

In that case, you are saying that the child Jesus was not sinless or fully within the grace of God, since he had to acquire knowledge as he grew.

Lack of omniscience is not sin. Lack of knowledge is not sin.

And you are further stating that apart from knowledge of good and evil, Adam had complete knowledge of the cosmos surpassing even our best scientific models.

Again, I have never equated omniscience with sinlessness. Adam knew just exactly what he needed to know. I think you are confusing lack of knowledge with taking a position and making an assertion in error on the basis of being poorly informed. If anything, the pre-fall state was a condition of not presuming to get into all the stuff we screw up and only dimly imagine.

Exactly my point. Lust is about intention and desire, not about the how the earth fits into the cosmos. Lust is sinful thought and leads to sinful action. How does a flat-earth view lead to sinful action as compared to an Einsteinian view?

I addressed this in responding to Tinker.

Begging the question that lack of scientific information is sin.

Again, see the response to Tinker. Assuming that scientific information exists in isolation of all the other dynamics of sin is about as enormous an assumption as I have seen.

And what is the relationship between a geocentric worldview and such actions?

The geocentrists were stupid and spouted ignorant things. It was wrong. They should have shut up and stuck to what they actually knew. (Good thing they weren't Bible writers.)

What I reject is the idea that a person who has not figured out Archimedes' principle should be considered sinful on that account.

Again, this is addressed in the response to Tinker.

 

[Vance]

"The geocentrists were stupid and spouted ignorant things. It was wrong. They should have shut up and stuck to what they actually knew. (Good thing they weren't Bible writers.)"

But they were only making the same mistake that we believe creationists are making today, applying an overly literal interpretation to Scripture in the face of overwhelming evidence from God's Creation.

We must all admit that, if we lived before Galileo, we would all have interpreted the Scripture they believed was threatened by heliocentrism exactly as they did. They had a geocentric worldview, and the writers of the Scripture had a geocentric worldview, so they used geocentric language in the writing of the Scripture texts. Their uninformed scientific understanding did not make the Scripture false, since the Scripture was not making a scientific point regarding the relationship between the sun and the earth. However, absent any scientific knowledge to the contrary, we ALL would have assumed that the Scripture was not only making its real point, but was also portraying an accurate natural description. We would have been wrong.

It is easy to sit back with hindsight and call them stupid, but are we really ready to say that we would have been one of the very few who immediately "got it", when folks like Calvin and Luther did NOT get it, and said that a heliocentric explanation of the solar system was contrary to Scripture?

It is my firm belief that in 200 years (if the Lord tarries) the Church will look back on this period of angst and misunderstanding exactly the same as we now look back on the geocentric controversy. So, be careful how you toss "stupid" around! Your great, great grandchildren (still devout Christians) may be using the same term about creationists of today! :0)

 

[gluadys]

Lack of knowledge is not sin.

one can very simply show that inadequate data is sinful.

As far as I can see, these statements directly contradict each other.

Could you please clarify your position?

I think you are confusing lack of knowledge with taking a position and making an assertion in error on the basis of being poorly informed.

And I think you are confusing coming to an honest conclusion from the available data with making erroneous moral choices.

If anything, the pre-fall state was a condition of not presuming to get into all the stuff we screw up and only dimly imagine.

I don't think we know much about the pre-fall state other than that Adam and Eve were morally innocent.

I addressed this in responding to Tinker.

I didn't understand much of what you said to Tinker. Perhaps you could simplify it for me.

Assuming that scientific information exists in isolation of all the other dynamics of sin is about as enormous an assumption as I have seen.

While I find this comment true, I also find it irrelevant. It doesn't really speak to the point.

The geocentrists were stupid and spouted ignorant things.

What hubris!. They were far from stupid. Yes, they were ignorant, but not through any fault of their own.

It was wrong. They should have shut up and stuck to what they actually knew.

They were speaking from what they knew. They did not have the technology to acquire the information that would eventually prove them wrong.

(Good thing they weren't Bible writers.)

The only reason the Bible writers were not geocentrists is that they were flat-earthers.

 

[jeffweeder]

But, why do you even assume that the first account was meant as a literal historic narrative?

for me its because 6 times it says "and there was evening and there was morning" 1 day
a second day etc.

Why say this if the days werent seperated by evening and morning. To think that it was any longer between the days is an assumption on your part.

 

[anonymous1515]

The only reason the Bible writers were not geocentrists is that they were flat-earthers.

 

[gluadys]

for me its because 6 times it says "and there was evening and there was morning" 1 day
a second day etc.

Why say this if the days werent seperated by evening and morning. To think that it was any longer between the days is an assumption on your part.

Actually, the length of the day is irrelevant. Some of us agree the days described in Genesis are ordinary days. We don't think they symbolize long ages. But we don't think they are literal either.

So you are assuming an assumption we do not assume.

 

[Vance]

Actually, the length of the day is irrelevant. Some of us agree the days described in Genesis are ordinary days. We don't think they symbolize long ages. But we don't think they are literal either.

So you are assuming an assumption we do not assume.

Gluadys, you are teasing on purpose.

And I am OK with that! :0)

 

[anonymous1515]

Actually, the length of the day is irrelevant. Some of us agree the days described in Genesis are ordinary days. We don't think they symbolize long ages. But we don't think they are literal either.

So you are assuming an assumption we do not assume.

Ooooh. A mind game. I like those.

 

[jeffweeder]

We don't think they symbolize long ages. But we don't think they are literal either.

So what does it all mean.?

That God didnt need long ages or a day?....could have done it in no time at all?

 

[Vance]

Ooooh. A mind game. I like those.

I know the answer to this one! But I will let Gluadys describe it, since not everyone seems to get my "tree" analogy. I need a new way of describing it! :0)

 

[Vance]

So what does it all mean.?

That God didnt need long ages or a day?....could have done it in no time at all?

OK, since Gluadys isn't here I will give it a shot. She may be able to explain it better than I could.

You have to think of the text not as a literal historical narrative, but a figurative, symbolic and typological account. It is using a poetic structure, not meaning to literally describe the exact timing or process at all. It was meant to convey the great concepts of God's creative work in a very evocative and powerful format. It is not at all that it is untrue, or false in any way, it is just written in a style that was common at the time, but very different than we prefer today.

We like our history, in this modern age, to tell about the past using a literal chronological and factually narrative style. We like marching through the facts one after the other. But the ancient cultures in the near east would never consider using such a mundane and prosaic style for describing the most momentous and mind-blowing event in history. Something so big we could not possibly understand what actually happened. It would be like writing Song of Solomon as a clinical account of the chemical and neurological processes of physical attraction.

So, we accept that when the author was using the term "day", he was using it in the typical sense of a 24 hour period (or, more correctly, a 12 hour period, but that is besides the point). BUT, and here is the key, the author was not actually wanting us to read it as God creating in six literal 24 hour periods.

Here is my "tree" example. It is not the best, but I think it works. Let's say there is a poet who wants to write a poem about a family history, but wants to use a tree as a symbol for that family. He will never mention that this is some symbolic representation, he just expects the reader to get it. So, when he is using the word "tree", he IS using it in the "leaf and branch" meaning of the word, rather than, say, the computer file system meaning of the word. And, he wants you to visualize a literal, leaf and branch tree. BUT, he is not actually writing about a tree, but a family, and he expects you to get that.

Similarly, the writer of Genesis 1 is using "day" in its most common sense, and not an "age" sense, etc. And he does want you to visualize a regular day when reading his poetic account. BUT, he is not actually writing about a series of days, and expects you to get that. But we have a harder time with this today, with our modern minds.

Augustine, for example, got it, and thought that God created in an instant, and just allowed it to be written using the "day" motif as an accommodation to humans limited understanding and need for such a structured presentation.

 

[jeffweeder]

You did fine Vance..........but .....that Geneology seems to drag me back to a more lit interpretation..where does it all stop?
40 years in the desert---Jesus being dead for 3 days--exiled for 70 years etc.
Seems to be based on our literal 7 day week and we were to rest on the 7th just like he did............Ah im in the Spirit now anyway.

 

[Vance]

You did fine Vance..........but .....that Geneology seems to drag me back to a more lit interpretation..where does it all stop?
40 years in the desert---Jesus being dead for 3 days--exiled for 70 years etc.
Seems to be based on our literal 7 day week and we were to rest on the 7th just like he did............Ah im in the Spirit now anyway.

Yes, the genealogies raise some legitimate issues, but there are a few ways to consider this that are consistent with this approach to Genesis.

First, it could be a very literal genealogy all the way through, beginning with a literal Adam and Eve, who had a literal Cain and Abel. And, possibly these were the direct ancestors of the Israelites in particular. It would be consistent with God's work throughout history to work with one lineage out of the whole earth. And possibly these were tied to the figurative, and typological, accounts of the first Man and Woman, who were symbolic for Mankind as a whole. Or, maybe the entire Garden story is to some extent literal, and Adam and Eve were representatives chosen, etc. Either way, this has the benefit of explaining what all those other people were doing around when Cain left the family (the ones he was afraid of, that occupied his city, not to mention that tricky wife question).

Another approach is that a figurative lineage was melded to a literal one at some point (and the actual point is not really all that important). Folks at that time really did not view their past the way we do today, with the same level of factual preciseness. They saw their past more "epically" than we do, perfectly willing to mix the historic and the legendary into a cultural "history" that our modern minds rebel at as "false" or "untrue" and definitely not to be considered valuable and "real". But ancient (at least THAT ancient) peoples really didn't view things the same way, and we have a hard time getting our head around that.

We see a progression toward greater and greater historical precision as we move forward in time in Scripture. Abraham is portrayed more historically than Adam, and Joshua moreso than Abraham, and the Chronicles read more like strict literal history than Joshua, and Luke is very similar to our modern history. It is a spectrum, and at each transition we may not see a huge difference, but when we look at each end of the spectrum, it becomes obvious. Does the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts read like Luke?

Now, keep in mind that I still consider myself a Biblical Inerrantist. I think that the Bible is absolutely true. But this is taking into account the nature of the literary style and its intent. I only expect the degree of historicity that the authors would have intended.

Here is a quote from a recent book called Incarnation and Inspiration:

"Therefore, the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal.... It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance....To argue, as I am doing here, that such biblical stories as creation and the flood must be understood first and foremost in the ancient contexts, is nothing new. The point I would like to emphasize, however, is that such a firm grounding in ancient myth does not make Genesis less inspired; it is not a concession that we must put up with or an embarrassment to a sound doctrine of scripture. Quite to the contrary, such rootedness in the culture of the time is precisely what it means for God to speak to his people.... This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people - he accommodates, condescends, meets them where they are."

 

[jeffweeder]

Well your a true gentleman, and thankyou for taking the time to talk to me....ill have to read that again...im a little slow....ill try and get my wooden head around it lol.
God bless your heart.

 

[gluadys]

So what does it all mean.?

That God didnt need long ages or a day?....could have done it in no time at all?

Basically it means that Genesis 1 is not giving us a report of the chronology of creation; it is telling us a story about creation.

And days in a story are---well---days in a story, not days in real time.

The real time could be anything: it could be the instantaneous moment Augustine believed in or the billions of years science describes. Either way, the story is still a story with literary and theological reasons for organizing the creation in a six-day format. Not because the six days were an actual period in time outside the story.

 

[gluadys]

You did fine Vance..........but .....that Geneology seems to drag me back to a more lit interpretation..where does it all stop?
40 years in the desert---Jesus being dead for 3 days--exiled for 70 years etc.
Seems to be based on our literal 7 day week and we were to rest on the 7th just like he did............Ah im in the Spirit now anyway.

One reason for the seven day week could go back to the Enuma Elish and general ANE culture. The ancients were very interested in astrology as they believed the sky was the home of the gods and you could get information about the intentions of the gods by studying the movements of the stars. Most stars, as you know, are found in unchanging constellations like Orion and the Big Dipper. If you don't have a telescope, then to the naked eye there are only seven heavenly bodies that are not part of the constellations. These the ancients believed to be gods and named the days of the week after them. Sun's day, Moon's day, etc. We use the names of Nordic gods for most of the rest of the week, Tyr's day, Woden's day, Thor's day and Freya's day, but we switch to the Greek pantheon for Saturn's day. In the Romance languages we get the Latin names: Tuesday through Friday are named after Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Venus.

One function of the biblical creation story was to say that all days are God's days and the stars are one of God's creations, not gods themselves.